SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

I. What action is EPA taking?

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

EPA is approving 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 January 9, 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.

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 action, EPA stated that we would be taking a separate action on rule R. 336.2816(2) through (4), (requirements relating to Class I areas). Michigan has now revised R. 336.2816 to be consistent with the Federal requirement.

EPA is not acting on Michigan's request to revise its SIP by adding a significance level for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM_2.5). EPA has established a significance threshold to limit the applicability of PSD and NSR regulations to sources with emissions above the significance level. To be consistent with the Federal requirements, Michigan amended R. 336.2801 and R. 336.2901 to add the significance threshold for PM_2.5 . Because Michigan is planning to submit additional state rules as revisions to its SIP for precursors of PM_2.5, EPA will defer action on this matter.

II. 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. 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 underExecutive 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 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 inExecutive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject toExecutive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject toExecutive 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 ( printed page 56125)
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, underExecutive 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 (FCPC) regarding the Michigan proposed SIP revisions.

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 November 13, 2012. 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).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

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

2. In § 52.1170, the table in paragraph (c) entitled “EPA—Approved Michigan Regulations” is amended by adding a new entry in numerical order for Part 18 to read as follows: