[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 7, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69173-69178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26471]



40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0385; FRL-8826-02-R5]

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Sulfur Dioxide Clean Data 
Determination for St. Clair

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.


SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making a 
determination that the St. Clair sulfur dioxide (SO2) 
nonattainment area has attained the 2010 primary SO2 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (2010 SO2 NAAQS). This 
determination suspends certain planning requirements and sanctions for 
the nonattainment area for as long as the area continues to attain the 
2010 SO2 NAAQS. EPA proposed this action on August 17, 2021, 
and received four supportive comments and one set of adverse comments.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 7, 2021.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0385. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility 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. We recommend that you telephone Mary 
Portanova, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 353-5954 before visiting 
the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Portanova, Environmental 
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-5954, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever

[[Page 69174]]

``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background Information

    On August 17, 2021 (86 FR 45947), EPA proposed to determine that 
the St. Clair SO2 nonattainment area (St. Clair area) has 
attained the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. This determination, also known 
as a Clean Data Determination (CDD), would suspend certain planning 
requirements for the nonattainment area for as long as the area 
continues to attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. EPA also proposed to 
require the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy 
(EGLE) to submit annual statements to address whether the St. Clair 
area has continued to attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. A detailed 
analysis of EPA's proposed decision was provided in the August 17, 
2021, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and will not be restated 
here. The public comment period for this NPRM ended on September 16, 
2021. EPA received five comment submittals on the proposed action.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received two anonymous comments and two comments from citizens, 
all in support of EPA's action. EPA acknowledges these supportive 
comments. EPA also received a detailed comment document from the Sierra 
Club (``the commenter''), which includes adverse comments on EPA's 
proposed action. EPA is addressing these comments below. EPA notes that 
the commenter frequently refers to information given in an EGLE 
document which was not part of EGLE's July 24, 2020, CDD submittal. The 
document is entitled ``Proposed Sulfur Dioxide One-Hour National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard State Implementation Plan (SIP) for St. 
Clair County Nonattainment Area,'' dated October 7, 2019. EPA will 
refer to this document as the ``2019 draft.'' The commenter claimed 
that this document was submitted to EPA in 2019 for approval and has 
requested that if there is a final version of the document, that it be 
added to the docket for this action, but in fact, neither the ``2019 
draft'' nor any final version of the ``2019 draft'' document was 
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision or as part of EGLE's CDD request. 
EPA considers the ``2019 draft'' document and its contents to be a 
draft State product which predated and has limited relevance to EGLE's 
July 24, 2020, CDD request. EPA has no final version of the ``2019 
draft'' to docket, but will retain the ``2019 draft'' in Docket ID No. 
EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0385 as an exhibit attached to Sierra Club's comment.
    Comment A: At several places in the Sierra Club comment document, 
the commenter suggests that certain emission reductions which have been 
discussed or imposed in the time since the St. Clair area was 
designated nonattainment should be evaluated for adequacy to provide 
for full attainment or imposed quickly under a State or Federal plan to 
provide for healthy air. The commenter additionally requests that EGLE 
should perform various new modeling analyses either before the CDD is 
finalized, or during the time that the CDD is in place. These requested 
analyses would be used to show whether further State regulations are 
needed to bring healthy air into the St. Clair area. The commenter also 
states that EPA should not allow delays in achieving healthy air in the 
St. Clair area.
    Response A: In its August 17, 2021, NPRM, EPA presented evidence 
and proposed to find that the St. Clair area has attained the 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS as of 2017-2020. To the extent that the commenter 
is asserting that additional measures must be adopted in order for the 
area to attain the NAAQS, we do not agree. The CDD would cause no 
delays, as the St. Clair area and surrounding communities have already 
demonstrated air quality values that meet the health-based NAAQS. 
Therefore, Clean Air Act (CAA) planning requirements for nonattainment 
areas can be suspended under a CDD, and no further analyses or emission 
reduction actions are required of EGLE at this time. As stated in the 
proposal, EGLE will be required to provide demonstrations on an annual 
basis that the area continues to attain the NAAQS, and if EPA 
determines in the future that the area is no longer attaining the 
NAAQS, the CDD would be rescinded.
    Comment B: The commenter asserted that EGLE's request for a CDD 
relied on the assumption that the St. Clair plant's expected closure 
will allow the State to formally demonstrate attainment, despite the 
emissions from the Belle River plant and a new gas power plant. The 
commenter stated that this assumption has not been tested and should be 
tested before moving ahead with the CDD. The commenter stated that 
nothing in the CAA allows EPA to suspend immediate action in 
anticipation of emission reductions accompanying a plant retirement 
that is still more than a year away.
    Response B: The plan to close the St. Clair plant in 2022 was not a 
factor which EGLE or EPA relied upon to justify the determination of 
attainment. EGLE's CDD request relied on actual emissions and 
monitoring data, and a finding that the area is attaining the NAAQS 
based on those emissions and monitoring data. In finalizing a CDD, EPA 
is suspending the CAA obligation to submit attainment planning 
requirements because the area is currently attaining the standard, 
regardless of any anticipated future emission reductions, including the 
planned plant retirement. EPA does not agree that additional modeling 
analyses are required at this time for EPA to find that this area is 
currently attaining and to finalize the CDD. Such analyses that the 
commenter is requesting might instead be expected in a future 
redesignation request or nonattainment SIP. It is worth noting that 
although the St. Clair CDD is already fully supported by air quality 
data, if a coal power plant were to permanently and enforceably close 
in the St. Clair area, any actual SO2 emission decreases 
that occur would only help the area stay in attainment under the CDD 
and help provide a path forward to eventual redesignation of the area 
to attainment.
    Comment C: The commenter stated that EPA should ensure it is not 
delaying action that may be needed to demonstrate that the area is 
meeting the NAAQS based not only on actual emissions, which can 
increase, but on allowable emissions. The commenter stated that EPA 
should determine if further action will be needed following St. Clair's 
retirement, and if so, EGLE should be developing additional measures 
now, rather than waiting until a monitoring violation occurs and the 
CDD must be rescinded. Waiting to restart the process of developing 
needed measures until after rescission of the CDD would cause delays.
    Response C: The St. Clair area is currently meeting the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS and therefore, EPA may finalize this CDD. 
Enforceable allowable emission limits would be expected in a subsequent 
redesignation request. Again, however, EPA does not require additional 
action from EGLE for the St. Clair area while the CDD is in place and 
the area continues to attain the standards.
    Comment D: The commenter stated that EPA's NPRM does not explicitly 
address whether the DTE monitors meet the criteria in 40 CFR part 58, 
appendices A, C, and E; whether EGLE submitted relevant information for 
EPA to make this assessment, and whether relying on this data is 
consistent with other treatment of third-party monitoring.
    Response D: As stated in the NPRM, EPA reviewed monitoring data and 
evidence that quality assurance activities had been performed. EPA

[[Page 69175]]

monitoring experts found that the third-party monitoring network and 
the data quality at the St. Clair area monitors are consistent with EPA 
requirements and are acceptable to rely upon to characterize air 
quality in the St. Clair area. The NPRM inadvertently omitted specific 
reference to a letter EGLE submitted to EPA on October 28, 2020, which 
provides EGLE's confirmation that the two industrial SO2 
monitoring sites operated by DTE meet the quality assurance and siting 
requirements in 40 CFR part 58, appendix A and D, respectively. This 
letter has been added to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0385. 
Additionally, the SO2 monitoring methods used at these two 
monitoring sites are reference or equivalent methods as defined in 40 
CFR part 50.
    Comment E: The commenter expressed concern that the two DTE 
monitors could be missing maximum concentrations of the SO2 
plume. The commenter cited diagrams from modeling results shown in the 
``2019 draft.'' The commenter stated that diagrams in this document 
appear to indicate an additional area of high modeled concentrations in 
the St. Clair area which does not currently contain a monitor. The 
commenter asked EPA to consider how to obtain monitoring results from 
that third location.
    Response E: As previously stated, EPA relied on the modeling 
analysis in EGLE's July 24, 2020 CDD submittal, which used actual 
facility SO2 emissions and an updated meteorological data 
set from Pontiac, Michigan, 2017-2019. This meteorology was determined 
to be more complete and more representative of the St. Clair area than 
other available meteorological datasets which EGLE had considered or 
used earlier in its other work for the St. Clair area. The CDD modeling 
of 2017-2019 actual emissions which EGLE submitted indicated that the 
highest modeled concentrations tended to occur most frequently near the 
Remer monitor location. EPA's ``SO2 NAAQS Designations 
Source-Oriented Monitoring Technical Assistance Document'' 
(SO2 Monitoring TAD) considers both high relative magnitude 
of modeled results, and the frequency of a location experiencing 
maximum values, in helping to choose appropriate monitoring sites. The 
third location in the St. Clair area northwest of the plants, which the 
commenter appears to refer to, does not appear as a location of higher 
concentrations than the monitored locations in EGLE's CDD modeling 
analysis. The CDD's modeled values in the northwest location are 
similar to but lower than the CDD's modeled values in the area of 
maximum concentration near the Remer monitor's location. EPA is 
satisfied that the two DTE monitors provide a reasonable representation 
of the maximum impacts from the two St. Clair sources and that the 
imposition of a third monitor is not justified by current information.
    Comment F: The commenter noted that the Belle River plant had a 7-
month outage in 2019 and stated that EPA does not address how this 
outage affects its assessment that the 2017-2019 monitoring data 
represents three full years, particularly in the warmer months, or 
whether the outage skewed the results of the modeling so that it is not 
representative of maximum SO2 emissions observed during 
typical operations.
    Response F: The Belle River plant did have outages at Unit 1 from 
February 2019 to June 2019; from November 2019 to December 2019, and 
from January 2020 to February 2020, which led to an overall emission 
reduction of over 6,000 tons of SO2. These outages would not 
affect most of the warmer months in the St. Clair area, so presumably 
the ambient air concentrations measured at the DTE monitors during the 
summer and early fall of 2019 would represent normal expected 
conditions for that year.
    The monitoring data used to support the CDD represents actual 
ambient air quality during 2017-2019. Air quality monitoring data can 
reflect fluctuations in source operating conditions, meteorology, and 
other factors. The Belle River plant Unit 1 outage does not invalidate 
the monitoring data. The use of three years of data to calculate a 
monitor's design value also helps balance variations in emissions and 
other factors. In addition, the CDD is supported by modeling of actual 
current facility emissions (in this case, 2017-2019), in order to 
demonstrate that the NAAQS are attained. The analysis is not intended 
to evaluate only maximum typical emissions. EPA believes it is 
appropriate to model the true actual emissions for the modeling period, 
which encompassed the most recent three years of data available when 
the CDD was requested.
    Comment G: The commenter noted that EGLE had used a single 
background value in its modeling for the initial nonattainment 
designation recommendation for the St. Clair area, but later revised 
the background concentration to a set of lower values for the ``2019 
draft'' and another set of background values in the CDD submittal. The 
commenter questioned EGLE's claim that approximately 90 hours of data 
were considered in each season and asked that EPA explain the 
appropriateness of the final background values EGLE used. The commenter 
asked that EGLE's background spreadsheet be added to the CDD action's 
docket record and inquired whether EPA limits the number of hours or 
wind sectors that can be excluded from a background data set.
    Response G: Dispersion modeling analysis can be an iterative 
process, in which initial conservative input data is later evaluated to 
better reflect actual ambient air conditions within the modeling 
domain, or more accurate emissions and facility configuration data at 
the modeled sources. Such adjustments can provide for more appropriate 
and accurate results. In its initial nonattainment recommendation 
analysis of the St. Clair area's 2012-2014 SO2 emissions 
submitted on September 18, 2015, Michigan chose a conservative Tier I 
background value. Based in part on the results of the modeling 
analysis, the State recommended to EPA that the St. Clair area be 
designated nonattainment. These modeling results were also used to help 
suggest boundaries for the St. Clair nonattainment area. Having made 
its nonattainment recommendation, Michigan did not decide to further 
refine its 2015 modeling or the background value it used.
    However, EPA concurs with EGLE that additional refinement of input 
data such as background concentrations can be part of an acceptable 
approach to support future planning, or to characterize an area's air 
quality. The background analysis EGLE submitted with its July 24, 2020, 
CDD submittal used monitored ambient air quality data from 2017-2019 at 
the Port Huron monitor, selected by season and hour of day with wind 
direction exclusions to avoid double-counting of the St. Clair plants' 
impacts and to avoid overestimating SO2 impacts from 
facilities closer to the background monitor which would not be expected 
to actually impact the St. Clair area when winds came from their 
locations. EPA accepted this approach, which is a commonly used method 
of addressing background in SO2 modeling analyses, fully 
supported by EPA's modeling guidance. The background values used in the 
CDD submittal work come from a newer set of air quality data than the 
background values in the ``2019 draft,'' which may help explain the 
difference between the data sets cited by the commenter. The actual 
number of acceptable background exclusions depends on the wind patterns 
experienced at the Port Huron monitor, and is not specifically limited 
by EPA guidance as long as the monitor meets

[[Page 69176]]

EPA's data completeness requirements, which Port Huron's monitor does. 
EGLE may not have had 90 hours in every season due to exclusions, but 
EPA finds that EGLE's background calculations are generally 
conservative and acceptable in the modeled evaluation submitted with 
EGLE's CDD request. EPA has added EGLE's background spreadsheet to 
Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0385.
    Additionally, EPA calculated a much more conservative Tier I 
background calculation which used the first high concentration to 
determine one background value for each year 2017-2019. This resulted 
in the values 7.5 parts per billion (ppb), 6.5 ppb, and 14.4 ppb for 
2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively, for a three-year averaged 
background value of 9.5 ppb. Adding this Tier 1 background value of 9.5 
ppb to the CDD modeled design concentration of 64.4 ppb (which already 
included the season by hour of day values, embedded in the final 
modeled result) gives a total, very conservative design value of 73.9 
ppb, which double counts background but is still below the NAAQS. EPA 
does not intend to impose this Tier I background value upon EGLE's 
submitted analysis, but only finds that EGLE's analysis would still 
show attainment, even if the submitted background values were rejected.
    Comment H: EGLE does not state what years the Port Huron data is 
from on page 4 of its CDD submittal.
    Response H: EGLE's table on page 4 of its CDD submittal indicates 
that the Port Huron background data was from 2017-2019.
    Comment I: The commenter noted that the NPRM appeared to reverse 
the 2017-2019 monitor values which EPA cited as indicating that the 
modeling and monitoring results matched well near the monitor 
    Response I: EPA acknowledges that there is an error in the 
narrative on page 45949 of the NPRM. The values in Table 1 and the 
comparison of modeled to monitored design values at each monitor are 
correct as given in the NPRM. The correct wording on page 45949 of the 
NPRM should be ``The model's predicted design value at the Mills 
monitor location was 47.7 ppb, compared to the monitored design value 
of 45 ppb, and the model's predicted design value at the Remer monitor 
location was 52.7 ppb, compared to the monitored design value of 54 
    Comment J: The commenter stated that if EPA finds that the area is 
not meeting the NAAQS after reviewing these comments, it should move 
forward with a Federal Implementation Plan.
    Response J: EPA believes that EGLE has adequately demonstrated that 
the St. Clair area is currently meeting the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 
If it is necessary to rescind the CDD in future, EPA will follow the 
requirements of the CAA.
    Comment K: The commenter said that EPA should bolster its plan for 
oversight of the area's continued compliance with the NAAQS with 
requirements for data submittals on a more frequent basis than an 
annual report, such as monthly or bimonthly. The commenter also 
requested that EPA require the DTE monitors to run at least until the 
area is redesignated, not just until the St. Clair plant closes.
    Response K: Areas may verify continued attainment of the NAAQS 
using air quality monitoring data, which is certified on an annual 
basis. EPA's inclusion of a requirement that EGLE submit an annual 
report demonstrating the area's continued attainment permits the State 
to provide relevant information to support such a finding, including 
monitoring data, emissions data, or other information. This approach is 
reasonable given the combination of monitoring and modeling data 
supporting this final CDD. Moreover, the annual basis for the required 
demonstration mirrors the certification schedule for air quality 
monitoring data. We therefore think it represents a reasonable interval 
for EGLE's reporting requirement. The NPRM (page 45948) proposed to 
require EGLE to submit an annual statement to EPA addressing whether 
the St. Clair area is continuing to attain the 2010 SO2 
NAAQS. This is a new requirement intended to bolster and formalize the 
continuing verification of the area's air quality. EPA does not believe 
that it is necessary to further modify its proposed schedule for more 
frequent formal reports from EGLE. EGLE uploads new monitoring data to 
EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database frequently. Nothing in the CDD 
precludes EGLE from routinely reviewing its available air quality 
information on a short-term basis.
    EPA will work with EGLE to ensure that the Mills and Remer monitors 
continue to operate at least until a full redesignation of the St. 
Clair area occurs.
    After careful consideration of public comments, EPA is finalizing 
the August 17, 2021, proposed finding that the St. Clair area is 
attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. EPA is therefore also 
finalizing the CDD for the St. Clair nonattainment area.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving EGLE's request for a CDD for the St. Clair 
nonattainment area in St. Clair County, Michigan. The nonattainment 
area consists of a portion of southeastern St. Clair County, Michigan, 
located northeast of Detroit. The nonattainment area shares a border 
with Ontario, Canada along the St. Clair River. The area's complete 
boundary description can be found at 40 CFR 81.323. EPA's final 
determination suspends the requirements for EGLE to submit an 
attainment demonstration and other associated nonattainment planning 
requirements for the St. Clair nonattainment area so long as the St. 
Clair area continues to attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 
Finalizing this action does not constitute a redesignation of the St. 
Clair area to attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS under section 
107(d)(3) of the CAA. The St. Clair area will remain designated 
nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS until such time as EPA 
determines that the area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation 
to attainment and takes action to redesignate the area.
    As noted in the proposal on this action, sanctions clocks were 
started on October 21, 2019, for the State's failure to submit all 
components of the SO2 part D nonattainment area SIP, 
including the emissions inventory, attainment demonstration, reasonably 
available control measures (RACM) including reasonably available 
control technology (RACT), enforceable emission limitations and control 
measures, reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, nonattainment new 
source review (NNSR), and contingency measures.
    With the approval of this CDD, only the emissions inventory and 
NNSR--i.e., the non-planning requirements--need to be addressed. EPA 
found EGLE's June 30, 2021, submittal of the St. Clair area's emissions 
inventory and NNSR elements complete in a letter dated October 7, 2021. 
On October 26, 2021, (86 FR 59073), EPA proposed to approve EGLE's June 
30, 2021, submittal of the St. Clair area's emissions inventory and 
NNSR elements. Therefore, a complete submittal has been made by the 
State addressing the finding of failure to submit and, as a result, 
both the NNSR 2:1 offset sanctions and highway funding sanctions that 
were in place are now suspended as long as the area continues to 
demonstrate it is attaining the NAAQS.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure 
Act (APA), EPA finds there is good cause for

[[Page 69177]]

these actions to become effective immediately upon publication. The 
immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 
U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
    Section 553(d)(1) of the APA provides that final rules shall not 
become effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal 
Register ``except . . . a substantive rule which grants or recognizes 
an exemption or relieves a restriction.'' The purpose of this provision 
is to ``give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their 
behavior before the final rule takes effect.'' Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed. 
Commc'n Comm'n, 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see also United 
States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir. 1977) (quoting 
legislative history). However, when the agency grants or recognizes an 
exemption or relieves a restriction, affected parties do not need a 
reasonable time to adjust because the effect is not adverse. EPA has 
determined that this rule relieves a restriction because it relieves 
the State of planning requirements. This action has no effect on the 
sources in the nonattainment area, as the area will continue to be 
nonattainment and therefore continue to be subject to NNSR permitting 
    Section 553(d)(3) of the APA provides that final rules shall not 
become effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal 
Register ``except . . . as otherwise provided by the agency for good 
cause.'' The purpose of this provision is to ``give affected parties a 
reasonable time to adjust their behavior before the final rule takes 
effect.'' Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed. Commc'n Comm'n, 78 F.3d 620, 630 
(D.C. Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 
1104 (8th Cir. 1977) (quoting legislative history). Thus, in 
determining whether good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay, an 
agency should ``balance the necessity for immediate implementation 
against principles of fundamental fairness which require that all 
affected persons be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare for 
the effective date of its ruling.'' Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d at 1105. EPA 
has determined that there is good cause for making this final rule 
effective immediately because this rule does not create any new 
regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to 
prepare before the rule takes effect. For these reasons, EPA finds good 
cause under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for this 
action to become effective on the date of publication of this action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by February 7, 2022. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: December 1, 2021.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 
as follows:


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

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

2. In Sec.  52.1170, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an 
entry for ``2010 Sulfur Dioxide Clean Data Determination'' immediately 
after the entry for ``List of permit applications; list of consent 
order public notices; notice, opportunity for public comment

[[Page 69178]]

and public hearing required for certain permit actions'' to read as 

Sec.  52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
   Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or         State       EPA Approval date          Comments
           provision             nonattainment area  submittal date
                                                  * * * * * * *
2010 Sulfur Dioxide Clean Data   St. Clair area....       7/24/2020  12/7/2021, [INSERT  EPA's final
 Determination.                                                       FEDERAL REGISTER    determination suspends
                                                                      CITATION].          the requirements for
                                                                                          EGLE to submit an
                                                                                          demonstration and
                                                                                          other associated
                                                                                          nonattainment planning
                                                                                          requirements for the
                                                                                          St. Clair
                                                                                          nonattainment area
                                                                                          requirements for the
                                                                                          nonattainment area for
                                                                                          as long as the area
                                                                                          continues to attain
                                                                                          the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
                                                  * * * * * * *

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-26471 Filed 12-6-21; 8:45 am]