## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 2582 S TATE OF M I CHI GAN, P etitio ner, v. U NI T ED S TATE S E NVI R ONME NT AL P R OT EC T I ON A GE NCY, R es pond ent, an d
F ORES T C O UN TY P OT A WA T OM I C OM MUN ITY, Inte rve nor-Respondent.

Pe tition fo r Review o f the FinalA dm inis trativ e Rul ingso f the United States Environmental Protection Agency .
A RG UE D M AR CH 30, 2009

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 9, 2009

Befo re K ANN E , W OOD an d W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C irc u i t Judge. Th e c u ltu ra l an d relig iou s t ra d iti o ns o fthe F o r es t Cou nty Po ta wat o m iCo m m uni ty( “the Com m unity”) o ften r equi re the u se o fpure natura lr e-2 N o. 08

- 2582

sou rces d erived from a c le a n env ironm en t. M an y years ag o , the Co m m uni tyb ec ame a l ar m ed byi nc reasi ng po l l ut i o n l evel s i n i ts l ak es , wet l an ds, a nd f o r es ts
. To r emedy thi s pr o bl em, i t su bmi tt ed a r eque stt o the Envi ro nm entalPro tection A gency( “EPA ”) to r edesi gnate cer tain tr iball ands fro m Cl ass I Ito Cl ass Ist atus und er the Pr eve nti on o fS i gni fi cant Deter i or ati on ( “PSD”) pro gr am o fthe Clea n A i r A ct ( “the A ct”)
. Thi s would have the e ffect ofi m p os i ng st ri cterai r quali ty contr ol s o n em itti ng sourc es in and aroun d th e C om m un ity’s re desi gnate d l ands. A fter near l y fi ftee n yea rs of adm i ni str ati ve proce edi ngs and dispu te r eso l uti on e ff or ts between the Com m unity an d ne i g hb o r i ngW i sc o ns i n ( whi chwer e su cc es sful ) a nd M i chi gan ( w hi ch w er e not) , the EPA prom ulg ated a final rul i ng r edesi gnating the Com m unity’ s l ands to C las s I sta tus. I t a l so i ssued two co m panio n announ c em en ts concl ud i ng di spute r eso lu tio n proc eedi ngs with W i sc onsi n and M i chi gan. M i chi gan s eek s r evi ew o fthes e th r ee fi na la dm i ni st r at i ve r uling s. I t as se r ts tha t th e EPA pu rsu ed the re desi gnati on in an i m properm anner an d , as a res u lt, n ee d les sly co m p lica t e d M ich iga n ’s a ir qua li ty contr olpro gr am s. Because M i chi gan l acks sta nd i ng to pursue these cl aim s, w e di sm i ss i ts peti ti on f o r r e v i e w.

I A The A ct, 42 U
. S. C. §§ 7401

- 7617 q, es tabl ishes a co m prehensi ve prog ra m f orairqual i ty contr oland author i zesN o. 08

- 2582 3 the EPA to adm i ni ste r i t. 42 U .S
. C. § 7 601( a) ( 1)
. U nd er the Act, t he EPA m ust i denti fy a i r pol l utants that endangerpubli c h ea l th and w el f ar e a nd m ust for m ula te N ational A m bient A ir Q ua li ty S t an d ard s (“N A A Q S”), w hi ch speci fy a i r quali ty cri ter i a, co ntro lte chniq u es, an d th e m ax im u m p os sib le c on c en t r at ion of va riou s a ir pol l utants. 42 U
. S. C. §§ 7408

- 09. The pur p ose o fthe PS D pr o g r am i s to pr es er ve the N A A Q S w h er e t h e y h av e b ee n m et . 42 U .S.C . § 74 71 . I t op er at es p rim ar ily th r o u gh a p er m itt in g s ys te m . A

“ m ajor em itti ng f acili ty,” defined at 42 U
. S. C
. § 7479(1), m ust obtain a per m i t be f or e ini ti ating const ructi on o f a n e w f a c i l i ty o r mo di fy i nga n e xi s t i ngf a c i l i t y . 4 2 U. S
. C. § 74 75 ( a) ( 1)
. In order to s ec ur e su cha pe r m i t, the em i ttin g s ourc e m ust dem onst ra te thro ugh ai r quali ty m o del i ngtha t i t wi l lno t ca us e o r c o nt r ibut e to the ( A) m a x i mu m a l l o w ab l e i n c r e a s e o r m a x i mu m a l l o wabl e co ncentr ati on f orany pol l utant in any ar ea to w hich this pa r t ap p li es m ore tha n on e tim e pe r year, (B ) n at ion al a m b ien t a ir qu alit y s ta n d a rd in a n y a ir q u alit y c on tr ol r eg ion, or (C ) an y ot h er ap p lica b le em i ssi on s tandard o r sta nd ar d ofperfor m ance und erthi s Act. 42 U
. S. C. § 74 75 (a) ( 3)
. U nd erthe PSD prog ra m , an a re a i s de s i g na t e d a s Cl a s s I, I I, o r II I , w i thCl a s s Il a nd s bei ng tho se f orwh i ch ai r quali ty i s m ostpro tected . 4 2 U. S
. C. § 747 3. Thu s, it is mor e di ffi cul t f o r e m i tt i ng sou rces in th e vicinity ofa C la s s Iarea to obtain a PSD perm i t. M ucho fthe PS D p rog r am i s i m pl ement ed bythe St ate s thro ugh St ate I m ple m entat i on Pl ans ( “SI P”) , wh i ch4 N o. 08

- 2582 conta i n a s et ofS tat e- prom ulg ate d and E PA

- approve d re gu lat ion s. 42 U .S.C . § 74 10 . I f a St at e h as n otye t p ro m u lga t e d i t s o wn S I P, o r i fthe EP A ha s n o ta pp r o v ed a pro posed S I P, the EPA wil li ssue a F edera lI m ple m entati o n Pl a n ( “ F I P” ) , wh i c h wi l lg o v e r n the i mpl e men tat i on of t h e PSD prog ra m unti lthe St ate cr eat es a va l i d SI P. 42 U. S
. C. § 741 0( c)
. Indi anTr ibe s ar e g en er al l y t r ea te d the sa m e as S ta te s unde r the Act( with s o m e ex ce pti o ns note d i n 40 C.F.R . § 4 9.4 )
. Thi s m eans that they m ay i m pl ementthe PS D pr o g r am o n the i r l an ds thr o ug h a Tr iba lI m pl ement at ion Pl an( “T I P” ) , whi chi s an al o g o us to a S I P. 42 U
. S. C. § 7 601( d). J ust a s with St at es , if a Tribe do es no t cr ea te a v al i d i m pl ement at i o n pl an, the EPA w ill pr om u lga te a FIP to gov e r n t h e t rib al la n d s u n til the T rib e c r e a t e s a v a l i d T I P, i fa nd wh e n i twi s he s t o do so. 40 C. F. R. § 49. 11. Both a St ate and a Tr ibe a re autho riz ed to r edesi gnate l a nd withi n the i r b o un da r i e s t o Cl a s s Is t a t us . 4 2 U. S
. C. § 7474( a ) , ( c )
. R e de s i g na t i o n r e qu i r e s tha tthe S t a t e o r Tr ibe ho l d pub l i c he ar i ng s and a na l y ze the “ he al th, envi ro nm en tal, eco nom i c, so ci al, and ener gy effects o f th e p ro p os ed red es ign at ion .” 4 2 U .S.C . § 74 74 (b )(1) (A ). I f these pro ceduralr equi re m ents ar e m et, the EPA has l i ttl e di scr eti on in denyi ng a re desi gnati on. S ee Arizona v. EPA , 15 1 F
. 3d 1205 , 12 08 ( 9th Ci r. 19 98) ( “Onc e these proce du ra lr equi re m ents ar e m et, EPA m ust a pp ro ve the r equest f orr edesi gnati on .”)
. A S tat e, however, m ay obj ect to a pro posed tr iba l r edesi gnati on a nd i nvoke dispute re soluti on und er42 U
. S. C. § 7474( e)
. The EPA m ust accept w hatev erag re em ent the S tat e a nd T rib e co m e t o, but i f the y c a nn o t c o me t o a n a g r e e men t, the EPA m ayN o. 08

- 2582 5

r es o l ve the i ss ue a nd i nt eg r at e i t i nt o the r el ev an t S I P, T IP , or FIP
. Id. The EPA i s ch ar g ed witha dm i ni st er i ngthe pe r m i tt i ng proce ss f orthe PSD prog ra m , but i t m ay d elegate that au th or i ty. S ee 40 C.F
. R. § 52. 21( u). I t has done s o in th i s ca se by ent r us tingPS D pe r m i tt i nga utho r i tyt o the M i chiga n Departm ent o fEnvi ro nm entalQual i ty f or so ur ce s w i th i n the S ta te o fM i ch i g an . S ee Appro va la nd Pro m ulg ati on o fI m ple m entat i on Pl ans; D el ega ti on o f Autho r i t y t o the S t a t e o fMi c hi g a n, 4 5 F e d. R e g . 8, 348 (Feb. 7, 1980 ).

B The Com m unity i s a federa l l y- re c ogni zed Ind i an Tribe inW isc on sin . See Ind ian E n tit ies R ec og n ize d an d E ligib le To Recei ve Se rv i ces Fr om the U ni ted S tat es Bu re au of In d ian A ffair s, 73 Fe d . Re g. 18 ,55 3, 18 ,55 4 (A p r. 4, 20 08 ). I t i nhabi ts a n area ri chi n l ak es , wet l an ds, a nd f o r es ts , a nd i t se es the pres er vati on o fthes e l ands as cruci alto i ts cul tura lher i tag e. Fo r exam ple , the Com m unity’ s be l i ef s y s t e m r e qu i r e s tha t pl a nt s a nd a ni mal s tha t a r e used f o r medi cine s an d r el i g i ou s ce r emon i es b e o bt aine d i n a pur e form f r o m a c l ea n e nv i r o nm en t. W i thi nc r ea sing po l l ut i o n, the Co mm un i t y s a w i t s h e r i t a g e thr e a t e ne d, an d so it d ec id ed to as k t h e E P A to red es ign at e c er ta in ofi ts re ser vati on l ands fro m Cl ass I Ito Cl ass Ist atus. On De ce m be r 7, 1 99 3, the Co m m uni tys ubmi tt ed to the EPA an info rm alr eq uest f orr edesi gnati on o fi ts re ser vat i o n l a n d s w i th i n F o r e s tC o u n t y, Wi s c o ns i n . T h e C o m-6 N o. 08

- 2582

m uni ty g av e no ti ce to va r i o us en ti ti es o f th e publ i c he arin gs it h eld on t h e s u bj ec t, an d it als o s u b m itt ed a T ec h n ica lRe po r t to the EPA, o ut l i ni ngthe v ar i o us e ffec ts o fthe re desi gnati on. O n F ebr uary14, 19 95, the Com m unity su bmi tt ed i ts f o r m alr eque stfo r r ede si g na ti o n t o the E P A . Th e E P A rev iew ed th e C om m u n ity ’s m a t e r ials and determ i ned that the pr oce du ra l r equi re m ents f or r ede si g na ti o n ha d be en m et
. Thus , o n J une 29 , 19 95 , the EPA i ssued a N ot ice ofPro posed Rule m aking tha t s ugg es te d a ppr o va lo fthe r ede si g na ti on reques t an d s o ug ht p ub li c com m en t. B ecau se of the p rop osed rede signat ion’s effect on e m i tting so urces in s urr ounding l ands, M i chi gan and W i sco nsi n obj ecte d to the pr opose d change and i nvoke d the di sp u te reso l uti on pro vi si ons of42 U. S
. C. § 7474( e)
. The Co m m uni ty
- W i sc o ns i n n eg o ti atio ns ended successfully w i th the si gni ng o fa M em or andu m o f A gr ee m e n t (“ M O A ”). Inco n tr as t, th e C om m u n ity -M ich igan deal i ngs b ro ke dow n, and the C om m unity r equeste d that the EPA r eso l ve the di spute. On D ecem ber18 , 20 06, the E P A a gain i ssued a N oti ce re q u es tin g c om m en ts o n a p ro p os ed ru le th at w ou ld appr o ve the Co m m uni ty ’ s pr o po se d r ede signa ti o n a nd i mpl e me n ti tth r o ug h a F I P p r o mu l g a t e d b y th e E P A. Af t e r p ub l i c h e a r i ngs a nd a n e xt e nd e d c o mm e ntp e r i o d, th e EPA pr o m ul g at ed i ts fi na la ct i o n r ed es i g na tingthe Com m un ity l ands to Cl ass Ist atus on Ap ri l29 , 20 08. S ee A pp ro va l an d P ro m u lga tio n ofA i r Qu al i ty I m ple m entati on Pl ans; W i sco nsi n; Red es i gnati on o fthe For estCounty Potawa t o m iCom m unity Res er vati on t o a PS D C l ass IA re a, 73 Fed. Reg. 23 , 086 ( A pr. 29 , 20 08)
. The EPA al so i ssued two c o mpa ni o n a nn o un c e men t s c o nc l ud i ngthe di s pu teN o. 08

- 2582 7

re soluti ons w i th W i sco nsi n and M i chi gan. The W i sc o n s i n d i s p u t e r e s o l u t i o n a c t i o n i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e MO A, w hi ch exem pted cer tain W i scon si n l ands fro m Cl ass I re str i cti ons. Se e Redesi gnati on of the For estC ou n ty Potawatom iC om m unity Res er vati on t o a PS D C l ass I A re a; Dis pu te Resol uti on W i th the S tat e o fW i sco nsi n, 73 Fe d . Re g. 23 ,11 1, 2 3 ,1 1 4 (A p r. 29 , 200 8) (s u bj ec tin g on ly “m aj orso urces i n W i sco nsi n l oca ted withi n a t en ( 10) m i l e r adi us o f an y r ede si g na te d Tr iba l l an d t o pe r f o r m i ng an i ncre m ent a nal ysi s a nd to m eet i ng co n su m pti on r equ irem en ts ap p li cab le to a C lass Iarea.”)
. Th e E PA ’s approvalo f C lass Ist atus f orthe tr iball ands w i l laffect em i ttin g so urces withi n M i chi gan. S ee Redesi gnati on o f the F or es t County Potawatom iCom m unity Res er vati on to a PSD Clas s I A re a; Dispute Resol uti on w i th th e St ate ofM i chi gan, 73 Fe d. Reg. 23, 107 ( A pr. 29 , 20 08)
. M i chi gan see ks re vi ew o fthes e three fi naladm i ni str ati ve rul i ngs.

II A s the par ty i nvoking fed er alj uri sdic ti on, M i chi gan bear s the b urden ofdem onst ra ti ng tha t i t has st anding, w hi ch has thre e r equi re m ents: Fir st, th e p lain tiff m u st h av e s u ffer ed an “inj u ry in f act”

— an i nvasi on o f a l ega l l y pr ote cted inter estwh i ch i s ( a) co ncre te and parti cul ar i zed , a nd (b) “a ctualo r i mm i ne nt, n o t ‘ c o nj e c t ur a l ’ o r ‘ hy po the t i c a l

. ’ ” S e c o nd , th er e m us t be a c au sal co nne ct i o n b etwee n the i nj ury and the conduct com pla i ned of

— the inj ury has to be “ f ai rl y . . . tr ace[ abl e] to t h e chal l enged ac ti on o f the de fe nd a nt, a nd no t
. . . the r e s ul t[ o f ] the i nd e pe nd

-8 N o. 08

- 2582

en t a c tio n of so m e t h ird p ar ty n o t b e f o re th e c ou rt .” T h ir d , i t m u st be “like ly,” as op p os ed to m er ely “specul ati ve, ” that the i nj ury w ill b e “re dress ed by a fa vo ra b le d ec isio n .” Lujan v. D ef

enders of Wil dlif

e, 50 4 U.S
. 555 , 56 0 ( 1992 ) (in te rn al c ita tio n s o m itt ed ); Cit ize ns Agai ns tRui ni ng the En v ’ tv . EPA , 53 5 F
. 3d 670, 675 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. M i chi gan chal l enges the EPA ’ s fi nalact i ons on three gr ounds. Fi rs t, i t be l i eve s that the EPA used an i m proper proce du ra lve hi cl e forr edesi gnating the Com m unity lan d s. Se c on d , i t a rg u e s t h at th e E P A ac te d p u n itiv ely by applying m or e s tr in gent re str i cti ons to M i chi gan than to W i sco nsi n. Thir d, i t co ntends thatthe EPA di d not pr ovide suffi ci ent r egul ato rygui dance i n i ts fi nalact i o n s . We r e v i e w e a c h o fth e s e a r g u me n t s b e l o w. M i ch i g an ’ s pr i m ar y co m pl aint i s th at th e EPA u se d the w ro ng pro cess to r ed esignate the Com m unity’ s l ands to Cl as s Is ta tu s. S pec i fi ca l l y, M i ch i g anb el i ev es tha t th e EPA sho uld have r equi re d the Com m unity t o prom ulg ate a T I P. The pa r ti es a g r ee tha t a TI P was ne ve r c r ea te d, b ut th eydi sag r ee abo utwhethe r a TI P was ne ce ss ar y a nd w hetherthe re gul ati ons codi fied a t 40 C. F. R. § 52. 21 c o n s t i t u t e a v a l i d F I P g o v e r n i n gth e C l a s s Ia r e a . We d o n otrea c h th e m er its of th es e a rg u m en ts atth is sta ge, however, bec ause M i chi gan m ay not est abl i sh st an d in g b y s im p l y i d en tify in g a p ro c ed u ra l d efe c t in the r edesi gnati on pro cess . S ee Sum m ers v. E arth Isl and Inst
. , 129 S. Ct. 11 42, 11 51 ( 2009 ) ( “depri vati on o fa pr oce du ra l ri ght w i thout som e co ncre te i nter estthati s a ffecte d by the depri vati on

— a pr o ce dur alr i gh t i n vac uo

— is in su fficientto create A rticl e I I Istan d ing”).N o. 08

- 2582 9 I n or der t o connectthe p er c eiv ed proce du ra ldefect to c og n i zabl e inj uri es f orst anding pu rpos es, M i chi gan as se r ts v ar i o us ha r m s th atfl o w f r o m the r ede si g na ti o n. The fi rs t o fthes e a l l ege d i nj uri es i s the EPA ’ s i m posi ti on of str i cter re quir em ents on em i tting sour ces i n M ich i gan th ani n W i sc o ns i n. M i ch i g anc ha r ac te r i ze s th i s as the EPA ’ s r eta l i ating ag ai nst M i chi gan forpursui ng i ts l eg alc ha l l en g e to the r ede si g na ti o n. It is t ru e t h at, as a res u lt of th e M O A , few er so u rc es in W isc on sin are s u b je c t t o C las s I res tr ict ion s t h an w ou ld othe rwis e be the cas e. Se e Di spute Reso l uti on W i th the S tat e o fW i sco nsi n, 73 Fe d. Reg. at 23, 114. W i sco ns i n’ s tr ea tment, ho wev er, i s th e r es ul t o fthe s ucc es sful ne g o ti atio ns b etwee n i t an d the Co m m uni ty, a nd the EPA does notty pica l l y inter fer e with such agre em ents. Se e F edera lI m plem en tati on Pl an U nd erthe Clea n A i r A c t forCert ai n Trust Land s o fthe For estCounty Potawatom iCom m unity Res er vati on i fDesi gnate d as a PSD Clas s I A re a; St ate of W i sco nsi n, 71 Fed. R eg . 75,6 94, 75 ,69 6 (D ec . 8, 2 0 0 6) (“ [W ]h er e t h e p ar tie s s u c c es sfu lly re ach ag re em ent thro u gh the dispute re soluti on pro cess , EPA i s incl i ned to re ad sect i on 1 64( e) o fthe A ct t o pr o vi d e t ha t EPA has no fur th err o l e to pl ayi n the dispute re soluti on p ro cess . ”)
. M i chi gan had ac cess to the ver y sam e dispute re soluti on opportunity, but it f ai l ed to co m e t o an ag re em ent w i th the Com m unity. That m eant that the EPA was obl i ged to r eso l ve the di spute. 42 U
. S. C
. § 7474(e). I t d id so by im p osin g o n M ichigan ’s em i tting so urces the sta nd ar d C l ass Ir est ri cti ons, wh i ch ar e the sa m e r est ri cti ons that apply to e m i ssi ons that w i l lr each a ny Cl ass Iar ea, w h et h er i t i s withi n M i chi gan10 N o. 08

- 2582 ( as som e a re ) o r any o therst ate o r tr iballa n d . F arfro m bei ng punit i ve, thi s i s the nor m aleffect ofa C lass I re desi gnati on. If M i chi gan obj ects to thes e co nsequences, i t sh o ul d pur su e i ts di spu te wi thCo ng r es s, no t th e cour ts. There i s no co gni zabl e inj ury here

. E ve n as su m in g inj u ry , i t is d o u b tfu l th at M ich iga n is th e inj ure d pa rty. T he re i s no evid en ce i n t h is record in d ica tin g t h at th e n ew res tr ict ion s affe c t M ich iga n d ire ctl y; r ather, theyaffect em i tting so urces withi n M i chi gan th atwantt o c o ns tructne w f ac i l i ti es o r modi fy e xi st i ng ones . These sources f or m parto fM i chi gan’ s e conom y, an d th u s t h e re d es ign at ion affe c ts M ic h i ga n ’s e c on om ic i nter est s. T raditi onal l y a S tat e m ay sue ba sed upon such interest s by invoking th e d octrine of pare ns pa triae
. That opti on i s not avai l abl e here , how eve r, because a S tat e m ay not use that doct rine to sue the U n ited Stat es. S ee M a ss ac hus e t t s v. M e l l on , 26 2 U.S
. 44 7, 48 5- 86 ( 1923 ) (“It cannot be c onceded thata St ate , as pare ns pat r i ae, m ay i ns ti tu te j udi ci alpr o ce edings t o pr o te ctc i ti ze ns o fthe U n ite d Sta te s fro m th e op er at ion o f t h e st at u te s t h er eo f. .

. . I n t h at fi el d i t i s the U ni ted S tat es, and not the S tat e, w hi ch r epres ents them as pare ns pat r i ae, wh en such r eprese nt ati on be co m es a ppr o pr i at e; a nd t o the f o r m er, a nd not to th e l att er, theym ust l oo k forsuch pro tect i ve m easure s a s fl ow fr om that st atus. ”)
. N orcan M i chi gan i nvoke the “specia lso l i ci tude” aff or ded to S tat es f or sta nd i ng purpose s w h en the re i s a quasi

- sov er ei gn i n te rest at sta ke. S ee M a s s a c h u s e t t s v . EPA , 54 9 U.S
. 49 7, 52 0- 23 ( 20 07 )
. I n co nt r as t t o tha t ca se , i n w hi chM as sa chusetts ’ s co ast all ands w er e threa tened byr i si ng se a l ev el s, M i ch i g an ’ s ai r c ano nl y b en efi t fro m the re desi gnati on o fCom m unity l ands to Cl ass Ist atus.N o. 08

- 2582 11 M i ch i g ana l so a l l eg es i nj ur y b y c l ai m i ngtha t th e r ede si g na ti o n c r eates “ numer o us c o m pl i ca ti o ns a nd unw or kabl e co nfl i cts” in its ai r pol l uti on pro gr am s. M i chi gan c i tes the EPA ’ s l ack of re gul ato rygui dance on a r ange of to p i cs, i ncl ud i ng the r el evantA i r Qu al i ty R ela te d V alu es (“A Q R V s” ) for t h e C las s I are a a s w ell as the r adia ld istance fro m the Clas s Iar ea that M i chi gan sh ou ld co n sid er in e va lu a t in g p er m it a p p lica tio n s. It al so com p lai ns tha t i t do es no t k no w the i den ti tyo fthe fede ral land m an ager (“M an ager”) for th e C om m un ity’s Clas s Iar ea. A s a pre l i m i narym att er, thes e i ssues appear to be outs id e th e s cope o fo ur r evi ew . N owh er e in the A ct o r its cor re sponding re gul ati ons i s the r equi re m ent that A QR Vs, r adia ldi sta nces, o r the i denti ty ofM anage rs be pu b l i s he d a s a p r e r e qu i s i t e t o r e de s i g na t i o n. S e e 4 2 U. S
. C. § 7 4 74 ; 4 0 C
. F
. R
. § 5 2
. 2 1 ( g )
. T h u s , th e s e a l l e g e d h a r ms do not see m ge rm ane t o th e chal l enge M i chi gan m ake s h er e t o th e E P A ’s fin a l r ed es ign at ion ac tio n s. E ve n if th ey w er e, M ich iga n w ou ld lac k s t a n d in g b ec au se it would b e unabl e to s ho w re dr es sabi l i ty
. The r e i s no re aso n to thi nk tha t a TI P , M i chi gan’ s pre fer re d proc edural vehi cl e f or re desi gnati on, w oul d incl ud e th is typ e of regu latory guid a nc e w hile a SI P or the EP A ’s ex ist in g F IP d o n ot . N on et h ele ss , w e b rie fly d isc u ss M ich ig a n ’ s c o n c e r n s b e l o w. M i ch i g an ’ s unc er ta i nty r eg ar di ngk eypa r ts o fthe pe rm i tting pro cess i s underst andabl e. The EPA has not y e tp ub l i s he d fi na lg ui da nc e o n a s e r i e s o ft o pi c s r el ate d to the pe r m i tt i ngpr o ce ss , a l th ou gh pro po se d r ul es a nd12 N o. 08

- 2582

uno ffi ci alg ui dan ce do ex i st
. S ee Pr ev en ti o n o fS i g ni fi ca nt Deter i or ati on ( PSD) and N onatt ai nm ent New S ourc e Re vi ew ( N S R) , 6 1 Fed

. Re g . 3 8, 24 9 ( J ul y 2 3, 1 99 6) ; EPA N EW S OURCE R EV I EW W ORKS HOP M ANUAL D RAFT( 1990 ) E. 1- E .24
. Beyo nd thes e m ate ri al s, M i chi gan a l so has a cces s to ad d iti ona l r egu latory guid an ce. A l en gth y set of PSD re gul ati ons gov er ns the Com m unity Cl ass Iare a. See 40 C.F
. R. § 52. 21. In i ts re plybr i ef, M ichi gan withd re w i ts c h a l l e n g e t o th e s e r e g u l a t i o n s , wh i c h wa s wi s e , a s we wo ul d n o t ha v e j ur i s di c t i o n t o r e v i e w the m. S e e 4 2 U. S
. C. § 7 60 7(b )(1) (“n at ion ally ap p lica b le r e gu lat ion s p ro m u lgat e d, o r fi na la c t i o n t a k e n, b y the Admi ni s t r a t o r u nder th is A ct m ay be fi led on ly in the U n it e d Sta tes C ou rt of A p p eals f or the D istri ct of Colum bia”). I n add i ti on, as M i chi gan knows fro m its exper i ence w ith ne arby C la s s I areas, su ch as the B ou nd ary W aters Canoe Ar e a Wi l de r ne s s i n M i nn e s o t a , 4 0 C. F
. R. § 8 1
. 4 15, a n d th e S e n e y Wi l d e r n e s s Ar e a i nMi c h i g an ’ s o wn U pp erPeni nsul a, 40 C .F.R . § 81
. 414, the i ssues i t r ai ses ar e often hashed out i n the conte xt of the a p pli cati on proce ss fora parti cul arper m i t a nd fre quentl y invol ve a s er i es ofco oper ati ve arrangem ents. S ee Bernar d F. H aw ki n s , Jr. & M ar y E llen T er n es , The New Source Rev i e w Program : Preven t i on of Signi f i ca ntD e t e r i orat i on and N o na tta inm ent N ew So urce R eview , in T HE C LE AN A IR A CT H A ND B OO K1 31, 1 71 ( Ro be r t J
. M ar tine au , J r . & Dav i d P. N ov ello ed s., 2 n d ed . 200 4) (n ot in g t h at a p er m it appl i ca nts ho ul d c o ns ul t wi ththe pe r m i tt i nga g encya nd M anage rs t o deter m i ne pote nti al l y a ffecte d C l ass Iar eas and rel evantA QR Vs). Thu s, w hi l e the ge nera ll ack ofN o. 08

- 2582 13 regu latory guid an ce is a conce rn in th is are a , M ichigan ’s chal l enge com es at the wrong poi nt i n the proce ss. M i chi gan’ s co ncer n about the i denti ty ofthe M anage r de r i v e s fr o m i t s s t a t ut o r y du t y t o p r o v i de
no ti ce o fthe perm ita ppl i ca ti o n t o the F ede r alLa nd M anage r and the F edera lo ffi ci alchar ged with dir ect re sponsibi l i ty f orm anage m ent o fany l ands w i thin a cl as s Ia r ea whi chmay be a ff ect ed bye m i ss i o ns fro m the propos ed f aci l i ty. 42 U
. S. C. § 7475( d)( 2) ( A )
. I fi t ca nnot provide no ti ce t o the r el evantM anage rs , then i t m ay be op en to a ci ti zen sui t under the Act. S ee 42 U
. S. C. § 7 604(a ) ( “any perso n m ay co m m en c e a civ il ac tio n on h is ow n b e h a l f

. . . a g a i ns t the Admi ni s t r a t o rwh e r e the r e i s a l l e g e d a f ai l u re of the Ad m i ni str ato r to perf or m any act orduty un der this Ac twh i c h i s n o tdi s c r e t i o na r y wi th the Adm inistrator”). Butc l o se r i ns pec ti o n r ev ea l s th atthi s conce r n i s unfou n d ed . Th e id en tit y of t h e M an ag er is d et er m in a b le fr o m th e e x i s t i n gr e g u l a t i o n s th a t g o v e r n th e C o mm u n ity ’s C las s I are a. 40 C .F.R . § 52 .21 (b )(24 ) sp ec ifica lly defi ne s th e M an ag era s “th e S ec r et ar y o fthe de par tment w ith au th ority over such l an d s.” For th e m an d atory Clas s Iar eas es tab l i shed by 42 U
. S. C. § 7472( a) , such a s p arks, w il d erne ss areas, an d f orests, the M an agers are th e Depa r tmento fInt er i o r ’ s N at i o na lPa r kS er vi ce a nd Fis h an d W ild life Se rv ice , an d th e D ep ar tm en t of A gr icu lture ’ s F or estS er vi ce. 40 C .F. R. §§ 81
. 400 ets eq . F o r the Comm uni tyCl as s Ia r ea, th e M an ag era ppea r s to b e th e EP A i t s e l f, a s i t c ur r e nt l y a dmi ni s t e r s the r e g ul a t i ons at14 N o. 08

- 2582 40 C.F
. R. § 52. 21 gov er ni ng th e C om m unity Cl ass Iar ea. O n c e t h e C om m u n it y p r o m u lga te s a va lid T IP (if i t choos es to do so) , the EPA m ay del egate m an age ri al r es po ns ibi l i ti es t o i t. S ucha m ove woul d b e co ns i st en t w i th the EP A’ s o wn po l i c i e s t o wa r ds Ind i a n Tr i bes. S ee EPA P OLICY FOR T HE A DM INI S TRATI ON O F E NVI R ON MENTAL P R OGRAMSON I NDI AN R ESERVAT I ONS2 ( 1984 ) (reaffirm e d i n 2005) (“U nt ilTribal Gov ernm en ts are w i l l i ng and abl e t o ass um e fullr esponsibi l i ty f or d ele ga b le p ro gr am s, th e A ge n c y w ill ret ain res p on sibi l i tyf o r m an ag i ng pr o g r ams f o r r es er va ti o ns . ”)
. Unti lthe E P A d e l e g a t e s m a n a g e r i a lr e s p o n s ib i l i t i e s t o th e C o mm unity, M i chi gan m ay fulfi ll it s s tatutor y duty to provi de noti ce to the Com m unity Clas s I ar ea M anage r by no ti fy i ngthe EPA o fa ny r el ev an t per m i t appl i ca ti o n. * * * The Com m u n ity has w ai ted o verfi ftee n yea rs f or fi na li ty on th e red esigna tion of its l an d s. M ichig an ’s chal l enge to the EPA ’ s r edesi gnati on a cti ons ra i ses som e im p ortan t issue s a bou t the PSD program ’s re gul ato ryst ructur e, but M i chi gan has f ai l ed t o al l ege a cogni zabl e inj ury i n f act and thus l acks st anding to pu rs ue thi s case . A s a re sul t, the Com m unity n ee d not w ait any longer. W e D ISMISSth e p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w.

9- 9- 09