[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33095-33109]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11269]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0536; FRL-9802-01-R5]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Michigan; Federal Implementation Plan for the Detroit Sulfur Dioxide 
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a 
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for attaining the 2010 sulfur dioxide 
(SO<INF>2</INF>) primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 
for the Detroit SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area. The FIP includes an 
attainment demonstration and other elements required under the Clean 
Air Act (CAA). In addition to an attainment demonstration, the FIP 
addresses the requirement for meeting reasonable further progress (RFP) 
toward attainment of the NAAQS, reasonably available control measures 
and reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT), enforceable 
emission limitations and control measures to provide for NAAQS 
attainment, and contingency measures. This action supplements a prior 
action which found that Michigan had satisfied emission inventory (EI) 
and nonattainment new source review (NSR) requirements for this area 
but had not met requirements for the elements addressed in the proposed 
FIP. EPA is proposing to determine that the FIP provides for attainment 
of the 2010 primary SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS in the Detroit SO<INF>2</INF> 
nonattainment area and meets the other applicable requirements under 
the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 18, 2022.
    Virtual Public Hearing. In order to comply with current Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations, as well as state 
and local orders, for social distancing to limit the spread of COVID-
19, EPA is holding a virtual public hearing to provide interested 
parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning 
the proposal. EPA will hold a virtual public hearing to solicit 
comments on June 16, 2022. The hearing will convene at 3:00 p.m. 
Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude at 9:00 p.m. ET, or 15 minutes 
after the last pre-registered presenter in attendance has presented if 
there are no additional presenters. EPA will announce further details, 
including information on how to register for the virtual public 
hearing, on the virtual public hearing website at https://www.epa.gov/mi/detroit-so2-federal-implementation-plan.
    EPA will begin pre-registering presenters and attendees for the 
hearing upon publication of this document in the Federal Register. To 
pre-register to attend or present at the virtual public hearing, please 
use the online registration form available at https://www.epa.gov/mi/detroit-so2-federal-implementation-plan or contact Abigail Teener at 
312-353-7314 or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0642637274696f72404f564663766728616970"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="63270617110c0a17252a33230613024d040c15">[email protected]</span></a>. The last day to pre-
register to present at the hearing will be June 13, 2022. On June 13, 
2022, EPA will post a general agenda for the hearing that will list 
pre-registered presenters in approximate order at https://www.epa.gov/mi/detroit-so2-federal-implementation-plan. Additionally, requests to 
present will be taken on the day of the hearing as time allows.
    EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as 
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the 
hearing to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule. Each 
commenter will have 5 minutes to provide oral testimony. EPA encourages 
commenters to provide EPA with a copy of their oral testimony 
electronically by including it in the registration form or emailing it 
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b7f3d2c3c5d8dec3f1fee7f7d2c7d699d0d8c1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cd89a8b9bfa2a4b98b849d8da8bdace3aaa2bb">[email protected]</span></a>. EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral 
presentations but will not respond to the presentations at that time. 
Written statements and supporting information submitted during the 
comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments 
and supporting information presented at the virtual public hearing. A 
transcript of the virtual public hearing, as well as copies of oral 
presentations submitted to EPA, will be included in the docket for this 
action.
    EPA is asking all hearing attendees to pre-register, even those who 
do not intend to present. EPA will send information on how to join the 
public hearing to pre-registered attendees and presenters.
    Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will 
be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/mi/detroit-so2-federal-implementation-plan. While EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set 
forth above, please monitor our website or contact Abigail Teener at 
312-353-7314 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#387c5d4c4a57514c7e7168785d4859165f574e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e2a68796908d8b96a4abb2a2879283cc858d94">[email protected]</span></a> to determine if there are any 
updates. EPA does not intend to publish a document in the Federal 
Register announcing updates.

[[Page 33096]]

    If you require the services of a translator or a special 
accommodation such as audio description/closed captioning, please pre-
register for the hearing with Abigail Teener at 312-353-7314 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3672534244595f42707f667653465718515940"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="88ccedfcfae7e1fccec1d8c8edf8e9a6efe7fe">[email protected]</span></a> and describe your needs by June 8, 2022. EPA may not 
be able to arrange accommodations without advance notice.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2021-0536 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d4b5a6a6b5faa7b5a6b5bc94b1a4b5fab3bba2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3f5e4d4d5e114c5e4d5e577f5a4f5e11585049">[email protected]</span></a>. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow 
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either 
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its 
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person 
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full 
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abigail Teener, Environmental 
Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs 
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-7314, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8df9e8e8e3e8ffa3ecefe4eaece4e1cde8fdeca3eae2fb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="84f0e1e1eae1f6aae5e6ede3e5ede8c4e1f4e5aae3ebf2">[email protected]</span></a>. The EPA Region 5 office is open from 8:30 a.m. 
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays and 
facility closures due to COVID-19.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is 
arranged as follows:

I. SO<INF>2</INF> Background
II. Detroit Background
III. Requirements for SO<INF>2</INF> Nonattainment Area Plans
IV. Control Strategy
    A. Existing Control Strategies
    B. New Rules
V. Longer-Term Averaging
VI. Modeling
    A. Model Selection
    B. Meteorological Data
    C. Emissions Data
    D. Emission Limits
    E. Background Concentrations
    F. Comments Made During Previous EPA Rulemakings
    G. Summary of Results
VII. Other Plan Requirements
    A. Emissions Inventory
    B. RACM/RACT and Enforceable Emissions Limitations
    C. New Source Review (NSR)
    D. RFP
    E. Contingency Measures
VIII. What action is EPA taking?
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: Regulatory Planning and 
Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. SO2 Background

    On June 22, 2010, EPA published a new 1-hour primary SO<INF>2</INF> 
NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), which is met at an ambient air 
quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th 
percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations does not 
exceed 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with appendix T of 40 CFR 
part 50. See 75 FR 35520, codified at 40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b). On August 5, 
2013, EPA designated 29 areas of the country as nonattainment for the 
2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS, including the Detroit area within the State 
of Michigan. See 78 FR 47191, codified at 40 CFR part 81, subpart C. 
These area designations became effective on October 4, 2013. Section 
191 of the CAA directs states to submit state implementation plans 
(SIPs) for areas designated as nonattainment for the SO<INF>2</INF> 
NAAQS to EPA within 18 months of the effective date of the designation, 
i.e., by no later than April 4, 2015 in this case. These SIPs were 
required to demonstrate that their respective areas will attain the 
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from 
the effective date of designation, which was October 4, 2018.

II. Detroit Background

    For a number of nonattainment areas, including the Detroit area, 
EPA published an action on March 18, 2016, effective April 18, 2016, 
finding that Michigan and other pertinent states had failed to submit 
the required SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment plan by the submittal 
deadline (81 FR 14736). This finding initiated a deadline under CAA 
section 179(a) for the potential imposition of 2-to-1 NSR offset and 
federal highway funding sanctions. Additionally, under CAA section 
110(c), the finding triggered a requirement that EPA promulgate a FIP 
within two years of the finding unless, by that time, (a) the state had 
made the necessary complete submittal, and (b) EPA had approved the 
submittal as meeting applicable requirements.
    Michigan submitted the Detroit SO<INF>2</INF> attainment plan on 
May 31, 2016, and submitted associated final enforceable measures on 
June 30, 2016. Michigan's May 31, 2016, submittal was considered 
administratively complete six months after its submission to EPA, which 
terminated the sanctions clock per EPA's sanctions regulations at 40 
CFR 52.31 but did not satisfy EPA's FIP obligation under CAA section 
110(c). As noted previously, EPA's requirement to promulgate a FIP 
would remain in place unless (a) the state had made the necessary 
complete submittal, and (b) EPA had approved the submittal as meeting 
applicable requirements.
    On March 19, 2021, EPA partially approved and partially disapproved 
Michigan's SO<INF>2</INF> plan as submitted in 2016 (86 FR 14827). EPA 
approved the base-year emissions inventory and affirmed that the NSR 
requirements for the area had previously been met on December 16, 2013 
(78 FR 76064). EPA also approved the enforceable control measures for 
two facilities as SIP strengthening. At that time, EPA disapproved the 
attainment demonstration, as well as the requirements for meeting RFP 
toward attainment of the NAAQS, RACM/RACT, and contingency measures. 
Additionally, EPA disapproved the plan's control measures for two 
facilities as not demonstrating attainment. (For more details, see 
section IV.A of this action.) EPA's March 19, 2021, partial disapproval 
started a new sanctions clock which is stopped by meeting the 
conditions of EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 52.31. The partial 
disapproval did not have any impact on the FIP clock,

[[Page 33097]]

which is stopped by a full SIP approval or EPA's promulgation of a FIP.
    As Michigan has not submitted an approvable plan for the Detroit 
area, the remainder of this action describes EPA requirements that 
SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment plans must meet and proposes a FIP for the 
Detroit area with respect to these requirements. Finalizing this action 
will satisfy EPA's obligation to promulgate a FIP, which was initiated 
by the March 18, 2016 finding that Michigan had failed to submit the 
required SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment plan by the submittal deadline 
(81 FR 14736). It will also satisfy the requirement in the court order 
issued on February 15, 2022, in Center for Biological Diversity, et al. 
v Regan, No. 4:21-cv-06166-JST (N.D. Cal.), directing EPA to either 
approve a SIP for Detroit meeting the applicable CAA requirements or 
promulgate a FIP for Detroit no later than September 30, 2022.

III. Requirements for SO2 Nonattainment Area Plans

    Nonattainment area plans for SO<INF>2</INF> must meet the 
applicable requirements of the CAA, and specifically CAA sections 110, 
172, 191 and 192. EPA's regulations governing nonattainment area plans 
are set forth at 40 CFR part 51, with specific procedural requirements 
and control strategy requirements residing at subparts F and G, 
respectively. Soon after Congress enacted the 1990 Amendments to the 
CAA, EPA issued comprehensive guidance on nonattainment plans, in a 
document entitled the ``General Preamble for the Implementation of 
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' published at 57 FR 
13498 (April 16, 1992) (General Preamble). Among other things, the 
General Preamble addressed SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment plans and 
fundamental principles for control strategies. Id., at 13545-49, 13567-
68. On April 23, 2014, EPA issued recommended guidance for meeting the 
statutory requirements in SO<INF>2</INF> SIPs, in a document entitled, 
``Guidance for 1-Hour SO<INF>2</INF> Nonattainment Area SIP 
Submissions,'' available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf. While this 
guidance was intended for SIP submissions, the requirements outlined in 
the document are also applicable to FIPs. In this guidance, EPA 
described the statutory requirements for a complete nonattainment area 
plan, which includes: an accurate emissions inventory of current 
emissions for all sources of SO<INF>2</INF> within the nonattainment 
area; an attainment demonstration; demonstration of RFP; implementation 
of RACM (including RACT); NSR; emissions limitations and control 
measures as necessary to attain the NAAQS; and adequate contingency 
measures for the affected area, which are to apply if the area fails to 
attain the standard by the attainment date.
    In order for a nonattainment area plan to meet the requirements of 
CAA sections 110, 172 and 191-192, and EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 
51, the plan for the affected area needs to demonstrate that each of 
the aforementioned requirements have been met. Under CAA sections 
110(l) and 193, a nonattainment area plan may not interfere with any 
applicable requirement concerning NAAQS attainment and RFP, or any 
other applicable requirement, and no requirement in effect (or required 
to be adopted by an order, settlement, agreement, or plan in effect 
before November 15, 1990) in any area which is a nonattainment area for 
any air pollutant, may be modified in any manner unless it ensures 
equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.
    CAA section 172(c)(1) requires nonattainment area plans to 
demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS. 40 CFR part 51, subpart G, further 
delineates the control strategy requirements that nonattainment area 
plans must meet, and EPA has long required that all nonattainment area 
plans and control strategies reflect four fundamental principles of 
quantification, enforceability, replicability, and accountability. 
General Preamble at 13567-68. SO<INF>2</INF> attainment plans must 
consist of two components: (1) Emission limits and other control 
measures that ensure implementation of permanent, enforceable and 
necessary emission controls, and (2) a modeling analysis which meets 
the requirements of 40 CFR part 51 appendix W, which demonstrates that 
these emission limits and control measures provide for timely 
attainment of the primary SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS as expeditiously as 
practicable, but by no later than the attainment date for the affected 
area. In all cases, the emission limits and control measures must be 
accompanied by appropriate methods and conditions to determine 
compliance with the respective emission limits and control measures and 
must be quantifiable (i.e., a specific amount of emission reduction can 
be ascribed to the measures), fully enforceable (specifying clear, 
unambiguous and measurable requirements for which compliance can be 
practicably determined), replicable (the procedures for determining 
compliance are sufficiently specific and non-subjective so that two 
independent entities applying the procedures would obtain the same 
result), and accountable (source specific limits must be permanent and 
must reflect the assumptions used in the attainment demonstrations).
    Preferred air quality models for use in regulatory applications are 
described in appendix A of EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 
CFR part 51, appendix W). In 2005, EPA promulgated AERMOD as the 
Agency's preferred near-field dispersion modeling for a wide range of 
regulatory applications addressing stationary sources (for example in 
estimating SO<INF>2</INF> concentrations) in all types of terrain based 
on extensive developmental and performance evaluation. Supplemental 
guidance on modeling for purposes of demonstrating attainment of the 
SO<INF>2</INF> standard is provided in appendix A to the April 23, 2014 
SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area SIP guidance document referenced 
above. Appendix A provides extensive guidance on the modeling domain, 
the source inputs, assorted types of meteorological data, and 
background concentrations. Consistency with the recommendations in this 
guidance is generally necessary for the attainment demonstration to 
offer adequately reliable assurance that the plan provides for 
attainment.
    As stated previously, attainment demonstrations for the 2010 1-hour 
primary SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS must demonstrate future attainment and 
maintenance of the NAAQS in the entire area designated as nonattainment 
(i.e., not just at the violating monitor). This is demonstrated by 
using air quality dispersion modeling (see appendix W to 40 CFR part 
51) that shows that the mix of sources, enforceable control measures, 
and emission rates in an identified area will not lead to a violation 
of the SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. For a short-term (i.e., 1-hour) standard, 
EPA believes that dispersion modeling, using allowable emissions and 
addressing stationary sources in the affected area (and in some cases 
those sources located outside the nonattainment area which may affect 
attainment in the area) is technically appropriate, efficient and 
effective in demonstrating attainment in nonattainment areas because it 
takes into consideration combinations of meteorological and emission 
source operating conditions that may contribute to peak ground-level 
concentrations of SO<INF>2.</INF>
    The meteorological data used in the analysis should generally be 
processed with the most recent version of

[[Page 33098]]

AERMET. Estimated concentrations should include ambient background 
concentrations, should follow the form of the standard, and should be 
calculated as described in section 2.6.1.2 of the August 23, 2010 
clarification memo on ``Applicability of appendix W Modeling Guidance 
for the 1-hr SO<INF>2</INF> National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' 
(U.S. EPA, 2010).

IV. Control Strategy

A. Existing Control Strategies

    Several control strategies for the Detroit area are already in 
place as a result of actions taken by the State related to the 
development of Michigan's 2016 attainment plan. The remainder of this 
sub-section is a discussion of Michigan's 2016 submittal and the 
existing control strategies that EPA is proposing to include as part of 
the FIP.
    Michigan's 2016 submittal included a modeling demonstration that 
contained an assessment of the air quality impacts Michigan expected to 
result from emission limitations governing the following sources: U.S. 
Steel (Ecorse and Zug Island), EES Coke, DTE Energy (DTE) River Rouge, 
DTE Trenton Channel, Carmeuse Lime, DTE Monroe, Cleveland-Cliffs Steel 
Corporation (formerly AK or Severstal Steel), Dearborn Industrial 
Generation (DIG), and Marathon Refinery. From the base case modeling 
scenario, Michigan determined that Carmeuse Lime was causing violations 
in the model at a group of receptors surrounding the Carmeuse Lime 
facility, and that U.S. Steel, DTE River Rouge, and DTE Trenton Channel 
were all contributing to overlapping violations at a group of receptors 
near the northeast side of Zug Island.\1\ No other modeled sources in 
or nearby the nonattainment area were found to be significantly 
contributing to the modeled violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The locations of these violations relative to the 
Southwestern High School (SWHS) monitor triggered the Detroit 
nonattainment designation. The violating receptors surrounding the 
Carmeuse Lime facility were approximately two miles to the southwest 
of the SWHS monitor, and the violating receptors near Zug Island 
were approximately one mile south of the SWHS monitor. Although the 
monitor has now been showing attainment for several years, EPA's 
base case modeling continues to show NAAQS violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Michigan ran a variety of control scenarios to determine a 
reduction strategy for the area and submitted in its attainment 
demonstration emission limitations for Carmeuse Lime, DTE Trenton 
Channel, DTE River Rouge, and U.S. Steel. Michigan submitted for 
approval into the SIP revised construction permits for Carmeuse Lime, 
DTE Trenton Channel, and DTE River Rouge.
    For U.S. Steel, Michigan imposed emission limits it had concluded 
were necessary to bring the Detroit area into attainment via Michigan 
Administrative Code (MAC) 336.1430 (``Rule 430''). Michigan submitted 
Rule 430 to EPA as an enforceable limitation element for approval as 
part of its SO<INF>2</INF> plan.
    Subsequently, U.S. Steel challenged the legality of Rule 430 under 
state law in the Michigan Court of Claims, which invalidated Rule 430 
on October 4, 2017. United States Steel Corp. v. Dept. of Environmental 
Quality, No. 16-000202-MZ, 2017 WL 5974195 (Mich. Ct. Cl. Oct. 4, 
2017). Because the State's submitted attainment demonstration relied on 
a limitation that is now unenforceable and, therefore, could not meet 
the requirements of CAA sections 110 and 172, EPA disapproved the 
Detroit SO<INF>2</INF> plan on March 19, 2021.
    Although the attainment plan as a whole was not approvable, EPA 
approved two of these three permits--for Carmeuse Lime and DTE Trenton 
Channel--in its March 19, 2021 action as SIP strengthening, which is 
appropriate for limits that improve air quality but do not meet a 
specific CAA requirement. This made the two permits permanent and 
federally enforceable by EPA and the State of Michigan.
    For Carmeuse Lime, on March 18, 2016, the State issued Permit to 
Install 193-14A, which required the construction of and venting of 
emissions through a new stack. The permit also established a more 
stringent, permanent, and enforceable SO<INF>2</INF> limit.\2\ The 
State's modeling indicated that the violation caused by Carmeuse Lime 
was resolved by this modification, which is well below the creditable 
stack height of 65 meters as determined based on EPA's regulatory 
definition of ``good engineering practice (GEP)'' per 40 CFR 
51.100(ii)(1). Because this enforceable emission limit reduces ground-
level impacts, EPA approved it as SIP strengthening in the March 19, 
2021 action. Carmeuse Lime has constructed the new stack and has shown 
compliance with its limit since October 1, 2018. As further discussed 
below, EPA has now evaluated the Carmeuse Lime permit as part of the 
Detroit area attainment plan and is proposing to include it as part of 
the FIP analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Carmeuse Lime permit (Permit to Install 193-14A) 
requires the construction of and venting of emissions through a new 
stack with a minimum height above ground of 120 feet (36.6 meters). 
The permit also establishes an enforceable hourly SO<INF>2</INF> 
limit of 470 lbs/hr. Compliance must be shown by calculating and 
recording hourly SO<INF>2</INF> emissions using the most current 
emission factor and the hourly limestone feed rate data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, EPA approved the DTE Trenton Channel permit (Permit to 
Install 125-11C).\3\ EPA's FIP modeling analysis demonstrates that 
attainment at the previously modeled violating receptors can be 
achieved when the emission limits in the DTE Trenton Channel Permit \4\ 
are analyzed together with other control strategies included in the 
FIP. DTE Trenton Channel has been in compliance with its limit since 
its compliance date of January 1, 2017. In addition to the Carmeuse 
Lime permit, EPA is also proposing to include the DTE Trenton Channel 
permit as part of the FIP analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Issued April 29, 2016.
    \4\ The DTE Trenton Channel permit (Permit to Install 125-11C) 
establishes an enforceable SO<INF>2</INF> limit of 5,907 lbs/hr on a 
30-day average basis. Compliance must be shown using a continuous 
emissions monitoring system (CEMS), which was required to be 
operational by January 1, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since Michigan's 2016 submittal, all DTE River Rouge units with 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions have been shut down and the permit has been 
modified to reflect this.\5\ Consequently, the shutdown of the coal-
fired boilers at DTE River Rouge is permanent and enforceable, and no 
restart of their operations can occur without undergoing NSR, including 
requirements to assess the impacts of future operations on maintaining 
NAAQS attainment. Likewise, any such restart would require a revision 
to the source's title V permit, subject to EPA review and possible 
objection if a permit revision would not ensure compliance with all 
applicable CAA requirements. For these reasons, it is reasonable for 
the attainment modeling to treat DTE River Rouge's SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions as zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Permit MI-ROP-B2810-2012c, modified on August 18, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For EES Coke, Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation, and DIG, 
SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits are included in their current operating 
permits (Permit to Install 51-08C, November 21, 2014, Permit MI-ROP-
A8640-2016a, modified January 19, 2017, and Permit MI-ROP-N6631-2012a, 
modified June 28, 2016, respectively). EPA has included these limits 
and compliance mechanisms in the FIP regulatory text to ensure 
permanence and enforceability, with one exception. In addition to an 
existing daily average limit of 420 lbs/hr for DIG Boilers 1, 2 and 3 
(combined), EPA is proposing an additional daily average limit of 840 
lbs/hr for DIG Boilers 1, 2, and 3 and Flares 1 and 2 (combined). Both 
limits will apply at all times. This additional limit is not reflective 
of any new control strategies, but rather is

[[Page 33099]]

ensuring that maximum operating conditions are protective of the NAAQS.
    The existing control strategies specified in this section are 
reflected in current clean monitoring data from both monitors in the 
Detroit area. However, EPA's modeling analysis shows that to model 
attainment throughout all the receptors in the Detroit area, new 
emission limits at U.S. Steel are needed, which are discussed in 
section IV.B below and included in the FIP regulatory language.

B. New Rules

    The proposed FIP regulatory language includes new rules for U.S. 
Steel, which are described in the remainder of this sub-section. 
Additional details on compliance, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements are included in the FIP proposed regulatory language found 
in the proposed amendment to 40 CFR part 52 Sec.  52.1189 in this 
action. The emission limits and other requirements in these rules are 
reflected in EPA's modeling.
1. U.S. Steel Boilerhouse 2
    EPA is proposing two separate limits for Boilerhouse 2 based on two 
different operating scenarios. When Boilerhouse 2 is the only unit 
operating at the U.S. Steel facility, EPA is proposing an emission 
limit of 750.00 lbs/hr for U.S. Steel Boilerhouse 2. When any unit 
identified in section IV.B.2 of this action is operating in addition to 
Boilerhouse 2 at the U.S. Steel facility, EPA is proposing an emission 
limit of 81.00 lbs/hr for U.S. Steel Boilerhouse 2. These limits would 
be effective two years after the effective date of the FIP, 
corresponding with the construction compliance schedule described below 
in this section. To determine compliance with these limits, the owner 
or operator would be required to install and continuously operate an 
SO<INF>2</INF> continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) not later 
than two years after the effective date of the FIP to measure 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from Boilerhouse 2 in conformance with 40 CFR 
part 60 appendix F procedure 1.
    Additionally, EPA is proposing to require that the owner or 
operator of Boilerhouse 2 combine all five stacks at U.S. Steel 
Boilerhouse 2 into a single larger stack, with a minimum height of 170 
feet (51.8 meters), which is well below the maximum creditable stack 
height of 65 meters as determined based on EPA's regulatory definition 
of de minimis GEP stack height per 40 CFR 51.100(ii)(1). This stack 
reconfiguration is not considered a dispersion technique under 40 CFR 
51.100(hh) as the allowable SO<INF>2</INF> emissions for the entire 
U.S. Steel facility do not exceed 5,000 tons per year.\6\ See 40 CFR 
51.100(hh)(2)(v). The owner or operator would be required to submit a 
construction permit application for the new stack to the State of 
Michigan no later than 90 days after the effective date of the FIP and 
would be required to commence stack operation not later than two years 
after the effective date of the FIP. This compliance schedule allows 
time for the State of Michigan to issue the permit, the owner or 
operator to send out requests for proposal and award a construction 
contract and procure materials, and for completion of construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ When Boilerhouse 2 is the only unit operating at the U.S. 
Steel facility, EPA is proposing an emission limit of 750.00 lbs/hr 
for U.S. Steel Boilerhouse 2. Assuming maximum operation for every 
hour in a year, 750.00 lbs/hr equates to 3,285 tons per year. When 
any unit identified in section IV.B.2 of this action is operating in 
addition to Boilerhouse 2 at the U.S. Steel facility, EPA is 
proposing an emission limit of 81.00 lbs/hr for U.S. Steel 
Boilerhouse 2. The combined total of all emission limits for U.S. 
Steel (Boilerhouse 2 plus all units identified in section IV.B.2) in 
this scenario is 341.73 lbs/hr. Assuming maximum operation for every 
hour in a year, 341.73 lbs/hr equates to 1,497 tons per year. 
Therefore, in both scenarios, the total U.S. Steel allowable 
emissions do not exceed 5,000 tons per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Other U.S. Steel Units
    The proposed FIP SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits for the remaining 
U.S. Steel units are shown below in Table 1. These limits would become 
effective on the effective date of the FIP. Compliance with these 
limits would be determined hourly by calculating SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions using all raw material sulfur charged into each affected 
emission unit and assuming 100 percent conversion of total sulfur to 
SO<INF>2</INF>. For all units except Boilerhouse 2 and any idled units, 
the owner or operator of the units would be required to implement a 
compliance assurance plan (CAP) that specifies the calculation 
methodology, procedures, and inputs used in these calculations and 
would be required to submit the plan to EPA within 30 days after the 
effective date of the FIP. The owner or operator would be required to 
submit a list of idled units within 30 days of the effective date of 
the FIP and would be required to submit a CAP for any idled units 
before resuming operation.

        Table 1--Proposed Emission Limits for U.S. Steel Units *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Proposed SO2
                                                          emission limit
                          Unit                                (lbs/hr)
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boilerhouse 1 (all stacks combined).....................           55.00
Hot Strip Mill--Slab Reheat Furnace 1...................            0.31
Hot Strip Mill--Slab Reheat Furnace 2...................            0.31
Hot Strip Mill--Slab Reheat Furnace 3...................            0.31
Hot Strip Mill--Slab Reheat Furnace 4...................            0.31
Hot Strip Mill--Slab Reheat Furnace 5...................            0.31
No. 2 Baghouse..........................................            3.30
Main Plant Boiler No. 8.................................            0.07
Main Plant Boiler No. 9.................................            0.07
A1 Blast Furnace........................................            0.00
B2 Blast Furnace........................................           40.18
D4 Blast Furnace........................................           40.18
A/B Blast Furnace Flares................................           60.19
D Furnace Flare.........................................           60.19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table does not include proposed limits for Boilerhouse 2, which
  are described in section IV.B.1 of this action.


[[Page 33100]]

V. Longer-Term Averaging

    EPA's April 2014 guidance recommends that the emission limits be 
expressed as short-term average limits (e.g., addressing emissions 
averaged over one or three hours), but also describes the option to 
utilize emission limits with longer averaging times of up to 30 days so 
long as various suggested criteria are met. See 2014 guidance, pp. 22 
to 39. The guidance recommends that, should longer-term averaging times 
be used, the longer-term average limit should be set at an adjusted 
level that reflects a stringency comparable to the 1-hour average limit 
at the critical emission value shown to provide for attainment that the 
plan otherwise would have set.
    The April 2014 guidance provides an extensive discussion of EPA's 
rationale for concluding that appropriately set comparably stringent 
limitations based on averaging times as long as 30 days can be found to 
provide for attainment of the 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. In evaluating 
this option, EPA considered the nature of the standard, conducted 
detailed analyses of the impact of use of 30-day average limits on the 
prospects for attaining the standard, and carefully reviewed how best 
to achieve an appropriate balance among the various factors that 
warrant consideration in judging whether a nonattainment area plan 
provides for attainment. Id. at pp. 22 to 39. See also id. at 
appendices B, C, and D.
    As specified in 40 CFR 50.17(b), the 1-hour primary SO<INF>2</INF> 
NAAQS is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year 
average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour 
concentrations is less than or equal to 75 ppb. In a year with 365 days 
of valid monitoring data, the 99th percentile would be the fourth 
highest daily maximum 1-hour value. The 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS, 
including this form of determining compliance with the standard, was 
upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit in Nat'l Envt'l Dev. Ass'n's Clean Air Project v. EPA, 686 F.3d 
803 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Because the standard has this form, a single 
hourly exceedance of the 75 ppb level does not create a violation of 
the standard. Instead, at issue is whether a source operating in 
compliance with a properly set longer-term average could cause 
exceedances, and if so, the resulting frequency and magnitude of such 
exceedances, and in particular whether EPA can have reasonable 
confidence that a properly set longer-term average limit will provide 
that the 3-year average of annual fourth highest daily maximum hourly 
values will be at or below 75 ppb. A synopsis of how EPA judges whether 
such plans ``provide for attainment,'' based on modeling of projected 
allowable emissions and in consideration of the form of the NAAQS for 
determining attainment at monitoring sites follows.
    For SO<INF>2</INF> plans based on 1-hour emission limits, the 
standard approach is to conduct modeling using fixed emission rates. 
The maximum emission rate that would be modeled to result in attainment 
(i.e., in an ``average year'' \7\ which shows three days with a maximum 
hourly level exceeding 75 ppb) is labeled the ``critical emission 
value.'' The modeling process for identifying this critical emissions 
value inherently considers the numerous variables that affect ambient 
concentrations of SO<INF>2</INF>, such as meteorological data, 
background concentrations, and topography. In the standard approach, 
the state would then provide for attainment by setting a continuously 
applicable 1-hour emission limit at this critical emission value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ An ``average year'' is used to mean a year with average air 
quality. While 40 CFR 50 appendix T provides for averaging three 
years of 99th percentile daily maximum values (e.g., the fourth 
highest maximum daily concentration in a year with 365 days with 
valid data), this discussion and an example below use a single 
``average year'' in order to simplify the illustration of relevant 
principles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA recognizes that some sources have highly variable emissions, 
for example due to variations in fuel sulfur content and operating 
rate, that can make it extremely difficult, even with a well-designed 
control strategy, to ensure in practice that emissions for any given 
hour do not exceed the critical emission value. EPA also acknowledges 
the concern that longer-term emission limits can allow short periods 
with emissions above the critical emissions value, which, if coincident 
with meteorological conditions conducive to high SO<INF>2</INF> 
concentrations, could in turn create the possibility of a NAAQS 
exceedance occurring on a day when an exceedance would not have 
occurred if emissions were continuously controlled at the level 
corresponding to the critical emissions value. However, for several 
reasons, EPA believes that the approach recommended in its guidance 
document suitably addresses this concern. First, from a practical 
perspective, EPA expects the actual emission profile of a source 
subject to an appropriately set longer-term average limit to be similar 
to the emission profile of a source subject to an analogous 1-hour 
average limit. EPA expects this similarity because it has recommended 
that the longer-term average limit be set at a level that is comparably 
stringent to the otherwise applicable 1-hour limit (reflecting a 
downward adjustment from the critical emissions value such that the 
longer-term limit has a lower permissible emission rate than that of 
the critical emissions value) and that takes the source's emissions 
profile into account. As a result, EPA expects either form of emission 
limit to yield comparable air quality.
    Second, from a more theoretical perspective, EPA has compared the 
likely air quality with a source having maximum allowable emissions 
under an appropriately set longer-term limit, as compared to the likely 
air quality with the source having maximum allowable emissions under 
the comparable 1-hour limit. In this comparison, in the 1-hour average 
limit scenario, the source is presumed at all times to emit at the 
critical emission level, and in the longer-term average limit scenario, 
the source is presumed occasionally to emit more than the critical 
emissions value but on average, and presumably at most times, to emit 
well below the critical emissions value. In an ``average year,'' 
compliance with the 1-hour limit is expected to result in three 
exceedance days (i.e., three days with hourly values above 75 ppb) and 
a fourth day with a maximum hourly value at 75 ppb. By comparison, with 
the source complying with a longer-term limit, it is possible that 
additional exceedances would occur that would not occur in the 1-hour 
limit scenario (if emissions exceed the critical emissions value at 
times when meteorology is conducive to poor air quality). However, this 
comparison must also factor in the likelihood that exceedances that 
would be expected in the 1-hour limit scenario would not occur in the 
longer-term limit scenario. This result arises because the longer-term 
limit requires lower emissions most of the time (because the limit is 
set well below the critical emissions value), so a source complying 
with an appropriately set longer-term limit is likely to have lower 
emissions at critical times than would be the case if the source were 
emitting as allowed with a 1-hour limit.
    As a hypothetical example to illustrate these points, suppose a 
source always emits 1,000 pounds of SO<INF>2</INF> per hour (lbs/hr), 
which results in air quality at the level of the NAAQS (i.e., results 
in a design value of 75 ppb). Suppose further that in an ``average 
year,'' these emissions cause the 5 highest maximum daily average 1-
hour concentrations to be 100 ppb, 90 ppb, 80 ppb, 75 ppb, and 70 ppb. 
Then suppose that the source becomes subject to a 30-

[[Page 33101]]

day average emission limit of 700 lbs/hr. It is theoretically possible 
for a source meeting this limit to have emissions that occasionally 
exceed 1,000 lbs/hr, but with a typical emissions profile emissions 
would much more commonly be between 600 and 800 lbs/hr. In this 
simplified example, assume a zero background concentration, which 
allows one to assume a linear relationship between emissions and air 
quality. (A nonzero background concentration would make the mathematics 
more difficult but would give similar results.) Air quality will depend 
on what emissions happen on what critical hours, but suppose that 
emissions at the relevant times on these 5 days are 800 lbs/hr, 1,100 
lbs/hr, 500 lbs/hr, 900 lbs/hr, and 1,200 lbs/hr, respectively. (This 
is a conservative example because the average of these emissions, 900 
lbs/hr, is well over the 30-day average emission limit.) These 
emissions would result in daily maximum 1-hour concentrations of 80 
ppb, 99 ppb, 40 ppb, 67.5 ppb, and 84 ppb. In this example, the fifth 
day would have an exceedance that would not otherwise have occurred (84 
ppb under the 30-day average limit compared to 70 ppb under the 1-hour 
limit). However, the third day would not have an exceedance that 
otherwise would have occurred (40 ppb under the 30-day average limit 
compared to 80 ppb under the 1-hour limit). The fourth day would have 
been below, rather than at, 75 ppb (67.5 ppb under the 30-day average 
limit compared to 75 ppb under the 1-hour limit). In this example, the 
fourth highest maximum daily concentration under the 30-day average 
would be 67.5 ppb.
    This simplified example illustrates the findings of a more 
complicated statistical analysis that EPA conducted using a range of 
scenarios incorporating actual plant data. As described in appendix B 
of EPA's April 2014 SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment planning guidance, EPA 
found that the requirement for lower average emissions is likely to 
yield as good air quality as is required with a comparably stringent 1-
hour limit. Based on analyses described in appendix B of its 2014 
guidance and similar subsequent work, EPA expects that emission 
profiles with maximum allowable emissions under an appropriately set 
comparably stringent 30-day average limit are likely to have the net 
effect of no more exceedances and air quality as good as that of an 
emission profile with maximum allowable emissions under a 1-hour 
emission limit at the critical emission value.\8\ This result provides 
a compelling policy rationale for allowing the use of a longer 
averaging period, in appropriate circumstances where the facts indicate 
this result can be expected to occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See also further analyses described in rulemaking on the 
SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment plan for Southwest Indiana. In response 
to comments expressing concern that the emission profiles analyzed 
for appendix B represented actual rather than allowable emissions, 
EPA conducted additional work formulating sample allowable emission 
profiles and analyzing the resulting air quality impact. This 
analysis provided further support for the conclusion that an 
appropriately set longer-term average emission limit in appropriate 
circumstances can suitably provide for attainment. The rulemaking 
describing these further analyses was published on August 17, 2020, 
at 85 FR 49967, available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-17/pdf/2020-16044.pdf. A more detailed description of these 
analyses is available in the docket for that action, specifically at 
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0700-0023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The question then becomes whether this approach, which is likely to 
produce a lower number of overall exceedances even though it may 
produce some unexpected exceedances above the critical emission value, 
meets the requirement in section 110(a)(1) and 172(c)(1) for SIPs to 
``provide for attainment'' of the NAAQS. For SO<INF>2</INF>, as for 
other pollutants, it is generally impossible to design a nonattainment 
plan in the present that will guarantee that attainment will occur in 
the future. A variety of factors can cause a well-designed attainment 
plan to fail and unexpectedly not result in attainment, for example if 
meteorology occurs that is more conducive to poor air quality than was 
anticipated in the plan. Therefore, in determining whether a plan meets 
the requirement to provide for attainment, EPA's task is commonly to 
judge not whether the plan provides absolute certainty that attainment 
will in fact occur, but rather whether the plan provides an adequate 
level of confidence of prospective NAAQS attainment. From this 
perspective, in evaluating use of a 30-day average limit, EPA must 
weigh the likely net effect on air quality. Such an evaluation must 
consider the risk that occasions with meteorology conducive to high 
concentrations will have elevated emissions leading to exceedances that 
would not otherwise have occurred, and must also weigh the likelihood 
that the requirement for lower emissions on average will result in days 
not having exceedances that would have been expected with emissions at 
the critical emissions value. Additional policy considerations, such as 
accommodating real world emissions variability without significant risk 
of violations, are also appropriate factors for EPA to weigh in judging 
whether a plan provides a reasonable degree of confidence that the plan 
will lead to attainment. Based on these considerations, EPA believes 
that a continuously enforceable limit averaged over as long as 30 days, 
if determined in accordance with EPA's guidance, can reasonably be 
considered to provide for attainment of the 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS.
    The April 2014 guidance offers specific recommendations for 
determining an appropriate longer-term average limit. The recommended 
method starts with determination of the 1-hour emission limit that 
would provide for attainment (i.e., the critical emissions value), then 
applies an adjustment factor to determine the (lower) level of the 
longer-term average emission limit that would be estimated to have a 
stringency comparable to the 1-hour emission limit. This method uses a 
database of continuous emission data reflecting the type of control 
that the source will be using to comply with the nonattainment area 
plan emission limits, which (if compliance requires new controls) may 
require use of an emission database from another source. The 
recommended method involves using these data to compute a complete set 
of emission averages, computed according to the averaging time and 
averaging procedures of the prospective emission limitation. In this 
recommended method, the ratio of the 99th percentile among these long-
term averages to the 99th percentile of the 1-hour values represents an 
adjustment factor that may be multiplied by the candidate 1-hour 
emission limit to determine a longer-term average emission limit that 
may be considered comparably stringent.\9\ The guidance also addresses 
a variety of related topics, such as the potential utility of setting 
supplemental emission limits, such as mass-based limits, to reduce the 
likelihood and/or magnitude of elevated emission levels that might 
occur under the longer-term emission rate limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For example, if the critical emission value is 1,000 lbs/hr 
of SO<INF>2</INF>, and a suitable adjustment factor is determined to 
be 70 percent, the recommended longer term average limit would be 
700 lbs/hr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Modeling

    The following discussion is a summary of various features of the 
modeling that EPA used in developing the proposed FIP. The modeling 
analysis conducted by EPA to support the FIP was adapted from the 
modeling analysis conducted by Michigan to support Michigan's 2016 
nonattainment plan. A more in-depth discussion of the modeling, 
including an explanation of

[[Page 33102]]

the differences between EPA's and Michigan's modeling analyses, is 
presented in a technical support document (TSD) included in the docket 
for this action.

A. Model Selection

    EPA used AERMOD, the preferred model for this application. EPA used 
version 21112 of this model, which is the most current version. In its 
2016 submittal, Michigan had instead used version 15181, which was the 
current version at that time.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ AERMOD version 21112 resolved errors and bugs that were 
found in version 15181 and introduced some new modeling options. For 
more information on the differences between AERMOD versions, see 
https://www.epa.gov/scram/air-quality-dispersion-modeling-preferred-and-recommended-models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's receptor grid and modeling domain for the Detroit area 
followed the recommended approaches from EPA's Guideline on Air Quality 
Models (40 CFR part 51, appendix W). A uniform Cartesian receptor grid 
was used with receptor spacing of 100 meters throughout the modeled 
domain, which was consistent with the grid Michigan used in its 2016 
submittal.
    Although EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models recommends that 
areas such as Detroit should be modeled using urban dispersion 
coefficients, Michigan found in its 2016 modeling analysis that using 
urban dispersion coefficients caused the model to overpredict monitored 
concentrations by 2-3 times due to overpredictions with tall 
stacks.\11\ As discussed further in the TSD, EPA agrees with Michigan's 
use of rural dispersion coefficients and therefore used rural 
dispersion options for tall stacks at EES Coke, DTE Trenton Channel, 
and DTE Monroe, and urban dispersion option for the remaining modeled 
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ More information on dispersion coefficients can be found in 
the TSD for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Meteorological Data

    EPA used the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport's (KDTW) 
meteorological surface data and the White Lake (DTX) meteorological 
upper air data for the years 2016-2020 for modeling the Detroit area. 
The surface station is located less than 22 kilometers from the 
SO<INF>2</INF> sources in the Detroit area and is located in similar 
terrain.

C. Emissions Data

    EPA included all point sources within 50 kilometers of Detroit in 
its modeling analysis. These sources included U.S. Steel (Ecorse and 
Zug Island), EES Coke, DTE Trenton Channel, Carmeuse Lime, DTE Monroe, 
Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation, DIG, and Marathon Refinery. DTE 
River Rouge was not included in the modeling analysis as all the units 
with SO<INF>2</INF> emissions have been permanently and enforceably 
shut down. EPA found that no other sources outside the nonattainment 
area were close enough to cause significant concentration gradients.

D. Emission Limits

    An important aspect of an attainment plan is that the emission 
limits that provide for attainment be quantifiable, fully enforceable, 
replicable, and accountable. See General Preamble at 13567-68. The FIP 
analysis includes limits for U.S. Steel, EES Coke, Cleveland-Cliffs 
Steel Corporation, DIG, Carmeuse Lime, and DTE Trenton Channel. The 
limit for Trenton Channel is expressed as a 30-day average limit, and 
the limits for Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation and DIG are expressed 
as daily average limits. Therefore, part of the Detroit FIP must 
address the use of these longer-term average limits, both with respect 
to the general suitability of using such limits for demonstrating 
attainment and with respect to whether the particular limits included 
in the plan have been suitably demonstrated to provide for attainment. 
The first subsection that follows addresses the enforceability of the 
limits in the plan, and the second subsection that follows addresses in 
particular the 30-day and daily average limits.
1. Enforceability
    In preparing its 2016 plan, Michigan adopted Permit to Install 193-
14A, governing the Carmeuse Lime SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, and Permit 
to Install 125-11C, governing the DTE Trenton Channel SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions. These construction permit revisions were adopted by Michigan 
following established, appropriate public review procedures. The 
Carmeuse Lime permit required the construction of and venting of 
emissions through a new stack with a minimum height above ground of 120 
feet (36.6 meters). The permit also established a permanent and 
enforceable SO<INF>2</INF> limit of 470 lbs/hr. EPA's modeling 
indicates that the modeling violation caused by Carmeuse has been 
resolved by this modification, which is well below the maximum 
creditable stack height of 65 meters as determined based on EPA's 
regulatory definition of de minimis GEP stack height per 40 CFR 
51.100(ii)(1). The DTE Trenton Channel permit established an 
enforceable SO<INF>2</INF> limit of 5,907 lbs/hr on a 30-day rolling 
average basis. EPA modeling demonstrates that attainment at violating 
receptors can be achieved when the emission limits in the DTE Trenton 
Channel Permit are analyzed together with the shutdown of the River 
Rouge facility. In accordance with EPA policy, the 30-day average limit 
is set at a lower level than the emission rate used in the attainment 
demonstration; the relationship between these two values is discussed 
in more detail in the following section. The permit compliance dates 
were October 1, 2018 for Carmeuse Lime and January 1, 2017 for DTE 
Trenton Channel. Both of these permits were incorporated into 
Michigan's SIP as part of EPA's March 19, 2021 action, and both 
facilities have been complying with their limits since their compliance 
dates.
    Michigan adopted a revision to the renewable operating permit 
governing DTE River Rouge emissions, Permit MI-ROP-B2810-2012c, on 
August 18, 2021, that reflects the shutdown of the coal-fired boilers. 
As explained in section IV.A above, the shutdown of the coal-fired 
boilers at DTE River Rouge is permanent and enforceable.
    Emission limits and associated requirements for U.S. Steel, EES 
Coke, Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation, and DIG will be made 
permanent and enforceable by the inclusion in the FIP regulatory 
language. The codification section of the FIP includes new emission 
limits and associated requirements for the U.S. Steel units and the DIG 
Boilers 1, 2, and 3 and Flares 1 and 2 flexible group, as well as 
emission limits and compliance mechanisms for EES Coke, Cleveland-
Cliffs Steel Corporation, and DIG (with the one aforementioned 
exception) that are also required by the sources' existing operating 
permits.
    As described further in the TSD, EPA modeled the maximum 
uncontrolled emission rate for any unit in the nonattainment area that 
does not have an SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit already incorporated 
into the Michigan SIP or included in the codification section of the 
FIP.
2. Longer-Term Average Limits
    The following subsection addresses the 30-day average limit for DTE 
Trenton Channel and the daily average limits for Cleveland-Cliffs Steel 
Corporation and DIG. As previously discussed in detail in Section V of 
this notice, EPA supports adoption of longer-term average limits, as 
EPA's guidance recommends modeling of a 1-hour ``critical emissions 
value'' (CEV) and application of a properly derived adjustment factor 
demonstrates that the longer-term limit is comparably stringent to the 
modeled 1-hour CEV that would otherwise be reflected in the emission 
limit.

[[Page 33103]]

    Michigan's 2016 plan included permits with 30-day average emission 
limits for DTE River Rouge and Trenton Channel that, when modeled using 
comparably stringent 1-hour emission rates, demonstrated attainment of 
the SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS in the areas that had previously shown 
violations caused by the DTE facilities. Both DTE River Rouge and 
Trenton Channel requested limits expressed as a 30-day average in order 
to have longer-term limits that allow for ordinary fluctuations in 
emissions but are comparably stringent to hourly limits and still 
provide for attainment. Although Michigan's 2016 plan included a 30-day 
average emission limit for DTE River Rouge, EPA is not evaluating a 
longer-term average limit for DTE River Rouge as the facility has since 
been shut down.
    DTE submitted to Michigan an analysis supporting the DTE Trenton 
Channel Unit 9A 30-day average emission limits using CEMS heat input 
data, SO<INF>2</INF> emissions factors, and coal blend projections. DTE 
calculated an adjustment factor of 0.87 for the DTE Trenton Channel 
unit.
    However, as EPA was reviewing Michigan's 2016 submittal, EPA found 
that DTE's adjustment factor calculation did not account for fuel 
variability, which increased significantly after 2016 when the Mercury 
and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) took effect. Therefore, EPA completed 
its own adjustment factor analysis following the 2014 SO<INF>2</INF> 
guidance using 2015-2019 DTE Trenton Channel operating data, which was 
the most recent data at the time of the analysis and included DTE 
Trenton Channel's transition to compliance with the MATS. EPA 
calculated an adjustment factor of 0.771.
    For DTE Trenton Channel, EPA used its calculated adjustment factor 
of 0.771 and the permitted 30-day-average emission limit of 5,907 lbs/
hr \12\ to calculate the comparably stringent 1-hour emission rate for 
DTE Trenton Channel of 7,661 lbs/hr. EPA used the comparably stringent 
1-hour emission rate in its modeling analysis to confirm that the DTE 
Trenton Channel limit would result in attainment. The 1-hour emission 
rate that EPA used for its modeling analysis (7,661 lbs/hr) is more 
stringent than the CEV that would otherwise have been necessary to 
provide for attainment, as the CEV represents the maximum 1-hour 
emission rate that would result in attainment when modeled, and the 
maximum concentration that EPA modeled was below the NAAQS.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The DTE Trenton Channel Unit 9A 30-day average 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions are calculated on a rolling basis as 
determined at the end of every calendar day.
    \13\ See section VI.G of this action for a summary of EPA's 
modeling results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although EPA used a more conservative adjustment factor in its FIP 
modeling analysis than Michigan used in its 2016 submittal, EPA used 
the same permitted 30-day-average emission limit of 5,907 lbs/hr. 
Therefore, the comparably stringent 1-hour emission rate that EPA used 
was higher than the rate that Michigan used. However, EPA's modeling 
analysis shows that this higher 1-hour emission rate for DTE Trenton 
Channel still provides for attainment, largely due to EPA's exclusion 
of DTE River Rouge emissions in its analysis.
    For Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation and DIG, EPA does not have a 
sufficient historical record of CEMS data to be able to evaluate 
source-specific emissions variability for purposes of determining 
source-specific factors by which to calculate the comparably stringent 
1-hour limits from the sources' daily average limits. Instead, EPA 
determined the comparably stringent 1-hour emission rates by applying 
one of the national average adjustment factors listed in appendix D of 
EPA's 2014 SO<INF>2</INF> guidance. For Cleveland-Cliffs Steel 
Corporation, EPA divided the furnace stove daily average limits by an 
adjustment factor of 0.89, reflecting the national average adjustment 
factor that EPA found among facilities with wet scrubbers, and the 
furnace baghouse daily average limits by an adjustment factor of 0.93, 
reflecting the national average adjustment factor that EPA found among 
facilities without control equipment. For DIG, EPA divided the daily 
average limits by an adjustment factor of 0.93, reflecting the national 
average adjustment factor that EPA found among facilities without 
control equipment. The Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation and DIG daily 
average limits and comparably stringent 1-hour emission rates are shown 
below in Table 2.

        Table 2--Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation and DIG Daily Average Limits and Comparably Stringent
                                              1-Hour Emission Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Modeled comparably
                                                                                              stringent 1-hour
              Unit(s)                 Daily average emission limit    Adjustment factor     emission rate  (lbs/
                                                                                                    hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``B'' Blast Furnace Baghouse and     77.8 lbs/hr..................  0.93 for Furnace       85.91 lbs/hr (modeled
 Stove Stacks (combined).                                            Baghouse and 0.89      as 33.46 lbs/hr for
                                                                     for Furnace Stove.     the furnace baghouse
                                                                                            and 52.45 lbs/hr for
                                                                                            the furnace stove).
``C'' Blast Furnace Baghouse and     271.4 lbs/hr.................  0.93 for Furnace       299.70 lbs/hr
 Stove Stacks (combined).                                            Stove and 0.89 for     (modeled as 116.73
                                                                     Furnace Baghouse.      lbs/hr for the
                                                                                            furnace baghouse and
                                                                                            182.97 lbs/hr for
                                                                                            the furnace stove).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       DIG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boilers 1, 2, and 3 (combined).....  420 lbs/hr...................  0.93.................  451.62 lbs/hr
                                                                                            (modeled as 150.54
                                                                                            lbs/hr per boiler).
Boilers 1, 2, and 3, and Flares 1    840 lbs/hr...................  0.93.................  903.24 lbs/hr
 and 2 (combined).                                                                          (modeled as 150.54
                                                                                            lbs/hr per boiler
                                                                                            and 451.62 lbs/hr
                                                                                            for Flare 2, as
                                                                                            Flare 1 is no longer
                                                                                            operational).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: Modeled emissions were split between the furnace stoves and baghouses at a 60:40 ratio, which was the
  most conservative option based on capacity data over the last several years.


[[Page 33104]]

    EPA believes that the 30-day-average limit for DTE Trenton Channel 
and the daily average limits for Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation and 
DIG provide suitable alternatives to establishing 1-hour average 
emission limits for these sources. EPA proposes to find that the 
adjustment factors of 0.771 for DTE Trenton Channel, 0.89 for 
Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation furnace stoves, 0.93 for Cleveland-
Cliffs Steel Corporation furnace baghouses, and 0.93 for DIG are 
appropriate. When the longer-term limits were divided by these 
adjustment factors, they resulted in modeled comparably stringent 1-
hour emission rates that are equal to or more stringent than the 1-hour 
average emission rates represented by the CEV that would otherwise have 
been necessary to provide for attainment. While the longer-term average 
limits allow occasions in which emissions may be higher than the level 
that would be allowed with the 1-hour limits, the longer-term average 
limits compensate by requiring average emissions to be lower than the 
level that would otherwise have been required by a 1-hour average limit 
that would be represented by the CEV. As described above and explained 
in more detail in EPA's April 2014 guidance for SO<INF>2</INF> 
nonattainment plans, EPA finds that appropriately set longer-term 
average limits provide a reasonable basis by which nonattainment plans 
will provide for attainment.

E. Background Concentrations

    EPA determined background concentrations for the Detroit area using 
monitoring data from the Allen Park monitor (AQS ID 26-163-0001), which 
is approximately 17 kilometers southwest of Detroit. The background 
concentration values that EPA used varied by season and hour-of-day and 
ranged from 0.1 to 11.9 ppb.

F. Comments Made During Previous EPA Rulemakings

    During the comment period for EPA's March 19, 2021, partial 
approval and partial disapproval of Michigan's 2016 plan for the 
Detroit area, EPA received 21 supportive comments, nine comments not 
directly relevant to the rulemaking, and a joint comment letter from 
Sierra Club and Earthjustice that was partially adverse.
    Part of the joint letter from Sierra Club and Earthjustice included 
information about alleged flaws in the State's modeling report. While 
EPA was not evaluating whether Michigan's modeling report supported 
attainment of the Detroit area in its March 19, 2021 action, EPA 
believes these comments are relevant to EPA's modeling analysis for the 
FIP. Therefore, EPA has considered the comments as part of the FIP 
development. The remainder of this section summarizes the portion of 
the comment letter that addressed the commenters' modeling concerns as 
well as EPA's proposed response to these comments.
    First, the commenters expressed concerns that the State did not use 
an appropriate background concentration in its modeling analysis. 
Michigan used hourly SO<INF>2</INF> data from the Allen Park monitor 
for the years 2012-2014 in its 2016 analysis and excluded hourly 
concentrations associated with wind directions between and including 40 
degrees and 205 degrees using meteorological data from Allen Park. In 
the modeling analysis for the FIP, EPA used a similar method to 
Michigan's to calculate the background concentration. EPA used hourly 
SO<INF>2</INF> data from 2018-2020 at the Allen Park monitor, along 
with Allen Park wind data to generate Season/Hour-of-Day 
concentrations. Concentrations associated with wind directions between 
and including 40 degrees and 205 degrees were excluded due to 
SO<INF>2</INF> concentrations at the Allen Park monitor being 
influenced by sources explicitly included in the modeling analysis. 
This includes U.S. Steel, DTE River Rouge, EES Coke, Carmeuse Lime, 
Marathon, Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation and DIG to the northeast 
and DTE Trenton Channel and DTE Monroe to the south and southwest. Wind 
direction checks were made for the preceding hour as well. Only days 
with eight hours or more of valid observations with wind directions not 
between and including 40 and 205 degrees were included, and the second 
highest concentration for each season and hour-of-day combination was 
selected. EPA's August 2016 ``SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS Designations 
Modeling Technical Assistance Document'' (Modeling TAD) discusses that 
the use of hour-of-day and season background concentrations based on 
the 99th percentile 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> concentrations over three 
years is appropriate for use in modeling against the 1-hour 
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. The Modeling TAD states that ``to calculate the 
99th percentile concentration for a season and hour of day combination, 
the second highest concentration for that combination should be 
selected.'' The Modeling TAD also concurs that it is appropriate to 
exclude periods when the source(s) in question is/are expected to 
impact the monitored concentrations.
    Second, the commenters stated that the state failed to adjust the 
30-day average limits for DTE River Rouge and Trenton Channel to a 
level that was comparably stringent to a 1-hour limit that would 
achieve the SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. As described in section VI.D.2 above, 
EPA calculated a lower, more conservative adjustment factor than was 
used in Michigan's 2016 modeling analysis for the DTE River Rouge and 
Trenton Channel facilities. For DTE Trenton Channel, EPA used the lower 
adjustment factor and the 30-day average limit to calculate a higher 
comparably stringent 1-hour emission rate, which EPA used in its 
modeling analysis to show attainment, that is equal to or more 
stringent than the 1-hour emission rate represented by the CEV. As all 
DTE River Rouge units emitting SO<INF>2</INF> have been permanently 
shut down, EPA removed the source from the modeling analysis and did 
not include the 30-day average SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits for DTE 
River Rouge in the FIP. EPA believes that the current adjustment factor 
being used in the FIP for DTE Trenton Channel is properly calculated 
and protective of the NAAQS.
    Finally, the commenters recommended that EPA evaluate the State's 
emissions inventory and consider any significant SO<INF>2</INF> sources 
that were excluded in future modeling. Specifically, the commenters 
noted that three DIG natural gas combustion turbines, a DIG boiler co-
firing natural gas and blast furnace gas, the DTE EES Coke Bypass 
Bleeder Flare, DTE EES Coke coke oven door leaks, and all Marathon 
Refinery flares were not included in Michigan's 2016 modeling analysis. 
EPA has evaluated these sources and they have been included in this 
modeling analysis for the FIP. The full list of sources included in the 
modeling, as well as the enforceability mechanism of each emission 
rate, is included in the TSD, which is included in the docket for this 
action.

G. Summary of Results

    EPA evaluated two separate operating scenarios as part of its 
modeling analysis based on the separate limits proposed for U.S. Steel 
Boilerhouse 2. In both scenarios, the modeling for the Detroit area 
showed a maximum concentration of 73.6 ppb (192.7 micrograms per cubic 
meter ([mu]g/m\3\)). This maximum concentration resulted from modeling 
all units at maximum permitted levels based on the proposed emission 
limits included in the FIP or already incorporated into Michigan's SIP, 
or maximum uncontrolled emissions, newly adjusted comparably stringent 
1-hour emission rates for DTE Trenton Channel, Cleveland-Cliffs Steel 
Corporation, and DIG, and the

[[Page 33105]]

background concentration previously described. Therefore, EPA proposes 
to conclude that this FIP provides for attainment in the Detroit area.

VII. Other Plan Requirements

A. Emissions Inventory

    EPA approved the base year emissions inventory for the Detroit area 
in its March 19, 2021 action. Therefore, a review of the emissions 
inventory is not included in the FIP.

B. RACM/RACT and Enforceable Emission Limits

    CAA section 172(c)(1) states that nonattainment plans shall provide 
for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable 
(including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the 
area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of RACT) 
and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air 
quality standards. For most criteria pollutants, RACT is control 
technology as needed to meet the NAAQS that is reasonably available 
considering technological and economic feasibility. However, the 
definition of RACT for SO<INF>2</INF> is, simply, that control 
technology which is necessary to achieve the NAAQS (see 40 CFR 
51.100(o)). CAA section 172(c)(6) requires plans to include enforceable 
emissions limitations, and such other control measures as may be 
necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment of the NAAQS. In its 
March 19, 2021, rulemaking, EPA disapproved Michigan's 2016 attainment 
plan because it relied on Michigan Administrative Code (MAC) 336.1430 
(``Rule 430''), which was invalidated and so was no longer an 
enforceable mechanism. Therefore, the plan could not be considered to 
provide an appropriate attainment demonstration, and it did not 
demonstrate RACM/RACT or meet the requirement for necessary emissions 
limitations or control measures. The FIP for attaining the 1-hour 
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS in the Detroit area is based on a variety of 
measures, including permits for Carmeuse Lime (effective date of 
October 1, 2018) and DTE Trenton Channel (effective date of January 1, 
2017) that have been incorporated into Michigan's SIP, as well as the 
proposed regulatory language regarding U.S. Steel, EES Coke, Cleveland-
Cliffs Steel Corporation, and DIG emissions that will be enforceable 
upon finalization of this action. The FIP requires compliance two years 
after the effective date of this action for U.S. Steel Boilerhouse 2 
and the effective date of this action for all other units. The two-year 
compliance schedule for U.S. Steel Boilerhouse 2 allows 90 days for the 
owner or operator to submit a construction permit application to the 
State of Michigan, as well as time for the State of Michigan to issue 
the permit, the owner or operator to send out requests for proposal and 
award a construction contract and procure materials, and for completion 
of construction. EPA proposes to determine that these measures suffice 
to provide for attainment and proposes to conclude that the FIP 
satisfies the requirement in sections 172(c)(1) and (6) to adopt and 
submit all RACM/RACT and emissions limitations or control measures as 
needed to attain the standards as expeditiously as practicable.

C. NSR

    EPA affirmed in its March 19, 2021, action that NSR requirements 
had previously been met. Therefore, a review of the NSR requirements is 
not included in the FIP.

D. RFP

    Section 171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as such annual incremental 
reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required 
by part D or may reasonably be required by EPA for the purpose of 
ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable 
attainment date. This definition is most appropriate for pollutants 
that are emitted by numerous and diverse sources, where the 
relationship between any individual source and the overall air quality 
is not explicitly quantified, and where the emission reductions 
necessary to attain the NAAQS are inventory-wide. (See EPA's April 2014 
SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment planning guidance, page 40.) For 
SO<INF>2,</INF> there is usually a single ``step'' between pre-control 
nonattainment and post-control attainment. Therefore, for 
SO<INF>2</INF>, with its discernible relationship between emissions and 
air quality, and significant and immediate air quality improvements, 
RFP is best construed as adherence to an ambitious compliance schedule. 
(See General Preamble at 74 FR 13547 (April 16, 1992)).
    In its March 19, 2021 rulemaking, EPA concluded that Michigan had 
not satisfied the requirement in section 172(c)(2) to provide for RFP 
toward attainment. Michigan's 2016 attainment plan did not demonstrate 
that the implementation of the control measures required under the plan 
were sufficient to provide for attainment of the NAAQS in the Detroit 
SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area, as some control measures were not 
enforceable due to the invalidation of Rule 430. Therefore, a 
compliance schedule to implement those controls was not sufficient to 
provide for RFP. The FIP regulatory language requires compliance by two 
years after the effective date of this action for U.S. Steel 
Boilerhouse 2 and the effective date of this action for all other 
units. As described in section IV.B above, the 2-year compliance 
schedule for U.S. Steel Boilerhouse 2 allows 90 days for the owner or 
operator to submit a construction permit application to the State of 
Michigan, as well as time for the State of Michigan to issue the 
permit, the owner or operator to send out requests for proposal and 
award a construction contract and procure materials, and for completion 
of construction. For DTE Trenton Channel and Carmeuse lime, compliance 
was required by January 1, 2017, and October 1, 2018, respectively. EPA 
concludes that this is an ambitious compliance schedule, as described 
in April 2014 guidance for SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment plans, and that 
this plan therefore provides for RFP in accordance with the approach to 
RFP described in EPA's 2014 guidance.

E. Contingency Measures

    EPA guidance describes special features of SO<INF>2</INF> planning 
that influence the suitability of alternative means of addressing the 
requirement in section 172(c)(9) for contingency measures for 
SO<INF>2</INF>, such that in particular an appropriate means of 
satisfying this requirement is for the air agency to have a 
comprehensive enforcement program that identifies sources of violations 
of the SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS and to undertake an aggressive follow-up 
for compliance and enforcement. (See EPA's April 2014 SO<INF>2</INF> 
nonattainment planning guidance, page 41.) The FIP provides for 
satisfying the contingency measure requirement in this manner, and EPA 
will be responsible for enforcement unless Michigan seeks to take 
delegation of the FIP. EPA's enforcement authority is contained in 
section 113(a) of the CAA. Options include: The issuance of an 
administrative order requiring compliance with the applicable 
implementation plan; the issuance of an administrative order requiring 
the payment of a civil penalty for past violations; and the 
commencement of a civil judicial action.

VIII. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing a FIP for attaining the 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS 
for the Detroit area and for meeting other nonattainment area planning 
requirements. In accordance with section 172 of the CAA, this FIP

[[Page 33106]]

includes an attainment demonstration for the Detroit area and addresses 
requirements for RFP, RACT/RACM, enforceable emission limitations and 
control measures, and contingency measures. EPA has previously 
concluded that Michigan has addressed the requirements for emissions 
inventories for the Detroit area and nonattainment area NSR.
    The FIP is based on the Carmeuse Lime emission limits specified in 
Permit to Install 193-14A, the DTE Trenton Channel emission limits 
specified in Permit to Install 125-11C, and the U.S. Steel, EES Coke, 
Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation, and DIG emission limits specified 
in the proposed regulatory language of this FIP. The Carmeuse Lime and 
DTE Trenton Channel permits have already been incorporated into 
Michigan's SIP, so EPA is not proposing to re-incorporate them into 40 
CFR part 52 here.
    EPA is taking public comments for forty-five days following the 
publication of this proposed action in the Federal Register. EPA will 
take all comments into consideration in the final action. If this FIP 
is finalized, it would satisfy EPA's duty to promulgate a FIP for the 
area under CAA section 110(c) that resulted from the previous finding 
of failure to submit. However, it would not affect the sanctions clock 
started under CAA section 179 resulting from EPA's partial disapproval 
of the prior SIP, which would be terminated by an EPA rulemaking 
approving a revised SIP.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review 13563

    This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB). As discussed in detail in section B below, the proposed 
FIP regulatory language contains requirements only for four facilities. 
It is therefore not a rule of general applicability.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a ``collection of 
information'' is defined as a requirement for ``answers to . . . 
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or 
more persons . . .'' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the proposed FIP 
applies to just four facilities, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not 
apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. 
The OMB control numbers for our regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 
CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed action on 
small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
EPA's proposal adds additional controls to certain sources. None of 
these sources are owned by small entities, and therefore are not small 
entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in 
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, 
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have 
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive 
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to 
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as 
defined under Executive Order 12866; and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as 
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety 
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the E.O. 
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not 
subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not economically significant under 
Executive Order 12866 and because it implements specific standards 
established by Congress in statutes. However, to the extent this 
proposed rule will limit SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, the rule will have a 
beneficial effect on

[[Page 33107]]

children's health by reducing air pollution.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    This proposed rule, if finalized, would improve local air quality 
by reducing SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in a part of the Detroit 
metropolitan area that includes a higher proportion of minority and 
low-income populations compared to the State or US averages. 
Socioeconomic indicators such as low income, unemployment rate and 
percentage of people of color \14\ were all at levels at least two 
times that of the state-wide averages (in some cases two to five times 
higher), within one to six miles from facilities affected by this 
action (see EJScreen analyses provided in the docket for this action). 
These populations, as well as all affected populations in this area, 
will stand to benefit from the increased level of environmental 
protection with the implementation of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/overview-demographic-indicators-ejscreen for the definition of each demographic 
indicator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations.

Michael Regan,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 
CFR part 52 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. Section 52.1189 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1189  Control strategy: Sulfur Dioxide (SO2).

    (a) The plan submitted by the State on May 31, 2016 to attain the 
2010 1-hour primary sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) national ambient 
air quality standard for the Detroit SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area 
does not meet the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 172 with 
respect to SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the U.S. Steel (Ecorse and Zug 
Island), EES Coke, Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation (formerly AK or 
Severstal Steel), and Dearborn Industrial Generation (DIG) facilities 
in the Detroit, Michigan area. These requirements for these four 
facilities are satisfied by 40 CFR 52.1189(b)-(e), respectively.
    (b) This section addresses and satisfies CAA section 172 
requirements for the Detroit SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area by 
specifying the necessary emission limits and other control measures 
applicable to the U.S. Steel (Ecorse and Zug Island) facility. This 
section applies to the owner and operator of the facility located at 1 
Quality Drive and 1300 Zug Island Road in Detroit, Michigan.
    (1) SO2 Emission Limits.
    (i) Beginning on the effective date of the FIP, no owner or 
operator shall emit SO<INF>2</INF> from the following units in excess 
of the following limits:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           SO2 emission
                          Unit                            limit (lbs/hr)
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boilerhouse 1 (all stacks combined).....................           55.00
Hot Strip Mill--Slab Reheat Furnace 1...................            0.31
Hot Strip Mill--Slab Reheat Furnace 2...................            0.31
Hot Strip Mill--Slab Reheat Furnace 3...................            0.31
Hot Strip Mill--Slab Reheat Furnace 4...................            0.31
Hot Strip Mill--Slab Reheat Furnace 5...................            0.31
No. 2 Baghouse..........................................            3.30
Main Plant Boiler No. 8.................................            0.07
Main Plant Boiler No. 9.................................            0.07
A1 Blast Furnace........................................            0.00
B2 Blast Furnace........................................           40.18
D4 Blast Furnace........................................           40.18
A/B Blast Furnace Flares................................           60.19
D Furnace Flare.........................................           60.19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Beginning two years after the effective date of the FIP, no 
owner or operator shall emit SO<INF>2</INF> from Boilerhouse 2 in 
excess of the following limits:
    (A) When Boilerhouse 2 is the only unit operating at the facility, 
an emission limit of 750.00 lbs/hr. When any unit identified in 
paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section is operating in addition to 
Boilerhouse 2, an emission limit of 81.00 lbs/hr.
    (2) Stack Restrictions and Permit Requirements.
    (i) The owner or operator shall construct a combined stack for all 
Boilerhouse 2 emission points. The stack emission point must be at 
least 170 feet above ground level. The owner or operator shall submit a 
construction permit application for the stack to the State of Michigan 
within 90 days of the effective date of the FIP. Where any compliance 
obligation under this section requires any other state or local permits 
or approvals, the owner or operator shall submit timely and

[[Page 33108]]

complete applications and take all other actions necessary to obtain 
all such permits or approvals.
    (ii) Beginning two years after the effective date of the FIP, no 
owner or operator shall emit SO<INF>2</INF> from Boilerhouse 2, except 
from the stack emission point at least 170 feet above ground level.
    (3) Monitoring Requirements.
    (i) Not later than two years after the effective date of the FIP, 
the owner or operator shall install and continuously operate an 
SO<INF>2</INF> continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) to measure 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from Boilerhouse 2 in conformance with 40 CFR 
part 60 appendix F procedure 1.
    (ii) The owner or operator shall determine SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
from Boilerhouse 1, Hot Strip Mill Slab Reheat Furnaces 1-5, Main Plant 
Boiler No. 8, Main Plan Boiler No. 9, A1 Blast Furnace, B2 Blast 
Furnace, D4 Blast Furnace, A/B Blast Furnace Flares, and D Furnace 
Flare using mass balance calculations as described in paragraph (b)(4) 
of this section.
    (iii) Within 180 days of the installation of the CEMS specified in 
paragraph (b)(3)(i), the owner or operator shall perform an initial 
compliance test for SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from Boilerhouse 2 while 
the boilerhouse is operating in accordance with requirements identified 
in either paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii), whichever is applicable 
during the period of testing. The initial compliance test shall be 
performed using EPA Test Method 6 at 40 CFR part 60 appendix A-4.
    (4) Compliance Assurance Plan. To determine compliance with the 
limits in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, the owner or operator 
shall calculate hourly SO<INF>2</INF> emissions using all raw material 
sulfur charged into each affected emission unit and assume 100 percent 
conversion of total sulfur to SO<INF>2</INF>. The owner or operator 
shall implement a compliance assurance plan (CAP) for all units except 
Boilerhouse 2 and any idled units that shall specify the calculation 
methodology, procedures, and inputs used in these calculations and 
submit the plan to EPA within 30 days after the effective date of the 
FIP. The owner or operator must submit a list of idled units to EPA 
within 30 days of the effective date of the FIP. The owner or operator 
must submit a CAP for any idled units prior to resuming operations.
    (5) Recordkeeping. The owner/operator shall maintain the following 
records continuously for five years beginning on the effective date of 
the FIP:
    (i) All records of production for each affected emission unit.
    (ii) All records of hourly emissions calculated in accordance with 
the CAP.
    (iii) In accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section, all CEMS 
data, including the date, place, and time of sampling or measurement; 
parameters sampled or measured; and results.
    (iv) Records of quality assurance and quality control activities 
for emission monitoring systems including, but not limited to, any 
records required by 40 CFR part 60 appendix F Procedure 1.
    (v) Records of all major maintenance activities performed on 
emission units, air pollution control equipment, CEMS, and other 
production measurement devices.
    (vi) Any other records required by the Quality Assurance 
Requirements for Gas Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems Used for 
Compliance Determination rule at 40 CFR part 60 appendix F Procedure 1 
or the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities rule at 40 CFR part 
63 Subpart FFFFF.
    (6) Reporting. Beginning on the effective date of the FIP, all 
reports under this section shall be submitted quarterly to Compliance 
Tracker, Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Branch, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Mail Code AE-17J, 77 W 
Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3590.
    (i) The owner or operator shall submit a CAP in accordance with 
paragraph (b)(4) of this section within 30 days of the effective date 
of the FIP.
    (ii) The owner or operator shall report CEMS data and hourly mass 
balance calculations quarterly in accordance with CEMS requirements in 
paragraph (b)(3) of this section and the CAP requirements set forth in 
paragraph (b)(4) of this section no later than the 30th day following 
the end of each calendar quarter.
    (iii) The owner or operator shall report the results of the initial 
compliance test for the Boilerhouse 2 stack within 60 days of 
conducting the test.
    (iv) The owner or operator shall submit quarterly excess emissions 
reports for all units identified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of 
this section no later than the 30th day following the end of each 
calendar quarter. Excess emissions means emissions that exceed the 
emission limits specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The 
reports shall include the magnitude, date(s), and duration of each 
period of excess emissions, specific identification of each period of 
excess emissions that occurs during all periods of operation including 
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the unit, the nature and cause 
of any malfunction (if known), and the corrective action taken or 
preventative measures adopted.
    (v) The owner or operator of each unit shall submit quarterly CEMS 
performance reports, to include dates and duration of each period 
during which the CEMS was inoperative (except for zero and span 
adjustments and calibration checks), reason(s) why the CEMS was 
inoperative and steps taken to prevent recurrence, and any CEMS repairs 
or adjustments no later than the 30th day following the end of each 
calendar quarter.
    (vi) The owner or operator shall also submit results of any CEMS 
performance tests required by 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, Procedure 1 
(e.g., Relative Accuracy Test Audits, Relative Accuracy Audits, and 
Cylinder Gas Audits) no later than 30 days after the test is performed.
    (vii) When no excess emissions have occurred or the CEMS has not 
been inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during the reporting period, 
such information shall be stated in the quarterly reports required by 
paragraph (b)(6) of this section.(c) This section addresses and 
satisfies CAA section 172 requirements for the Detroit SO<INF>2</INF> 
nonattainment area by specifying the necessary emission limits and 
other control measures applicable to the EES Coke facility. This 
section applies to the owner and operator of the facility located at 
1400 Zug Island Road in Detroit, Michigan.
    (1) SO2 Emission Limits. Beginning on the effective date of the 
FIP, no owner or operator shall emit SO<INF>2</INF> from the Underfire 
Combustion Stack EUCoke-Battery in excess of 544.6 lbs/hr, as a 3-hour 
average, or 2,071 tons per year, on a 12-month rolling basis as 
determined at the end of each calendar month, or 0.702 pounds per 1,000 
standard cubic feet of coke oven gas, as a 1-hour average.
    (2) Monitoring requirements. The owner or operator shall maintain 
and operate in a satisfactory manner a device to monitor and record the 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the Underfire Combustion Stack EUCoke-
Battery on a continuous basis. The owner or operator shall use 
Continuous Emission Rate Monitoring (CERM) data for determining 
compliance with the hourly limit in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. 
The owner or operator shall operate the CERM system in conformance with 
40 CFR part 60 Appendix F.
    (d) This section addresses and satisfies CAA section 172 
requirements

[[Page 33109]]

for the Detroit SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area by specifying the 
necessary emission limits and other control measures applicable to the 
Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation (formerly AK or Severstal Steel) 
facility. This section applies to the owner and operator of the 
facility located at 4001 Miller Road in Dearborn, Michigan.
    (1) SO2 Emission Limits. Beginning on the effective date of the 
FIP, no owner or operator shall emit SO<INF>2</INF> from the following 
units in excess of the following limits:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Unit                             SO2 emission limit            Time period/operating scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``B'' Blast Furnace Baghouse Stack......  71.9 lbs/hr.........................  Calendar day average.
``B'' Blast Furnace Stove Stack.........  38.75 lbs/hr........................  Calendar day average.
``B'' Blast Furnace Baghouse and Stove    77.8 lbs/hr.........................  Calendar day average.
 Stacks (combined).
``B'' Blast Furnace Baghouse and Stove    340 tons per year...................  12-month rolling time period as
 Stacks (combined).                                                              determined at the end of each
                                                                                 calendar month.
``C'' Blast Furnace Baghouse Stack......  179.65 lbs/hr.......................  Calendar day average.
``C'' Blast Furnace Stove Stack.........  193.6 lbs/hr........................  Calendar day average.
``C'' Blast Furnace Baghouse and Stove    271.4 lbs/hr........................  Calendar day average.
 Stacks (combined).
``C'' Blast Furnace Baghouse and Stove    1188 tons per year..................  12-month rolling time period as
 Stacks (combined).                                                              determined at the end of each
                                                                                 calendar month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Monitoring Requirements. The owner or operator shall maintain 
and operate in a satisfactory manner a device to monitor and record the 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and flow from ``B'' Blast Furnace and ``C'' 
Blast Furnace Baghouse and Stove Stacks on a continuous basis. The 
owner or operator shall use CERM data for determining compliance with 
the hourly limits in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The owner or 
operator shall operate the CERM system in conformance with 40 CFR part 
60 Appendix F.
    (e) This section addresses and satisfies CAA section 172 
requirements for the Detroit SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area by 
specifying the necessary emission limits and other control measures 
applicable to the Dearborn Industrial Generation (DIG) facility. This 
section applies to the owner and operator of the facility located at 
2400 Miller Road in Dearborn, Michigan.
    (1) SO2 Emission Limits.
    (i) Beginning on the effective date of the FIP, no owner or 
operator shall emit SO<INF>2</INF> from the following units in excess 
of the following limits:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Unit                              SO2 emission limit            Time period/operating scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boilers 1, 2, and 3 (combined)..........  420 lbs/hr...........................  Daily average.
Boilers 1, 2, and 3 (combined)..........  1,839.6 tons per year................  12-month rolling time period.
Boilers 1, 2, and 3 and Flares 1 and 2    840 lbs/hr...........................  Daily average.
 (combined).
Boilers 1, 2, and 3 and Flares 1 and 2    2,947.7 tons per year................  12-month rolling time period as
 (combined).                                                                      determined at the end of each
                                                                                  calendar month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Monitoring Requirements. The owner or operator shall maintain 
and operate in a satisfactory manner a device to monitor and record the 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from Boilers 1, 2, and 3 on a continuous 
basis. Installation and operation of each CEMS shall meet the 
timelines, requirements and reporting detailed in 40 CFR part 60 
Appendix F. If the owner or operator chooses to use a Predictive 
Emissions Monitoring System (PEMS) in lieu of a CEMS to monitor 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, the permittee shall follow the protocol 
delineated in Performance Specification 16 in Appendix B of 40 CFR part 
60.

[FR Doc. 2022-11269 Filed 5-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>