Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
2. Follow directions—EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
On September 2, 2011, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) submitted to EPA for approval a revision to the Michigan SIP consisting of amendments to Michigan Air Pollution Control Rules, Part 18, PSD, and Part 19, PSD for major sources. Specifically, Michigan submitted a revision to modify Michigan Air Pollution Control Rule R. 336.2816 to
EPA is proposing to approve Michigan's request to revise its SIP to add rule R. 336.2816 to be consistent with Federal PSD regulations in 40 CFR 51.166(p), that require state PSD programs to have a mechanism in place to coordinate and consult with Federal land managers of Class I PSD Areas. On September 16, 2008, EPA proposed to disapprove R 336.2816 from Michigan's SIP submittal because it did not provide for such a mechanism. Michigan has now revised R. 336.2816 to be consistent with the Federal requirement. With this change, EPA is proposing to fully approve the revised R. 336.2816 for its PSD program. On March 25, 2010, EPA published a direct final approval to convert a conditional approval of the Michigan PSD SIP to full approval under section 110 of the CAA. In that notice, EPA stated that we would be taking a separate action on rule R. 336.2816(2) through (4)(requirements relating to Class I Areas).
EPA is not proposing to approve Michigan's request to revise its SIP by adding requirements for a significance level for PM
EPA is also proposing to approve the removal of R. 336.2830 and R. 336.2910 from the Michigan SIP. Appeals of state permit actions will be handled through the state's appeal process.
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. 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• 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
• 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 Clean Air Act; 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
In May 2011, EPA issued its policy on consultation and coordination with Indian tribes. EPA explained that its policy is to consult on a government to government basis with Federally recognized tribal governments when EPA actions and decisions may affect tribal interests. Accordingly, EPA sent an invitation to consult with potentially interested tribes, and subsequently engaged in consultation with representatives of the Forest County Potawatomi Community regarding the Michigan proposed SIP revisions.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401