Comment submitted by C. Kollm

I think that this proposed rule to delete restrictions on tribal governments from taking control of PSD programs is an extremely practical rule. This rule reflects the input of the regulated community, which implies collaboration and a buy-in from an important stakeholder. Deleting the restriction is a strong example of how a procedural limitation influences the substantive options of the regulated, which in turn, may influence the quality of the program as a whole; now an entire new group of tribes is able to use an existing regulatory tool to fight air pollution. Additionally, the correction of erroneous language that proved to be problematic is a responsible use of an agency rule. It is especially important that the local governments are empowered to incorporate the needs of their community in a regulation schemes because of the unique nature of air pollution. Namely, we are all stakeholders in our nation’s air because of air currents and weather patterns. Ensuring that all who wish to be involved in the fight to clean up our nation’s air are afforded that opportunity is essential to our future. It appears to have been an oversight that tribes were excluded from the rule in the first instance and not placed on equal footing with other local entities. From the proposed rule it seems that the regulated community has been involved in this process, however I’m concerned about how the agency intends to provide outreach to other tribes that may not have been involved in the process. Further, while delegating this authority is responsible and practical, it would be irresponsible and counterproductive to delegate the authority without providing additional support during the transition to those that require it. This rule does not address if tribes are adequately equipped to manage a PSD program or if additional support will be given if needed. Hopefully, there is already a regulatory structure in place to do just that.