EPA-450/2-83-003
Processing Procedures
For SIP Revisions
(And 111(d) Plans)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
April 1983
-------
PREFACE
It is our intention to make this guideline a dynamic record of SIP
processing policy. This will be done in two ways. First, we will
revise portions of the guideline from time to time as EPA modifies SIP
processing procedures. Second, we will periodically ask EPA offices
involved in SIP processing to review the guideline and recommend
appropriate revisions.
This document was prepared by the Plans Guidelines Section of
the Standards Implementation Branch in the Control Programs Development
Division. It replaces EPA-450/2-81-002 of the same title printed in
March 1981.
TM
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List
List
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
of F i gu res
of Abbrevi ati ons
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
1.2 New Procedures
1.3 Overview
FEDERAL REGISTER PACKAGES
2.1 General Content
2.1.1 Action Memorandum
2.1.2 Regulatory Portion
2.1.3 Attachments
2.2 SIP Revisions Originated by the Regional Offices ....
2.3 Preparation of Federal Register Actions
2.4 Rationale for Approval/Disapproval of State
Submitted SIP Revisions
2.5 Procedural Problems - When SIP Revisions Are Not
Appro vable
PROCESSING PROCEDURES TO SAVE TIME AND RESOURCES
3.1 Overview
3.2 Parallel Processing
3.3 Immediate Final Rulemaking
3.4 Elimination of Duplicative Review
3.5 Summary
CATEGORIES OF SIP REVISIONS
4.1 General
4.2 Criteria for Major, Moderate, and Minor Actions
4.3 Relationship to New Processing Techniques
Discussed in Section 3.0
PROCESSING SIP REVISIONS — OVERVIEW
5.1 Washington Offices Receiving and Distributing
SIP Notices
5.2 OANR Review
5.3 OMB Review
5.4 Numbers of Copies Needed to Process a SIP Revision ..
5.5 Public Availability of SIP Materials
5.6 Incorporation by Reference
vi
vii
1
1
2
2
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
8
10
11
11
11
12
13
13
14
14
14
14
15
15
16
16
16
17
17
5.7 Federal Register Typesetting Request 18
iv
-------
6.0 PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING MAJOR, MODERATE, AND MINOR
SIP REVISIONS 19
6.1 Initial Circulation 19
6.2 Federal Register Officer , 20
6.3 Review Coordination , 20
6.4 Nonconcurrence - Major SIP Revisions 20
6.5 Nonconcurrence - Moderate SIP Revisions 22
6.6 Final Review 22
7.0 HEADQUARTERS REVIEW AND COORDINATION 28
7.1 Office of Legal and Enforcement Counsel 28
7.2 Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation 28
7.2.1 Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards 23
7.2.2 Office of Mobile Sources 30
7.2.3 Office of Policy and Evaluation 30
7.3 Office of Policy and Resource Management 31
7.3.1 Office of Standards and Regulations 31
7.3.2 Office of Administration 31
7.4 Office of Management and Budget 31
7.5 Assistance to Regional Offices by Headquarters
Staff Offices 32
Appendix A -- Categories of SIP Revisions A-l
Appendix B — Plans for lll(d) Implementation 8-1
Appendix C — Action Memo Format C-l
Appendix D — Incorporation by Reference .., D-l
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 Organization Chart for Headquarters Review and
Coordination viii
Figure 2 Procedures for Processing a Major or Moderate
SIP Revision 26
Figure 3 Procedures for Processing a Minor SIP Revision 27
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Distribution of Copies of Materials Needed to
Process a Major SIP Revision 23
Table 2 Distribution of Copies of Materials Needed to
Process a Moderate SIP Revision 24
Table 3 Distribution of Copies of Materials Needed to
Process a Minor SIP Revision 25
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS*
A Administrator
OLEC Office of Legal and Enforcement Counsel
OGC Office of General Counsel
AQNRD Air Quality, Noise, and Radiation Division
OANR Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
OPE Office of Policy and Evaluation
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
CPDD Control Programs Development Division, Research
Triangle Park, N.C.
SSCD Stationary Source Compliance Division
QMS Office of Mobile Sources
ECTD Emission Control Technology Division, Ann Arbor, Mich,
FOSD Field Operations and Support Division
OPRM Office for Policy and Resource Management
OSR Office of Standards and Regulations
OA Office of Administration
OMISS Office of Management and Information Support Services
PIRU Public Information Reference Unit
AA Assistant Administrator
RO Regional Office**
RA Regional Administrator
OFR Office of Federal Register
FRO Federal Register Officer
* Offices located in Washington, D.C., unless otherwise noted.
** Various locations throughout the United States.
vn
-------
03
O
i— t
O
O
0
<£
3
LjJ
1— 1
>
UJ
oo
UJ
h-
Z3
cr
UJ
3C
O
u.
C
0 CO
E c
O fB
O i —
O_
^O C
c o
•i- +j
+-> 03
M 5-
•i- O
C CL
fB CO
o s-
(/I QJ
O "^3
o
>1 <=
o
1—H
<
H-t
2:
^
O
O
o
-C -M
o t_ c
•M O - c_
o t_ o -a o
4-> +J O) -rD
CO
jsi co c: co
CO Ol -r- -r- 3
JZ C 03 dl
., £ c >
Q JZ C TD O Ol
oe i— •<- «c o QC
o-
^c ' • • •
viii
-------
PROCESSING PROCEDURES FOR SIP REVISIONS (AND lll(d) PLANS)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this guideline is to present the procedures for
processing SIP revisions (and lll(d) plans). It was originally
issued in June 1973 and since revised several times. EPA has recently
undertaken an intensive effort to speed SIP review through an overhaul
of SIP processing procedures. This guideline summarizes these new
techniques, and serves as a guide for EPA Regional Offices and Headquarters.
The guideline also includes a summary of guidance for preparing Federal
Register packages as detailed in the "Document Drafting Handbook,"
published by the Federal Register.
The revisions in SIP processing procedures were designed to improve
the flow of SIP actions during review by Headquarters offices and
ensure that each revision receives an appropriate degree of review.
Using the new procedures, EPA has significantly reduced its backlog of
unprocessed SIP's.
A major factor in reducing this backlog, discussed herein, has been
procedures to save time and resources as explained in the June 23, 1982
Federal Register (47 F.R. 27073). These techniques include:
. Parallel processing of SIP revisions by the States and EPA.
Immediate final rulemaking for noncontroversial SIP revisions while
maintaining a public comment period.
Processing as minor at final rulemaking those major SIP revisions
for which no comments are received on the notice of proposed
rulemaking; thus, eliminating duplicative review.
-------
1.2 New Procedures
There are now three categories of SIP revisions: major, moderate,
and minor. The category into which a SIP revision falls depends on the
potential effects of the revision on air quality. The criteria that
Regional Offices should use to identify the appropriate category for
a SIP revision are included in Appendix A.
A major SIP revision will undergo the full ten-working-day review.
A moderate SIP revision will undergo a five-working-day review, and be
reviewed primarily by the appropriate offices within the Office of Air,
Noise, and Radiation (OANR). A minor SIP revision will be reviewed
primarily by the Regional Office. The review procedures for each category
of revision are described more fully in Chapter 6.
1.3 Overview
These procedures apply to lll(d) plans and to all SIP-related actions
that involve a change or modification in the SIP's (compliance schedules,
control strategy, emergency episode, resources, etc.) An explanation of
requirements for lll(d) plans is included in Appendix B.
The Regional Office is responsible for direct interface with the
State in matters involving the development and submittal of SIP revisions.
This includes responsibility for seeing that all material germane to
revisions have been received from the State and forwarded for review,
evaluation, recommendations, and action. Thus, copies of any materials
received from a State which will have a bearing on EPA rulemaking should
be forwarded immediately to involved Headquarters' offices.
States, EPA Regional Offices or Headquarters may initiate SIP
revisions. This guideline covers principally State-initiated actions.
-------
Block diagrams of procedures for processing various categories of SIP
revisions are shown in Figures 2 and 3 on pages 26 and 27.
An issue of major concern to the reviewing offices is the completeness
of the materials they receive for review. The Regions should be certain
that offices receiving portions of a plan, such as transportation control
measures, or I/M plans, receive all the information relevant to that
portion of the plan.
This guideline will be distributed through a master mail key
listing. All EPA Regional Offices and Headquarters will receive copies.
The guideline will be updated periodically through the mail keys.
Anyone desiring to be placed on the mail keys may apply through the
Plans Guidelines Section (919-541-5697; FTS 629-5697) of CPDD.
-------
2.0 FEDERAL REGISTER PACKAGES
2.1 General Content
Federal Register actions submitted by the States generally have
two stages: A proposed rulemaking stage in which public comment is
solicited on the proposed action; and a final rulemaking stage in which
EPA promulgates the action. Proposed and final rulemaking packages may
include three components: the action memorandum, a regulatory
portion, and attachments. The final rulemaking package includes a
transmittal memorandum from the FRO to the OFR (see List of Abbreviations)
for incorporation by reference (discussed in Section 6.6). No transmittal
memorandum from the RO to the FRO is required because the action memorandum
should include sufficient information.
2.1.1 Action Memorandum - The action memorandum is written from the
Regional Administrator to the Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise,
and Radiation for proposals, and to the Administrator for finals. The
action memorandum should contain the same type of information for both
proposed and final rulemaking actions. The format of the action
memorandum has been standardized to include headings such as Identification
of Action, Summary of Action, Coordination with State or States, and
Issues. An example of an action memorandum is shown in Appendix C.
/
2.1.2 Regulatory Portion - The regulatory portion is composed
of the preamble and regulations. For the proposal, the preamble should
state that certain specific material has been received from a State as
a proposed amendment to the SIP, summarize the content of the proposal,
and explain that the proposal is available for public comment. To the
extent warranted by the complexity of the action, the workload of the
-------
Regional Office, and other relevant considerations, a statement should
be put in the preamble indicating whether EPA thinks the revision is
approvable.
For tha final, the preamble should discuss comments on the proposal
and describe the final action.
2.1.3 Attachments - These include a copy of the State submittal,
Regional Office evaluation, and any other appropriate documentation.
2.2 SIP Revisions Originated by the Regional Offices
Rulemaking for Regional Office-originated SIP revisions includes
the same components discussed in Section 2.1. However, these actions
propose regulations and/or procedures which EPA desires to promulgate,
rather than summarize a SIP revision proposed by the State for which
EPA is soliciting comments. Consequently, the rulemaking must follow
definite procedures established by law.
EPA-originated rulemaking actions must state their basis and purpose,
The statement of basis and purpose generally includes:
a. The factual data on which the rule is based;
b. The methodology used in obtaining the data and in analyzing
the data; and
c. The major legal interpretations and policy considerations
underlying the rule.
Regions and Headquarters must also prepare a docket for the EPA-
originated rulemaking. The preamble must include number, location of
the docket, and the times the docket will be open to public inspection.
Information on dockets may be obtained from OGC's Central Docket Section
in Washington, D.C. (Phone 382-7548).
-------
In addition to general requirements discussed above, the proposed
rulemaking preamble must provide an opportunity for public comment.
The final rjlemaking preamble must either include a response to each
significant comment submitted as a written or oral presentation during
the comment period; or, to avoid lengthy preambles, responses may be
placed in the docket. If responses are placed in the docket, the preamble
must so state. Appropriate technical support information such as air
quality and emissions data and modeling results must also be included in
the docket.
The 1977 Amendments to the Act provide that the promulgated rule
may not be based (in part or whole) on any information which has not
been placed in the docket as of the date of promulgation.
2.3 Preparation of Federal Register Actions
Headquarters periodically provides detailed guidance for preparation
of specific regulatory packages such as approval/disapproval of plans.
Such guidance is issue-specific and has not been included in this
guideline. Two compilations of this guidance are available from OAQPS.
The "Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook" represents a collection
of policy memoranda previously distributed which can be used as a reference
for persons preparing Federal Register actions. The "Air Programs Reports
and Guidelines Index" represents a compilation of current technical and
guideline documents prepared over the past several years. It is intended
as a companion document to the "Air Programs Policy and Guideline Notebook."
-------
The detail of each preamble will vary with each situation depending
on the complexity of the action, EPA resources, etc. For example, EPA
may propose without taking a position on approvability of the action if
time constraints dictate; however, it is preferable to discuss approvability
whenever possible. Some general points for preparing Federal Register
actions follow:
1. The proposal preamble must provide adequate information so
that the public can comment intelligently and have a meaningful
opportunity to affect the decisions which the Agency makes.
The preamble should state EPA's position, finding, and basis for
action. This applies equally where EPA expects approval,
or where EPA expects to disapprove a plan.
2. Regional Offices should consider designing proposals to encourage
States to correct any deficiencies in their submittals. EPA may
do this by suggesting ways that the State could cure the problem,
and inviting comment on whether EPA should approve the submittal
if the State revises it in any of the suggested ways. The
suggested cures should be precise enough that EPA could approve
a revised submittal without further proposal and public comment.
3. The approval/disapproval actions provide an excellent opportunity
to make certain "housekeeping changes." For example, once
relevant, but now obsolete, Part 52 portions may be deleted.
Headquarters will suggest other changes at appropriate times.
-------
A copy of the "Federal Register Handbook of Document Drafting,"
June 1980, should be obtained by all personnel involved in the preparation
of Federal Register notices. The handbook may be obtained through the
Office of Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service,
Washington, D.C. 20408 (FTS 523-5266).
2.4 Rationale for Approval/Disapproval of State Submitted SIP Revisions
Headquarters staff needs certain information to permit a continued
overview of SIP activities. Where EPA's actions cannot be explained
fully in the Federal Register preamble, the Regional Offices must prepare
a "Rationale for Approval/Disapproval" to explain the background and
basis for the recommended action. Normally, this situation would apply
to a major action rather than other types of actions. This is particularly
true when the SIP revision alters an emission limitation and consequently
alters a control strategy. For this situation, the following types of
information should be included in rationale documents:
a. Background of the Revision.
This should include a brief summary of the reasons for the
revision, the extent of State/Regional Office interaction on
the revision, any significant issues raised by the public, and
any anticipated adverse reaction to the recommended action.
b. Adequacy of Control Strategy Demonstration.
This should summarize the type of control strategy demonstration
conducted, including the model used, if any. It should
identify any inadequacies in the State submission, and explain
how those inadequacies were resolved.
-------
c. Technical Aspects of the Demonstration.
This should include a summary of the significant input parameters
to the model including air quality data, any assumptions used
in the demonstration, and any unusual features of the
demonstration (such as those accounting for complex terrain,
stack height, emissions growth, etc.).
d. Projected Impact of the Revision.
This should include the trends in air quality and emissions for
the area, and any impact on the compliance status of affected
sources, including the impact on potential growth (i.e.,
maintenance) in the area.
This information should normally not exceed ten pages in length,
and can be provided as a separate document (generally appropriate for
revisions initiated by a State) or as a summary in the Technical
Support Document (generally appropriate for revisions initiated by
a Regional Office). This information should have been considered
by the Regional Office during the review process and should be
readily available. Generally, a rationale should be prepared for
final rulemaking when a State-submitted revision to a SIP is involved;
and rationales prepared, as appropriate, for the proposal and final
rulemaking when an EPA-originated revision to a SIP is involved.
The "Rationale" document does not substitute for the comprehensive
internal file which the Regional Office should retain on each State-
submitted SIP revision. Internal files should include any pertinent
notes, drafts, records of meetings and other conversations, memoranda,
etc., which provide documentation of the decision making activities
leading to the final rulemaking action. Such files are not normally
-------
reviewed by Headquarters staff, but they are necessary to permit
accurate responses to inquiries by other organizations and the public, and
to provide adequate support in any subsequent litigation.
2.5 Procedural Problems - When SIP Revisions Are Not Approvable
If the State submittal contains major deficiencies, the Regional
Office should negotiate with the State to correct these deficiencies.
Major deficiencies include procedural deficiencies in the submission of
the revision (e.g., an improper public hearing was held) or situations
where the adoption of the action by the State will result in a deficiency
in the SIP (e.g., air quality standards will be violated).
In such cases, the Regional Offices should notify the State by
letter of the deficiencies as expeditiously as possible after receipt
of plans. If the deficiencies are policy related or technical rather
than administrative and affect the adequacy of a particular control
strategy, the Regional Office should coordinate the response to the
State with the necessary Headquarters offices. The notification must
explain why the submission is unapprovable and what, if any, corrective
action is necessary. It may be appropriate to recommend that the State
withdraw all or part of a submission. If the negotiations are successful
and the major deficiencies are corrected, the Regional Office should
proceed with the rulemaking action. If the negotiations are unsuccessful
(the State will not revise or withdraw the submission), the deficiencies
must be disapproved in 40 CFR 52, and corrective regulations proposed
if necessary. Normally, if a SIP revision is disapproved, the present
plan remains in effect. However, if the revision has been submitted to
correct SIP inadequacies and is disapproved, corrective regulations may be
necessary.
10
-------
3.0 PROCESSING PROCEDURES TO SAVE TIME AND RESOURCES
3.1 Overview
Over the past several years, numerous concerns have been raised
both within EPA and the air pollution control community in general
regarding the time and complexities involved in processing SIP revisions.
Thus, EPA initiated and pilot-tested a program aimed at shortening
the time necessary to complete rulemaking actions. This program
included parallel processing, immediate final rulemaking, and reduction
in duplicate reviews by Headquarters. The program not only saved significant
amounts of time, but generated an overwhelmingly positive response within
EPA and from the public.
On June 23, 1982 (47 F.R. 27073), EPA instituted these new procedures
on a permanent basis. The following sections describe these processing
techniques.
3.2 Parallel Processing
Under the parallel processing procedure, the EPA Regional Office
works closely with the State as it develops a major regulation and
proceeds through the State rulemaking process. Whenever possible, the
State and EPA propose the regulation at the same time, announce con-
current comment periods, and jointly review the comments. The EPA
Regional Office consults with all other appropriate EPA offices as
the regulation is being developed and during the State and Federal
rulemaking process to ensure that all issues are identified before the
State adopts the regulation.
11
-------
If the State or EPA receive no comments that would necessitate
significant changes to the regulation, it is adopted by the State
and submitted to EPA. The State-adopted regulation is then processed
by EPA as a final rulemaking. If significant changes must be made to
the proposed regulation due to comments made during the public comment period,,
EPA will have to repropose the regulation.
Parallel processing is not appropriate for all SIP revisions. But
when issues are clearly understood and the expected State action is well
defined, employing such an approach can save in excess of 60 percent of
the normal processing time.
3.3 Immediate Final Rulemaking
Previously established procedures required that all SIP revisions be
proposed for public comment before going to final rulemaking. The comment
period could be 30 or 60 days depending on the anticipated public
interest in the revision. Because of the straightforward nature of
some actions, or the narrowness of their scope, many SIP revisions get
few, if any, comments from the public during the comment period.
Therefore, as part of EPA's new SIP processing program, a SIP revision
that is judged by EPA to be noncontroversial and where no adverse public
comments are anticipated, may be published as a final rulemaking without
first going through a proposed rulemaking phase. The public will be
advised that no comments are anticipated and that, unless notice is
received within 30 days that someone wishes to submit adverse or critical
comments, the rulemaking will be effective 60 days from the date the
notice is published. If notice is received that someone wishes to submit
12
-------
adverse or critical comments, the final rulemaking notice will be with-
drawn and a proposed rulemaking notice will be published. The proposed
rulemaking notice will establish a comment period.
Pilot tests using immediate final rulemaking resulted in an average
reduction in SIP processing time of 62 percent.
3.4 Elimination Of Duplicative Review
EPA has eliminated duplicative reviews by EPA Headquarters offices
of SIP revisions that do not change significantly during their proposed
rulemaking. Pilot tests using this technique resulted in an average
reduction of 36 percent in processing time.
3.5 Summary
Because use of these procedures has been found to save considerable
time as well as resources, EPA intends to use them whenever possible
to process SIP revisions more efficiently. Parallel processing will be
used for major SIP revisions that are likely to require coordination
and cooperation between the State and EPA to identify and resolve issues
and to make policy determinations in a more expedient manner, although
it is encouraged for all three categories of revisions. Immediate final
rulemaking will be used to process SIP revisions that are noncontroversial
and are not likely to elicit public comments.
13
-------
4.0 CATEGORIES OF SIP REVISIONS
4.1 General
All SIP revisions fall into one of three categories: major, moderate,
or minor. The categories will be used to determine the level of review
for each revision. Major SIP revisions will undergo a ten-working-day review
by Headquarters (OLEC, OPRM, OANR). A moderate SIP revision will be
reviewed primarily by the appropriate office within the OANR. A minor
SIP revision will be reviewed primarily by the Regional Office. See
Chapter 6 for detailed processing procedures.
4.2 Criteria for Major, Moderate, and Minor Actions
The criteria that Regional Offices should use to identify the
appropriate category for SIP revisions are given in Appendix A.
4.3 Relationship to New Processing Techniques Discussed in Section 3.0
The three categories will also be used to determine whether a SIP
revision may be processed as a final rule without first being proposed
for approval. A major SIP revision should not be processed as a direct
final. A moderate SIP revision may be processed as a direct final action
if adverse comments appear unlikely. A minor revision may be routinely
processed as a direct final. Use of parallel processing is encouraged
for all three categories of revisions.
14
-------
5.0 PROCESSING SIP REVISIONS -- OVERVIEW
5.1 Washington Offices Receiving and Distributing SIP Notices
Federal Register notices and support materials for all SIP revisions
(major, moderate, and minor) sent to Washington for processing should be
sent to the Federal Register Officer (FRO) in the Office of Standards
and Regulations (OSR). (See Chapter 6 for address of FRO and other
reviewing offices.)
The FRO will assign each SIP revision notice a Federal Register
log number and send a 11 copies of notices and accompanying materials to
the OAQPS SIP processing staff (hereafter referred to as OAQPS), located
in Washington, D.C. OAQPS is now coordinating the ten-working-day review
for major revisions, as well as the five-working-day review for moderate
revisions. OAQPS sends all minor revisions directly to the Assistant
Administrator for Air, Noise, and Radiation.
OAQPS will distribute review and courtesy copies of major, moderate,
and minor SIP revision materials to appropriate Washington offices. Materials
sent to OAQPS for Washington offices should be put in separate addressed
envelopes to speed distribution.
Review and courtesy copies of SIP revision materials for offices
outside Washington, i.e., CPDD (RTP) and ECTD (Ann Arbor) should continue
to be sent directly to those offices.
15
-------
5.2 QANR Review
The Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise, and Radiation will
review each notice of proposed rulemaking prior to its publication in the
Federal Register. Thus, an action memo requesting OANR concurrence
should now accompany each proposal. The general format to be used for
this action memo is discussed in Section 2.0 and shown in Appendix C.
5.3 OMB Review
OMB reviews all SIP's for which EPA does not recommend complete
approval. Such actions go to OMB through FRO after approval by OANR
for a ten-calendar-day review period.
5.4 Numbers of Copies Needed to Process a SIP Revision
The materials that comprise a SIP revision package include:
-- the regulatory portion (the preamble and regulation);
-- the concurrence or action memo;
— the State submittal;
-- the Regional Office evaluation.
The numbers of copies required (including originals) of the four categories
of materials are shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3 in Chapter 6. In general,
the same numbers of copies are required for processing moderate and
minor revisions. Additional copies of some materials are required for
processing a major SIP revision as explained in Table 1.
16
-------
5.5 Public Availability of SIP Materials
State submittal? and Regional Office evaluations for proposed SIP
revisions will no longer be made available for public review at the
Public Information Reference Unit (PIRU) in Washington. This information
will still be made available through PIRU for the final regulation.
The proposed SIP materials must, however, still be made available for review
in Regional Offices and in offices of State and local agencies. Copies of
State submittals and Regional Office evaluations should still be sent to
OAQPS, along with the copies of the Federal Register notice for a
proposed SIP revision, for use by Headquarters reviewers.
5.6 Incorporation by Reference
Copies of the State submittal and any other materials provided by
the State subsequent to a SIP revision being proposed in the Federal
Register should be sent to OAQPS with the copies of the final
rulemaking notice for the review. These State materials will be used to
satisfy the incorporation by reference requirements of OFR once the
Headquarters review process is completed. One copy of the State submittal
will be sent by OAQPS to PIRU to satisfy the public availability part
of the incorporation by reference requirements of OFR. A second copy
will be sent by the FRO to OFR.
Incorporation by reference of State submittals is essential if a
SIP is to be Federally enforceable. Any SIP revision sent to Headquarters
without the necessary copies of the State submittal will not be sent
to OFR for publication until the copies of the submittal are received.
All copies of incorporation by reference materials must be complete
and legible. Also, the transmittal memo to OFR must be explicit in
17
-------
identifying the materials to be incorporated. Appendix D includes
a detailed discussion of incorporation by reference and an example
of the transmittal memo.
5.7 Federal Register Typesetting Request
Each package submitted to the FRO must include a completed Federa"
Register typesetting request form (EPA Form 2340-15).
18
-------
6.0 PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING MAJOR, MODERATE,
AND MINOR SIP REVISIONS
6.1 Initial Circulation
Regional Office sends review and courtesy copies of SIP revisions
to appropriate reviewing offices. Tables 1, 2, and 3 list the appropriate
number of copies and the review office for major, moderate, and minor
SIP revisions. Figures 2 and 3 present block diagrams of the overall
processing procedures which we discuss in the following subsections.
a. Review and courtesy copies for appropriate Washington offices
should be sent to the following address: Federal Register Officer
(PM-223), Office of Standards and Regulations, Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. The copies
should be placed in separate envelopes addressed to the appropriate
offices (See list in Section 6.3 below).
b. A review copy of al1 SIP revisions (courtesy copy for
minor actions) should be sent concurrently to the following address:
Director, Control Programs Development Division (MD-15), Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, Attention: Chief, Plans Analysis
Section.
c. A review copy of all SIP revisions (courtesy copy for minor
actions) dealing with vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M)
programs should be sent concurrently to the following address:
Project Manager, State and Regional Support Group, Office of Mobile
Sources, Environmental Protection Agency, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann
Arbor, Mich. 48105.
19
-------
6.2 Federal Register Officer
The Federal Register Officer (FRO) assigns a Federal Register log
(FRL) number to each SIP revision and sends all copies to the OAQPS.
6.3 Review Coordination
OAQPS distributes review and courtesy copies of each SIP revision
to Washington offices and establishes the start and end days for the
appropriate review period.
The review period is as follows:
1. Major actions - ten-working-days.
2. Moderate actions - five-working-days.
3. Minor actions - no concurrence review.
OAQPS will establish the first and last day of the review period.
The telephone number of the SIP processing staff is FTS 382-4986 (contact
person: Denise Gerth). The following contacts were established as of
March, 1983 for the offices involved in the review:
Office Contact Telephone Mail Code
CPDD
ECTD
SSCD
FOSD
OGC
OSR
OPE
Linda Ferrell
Gene Tierney
Steve Hitte
Bob Kenney
Marilyn Abraham
Penny Parker
Katharine Moore
629-5665
374-8456
382-2844
382-2659
382-7610
382-5479
382-7407
MD-15
None
EN-341
EN-397
A-133
PM-223
ANR-445
Nonconcurrence - Major SIP Revisions
Normally, OAQPS sends major SIP revisions to OANR at the end
of the ten-working-day review. Each Headquarters review office should
call OAQPS within the first seven working days of the ten-day review
period and indicate whether there are any problems with the plan revision
being reviewed, and if these problems are major or minor.
20
-------
Any reviewing office that nonconcurs on a major SIP revision sends
a nonconcurrence memo from the Office Director to the Regional Administrator
and to OAQPS before the end of the ten-working-day review. OAQPS
provides copies of the nonconcurrence memo to other reviewing offices and
informs the offices when issues are resolved.
The responsibility for problems unresolved after ten days becomes the
responsibility of a Headquarters office or a Regional Office, whichever
is appropriate. In general, where the action proposed by a Regional
Office is consistent with a national policy, the responsibility for any
delay belongs to a Headquarters office. If a Region's action is
inconsistent with national policy, the responsibility rests with the
Region. Major actions will remain accountable to the Regional Office for
ten working-days after receipt in Headquarters (five working-days for
moderate actions). By the end of the concurrence period:
a. If an office will not concur without changes from the Region,
the changes required will be clearly identified. The action will
remain accountable to the Region until all offices have concurred.
b. If an office will not concur because of questions of national
policy, the action will become accountable to Headquarters.
When Headquarters has formulated a solution to the policy issue,
the Regional Office will be given clear directions on how to
modify the Federal Register notice. The action will remain
accountable to Headquarters while the Regional Office is given a
reasonable time (to be defined on a case-by-case basis) to make
the modifications. At the end of the "reasonable" time, if
the modifications are not completed, accountability for the
action will revert to the Regional Office.
21
-------
The computer printout sent weekly (from OAQPS) to each Regional
Office will show the status of plan revisions being reviewed by Headquarters
offices and will indicate the office responsible for the extension of
any review beyond ten working days for a major action.
6.5 Nonconcurrence - Moderate SIP Revisions
At the end of the five-working-day review, OAQPS sends moderate SIP
revisions to the Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise, and Radiation
unless a problem occurs and an extension of the review period is requested.
Nonconcurrence for moderate SIP revisions will be processed as a major
revision, except for the shorter initial review period. The review
period may be extended up to ten working days including the initial
five days. Extensions may be made by request of any of the review offices.
6.6 Final Review
After the Assistant Administrator has reviewed and concurred with a
major or moderate SIP revision, OAQPS sends all remaining copies and
support materials to the next reviewing office:
-- SIP revisions, proposed or final, that are not recommended for
full approval by EPA are sent to the Office of Management and Budget.
-- Proposed SIP revisions that are fully approved will have already
been signed by a Regional Administrator and are sent to the
FRO for forwarding to the Office of the Federal Register for
publication.
-- Final SIP revisions that are fully approved are sent to the
Administrator for signature.
22
-------
UJ
~*r
Q.
»—i
OO
oo
oo
LU
O
OL
O
LU
z:
oo
LU
"—I I—
=c
LU s:
— i
CD Ll_
< O
00
OO
a.
o
a.
o
CO
oo
»— »
a
c
o
•r—
00
>
CU
HH
oo
t_
o
I
rO
C
LU.
C
O
oo
cu
Qi
o.
1— 1
oo
t_
0
•>— 5
(O
SI
T3
Ol
00
Q.
O
^
T3 C
C 0
ro •!-
ro
oo -i- >
E LU
.Q
3 O
uoo.
c
o o
•i- E
4-> QJ
"*
>fc
L_ c
0 0
fO -t-i
r~* ^,
3 O
C7>Q_
OJ
"0 C
c o
ro -i-
CU i — (O
4-> "3 3
4-J 4-* rO
OO •>- >
E LU
f"i
3 0
CO OH
c
o o
"- E
4-> CU
)
0 0
3 O
QJ
o£
O)
0
(+_
l^
0
o
o
o
cu
o
tl
4-
0
c
o
^t
zn
c
.,—
-c <
00
ro
3
r— I
^H
i— I
OO
0.
o-
^^
o
r— H
r— 1
i— t
-K
LU
Q.
O
o
••*
r-H
-K
•K
a
0
oo
,— 1
•— '
I-H
•K
*
*
o
oo
o
r— 1
.— 1
1— 1
(^
c n
O
o
r-H
r-t
Q^
^)
O
r— 1
CO
o
ro
0
1 1
t-H
o
o
— ^
a:
a.
i^O
^H
i— I
-
to
«
1—
(tj
l_^
o
4J
J3
3
OO
, — 1
1—1
i — 1
t— (
•K
*
Q
Q
a.
o
, — i
•— '
<— i
•K
*
•K
Q
1—
O
LU
oo
r-H
t-H
'^"
00
i-H
9~4
r~
ro
I *
O
1—
00
£
rO
o
L-
CL
CU
O
C
tO
c •
a> to
4.) OJ
C «-
oo
OJ
00
(J
a;
a.
00
fo
a:
-C U_
4->
cu
i*- .c
O 4-J
'y O
cu .
S oo *
E oo
i— ra p—
O £- O
4-> O 4J
C S- C
o a. o
o
o t_
O CTi
o
"O t—
ro CL
OJ i—
o c
O OJ
oo
£_
o
O)
O
OJ
u
o
•T- ra -T-
4_> C 4->
rO CU rO
S- C i_
o-^o
Q. ro Q.
00 £ 00
C ^>. C
rC C ro
t_ O S-
« rjj
i—" C
C •—1 •!-
a;
O">
oo oo
O5 O O1
c cu c
•t- Q.-I-
"O oo ~O
3 C 3
(J U
c en c
oo TD oo
C 3 C
O i— O
•.- O •!-
OO X OO
•r- QJ -r-
> >
CU OO CU
S- C <-
o
a_ •!- a.
I— 4 (/) (— I
oo -r- oo
cu
oo
c i— =
O fO O
000
-X
*
00
r— Ol
o c
t- -I-
4-> T3
§ =
O O
C
OJ
C -0
o
•r- O
4-i 00
-i- i—
"O
oo
0) 3
CU E
-c ro
4J 00
1
E
O
LO
CU 00
O O
O •!—
OJ 00
t [
>
t- (1)
O l_
CL
rO Q.
> i—i
OO
C
o a>
•p- OO
4-> O
ro .E
4-> 4-J
oo
CU r^
O C
•r- O
>
CU O
00 Ll_
O
•r- <4—
4-> O
O) 00
oo 0)
CU Q.
CU O
00 O
a>
£>£
ro ^:
00 4->
00
CU T3
O C
CU ro
C
OO
c
T™
CJI
> o
cu
, t- C
ro
ca
z -a
O c
•k
-K
LU
|_
O
i Q-
t—i
OO
23
-------
O
oo
UJ
as
Q.
t— (
OO
QS
UJ
Q
O
OO
00
UJ
o
o
as
Q.
Q
UJ
UJ
oo
CM as
O
oo
OS
o
C3
z:
a
=>
_i
o
a.
o
a.
o
CD
os
c
0
•r™
(J)
•^™
Ol
OS
Q_
1O
O)
1 *
ro
t_
CU
T3
O
21
ro
C
U.
c
o
to
0) •— ra
+-> ro 3
ra ^ i —
00 -r- >
EUJ
3 O
oo as
c
o o
•r- E
•4-j ai
(j ^*
->
i — £_
3 0
0)
OS
•a c
c o
ro T-
O) i— ra
•4-> ro 3
-t-> -4-> ra
CO -r- >
E UJ
^Q
3 0
co as
c
o o
•- E
4-> CU
O S
«^
>~
£_ C
0 0
+J -r-
ra 4->
fl — f
3 O
O1Q.
cu
OS
cu
*.
0
1—4
r—
ro
.4^
O
t—
i/i
ra
c_
en
o
OJ
u
c
ra
c
cu
C
o
o
a.
ai
t~
3
(/I
ro
OJ
E
to
a>
to
ro
OJ
ro
C
o
-u
u
a>
a.
c o
ai
«- u.
CO OJ
E in
i— ra i—
o c- o
s_ en i_
4-> O +->
C t_ C
O Q. O
o u
ai
cue
o c o
+J C +J
ro CU ro
5- C £_
O M- o
a. ra a.
to e to
c ^. c
"3 C ra
t- o t-
r- 4- O
O • O -4->
C- t^
^j E in -4_>
c ro cu c
O t_ T- CU
CT Q. to
o o
"O I— O <1)
CL -Q
ro
OJ
fo o
c 01
o ^-
t OJ »r" 4^
• +J "O tO
c -a 3
t- E cu oo
o -^ cu co
C «- I
<-< O J= UL,
••- •*-> oo
CU 4->
cn u « E
ro OJ •—* t-
•(-> Q.OO O
i/i m • u_
^- c LO
en u en
c cu c
•r- Q..p-
"O to "O
= C 3
O O
c en c
•t- C •!-
•^
in "O to
c 3 c
o «— o
••- o ••-
to x to
•I- CU •!—
cu to cu
s- c t_
o
o_ ••- o.
>—i in i—i
co-i-oo
cu cu cu
o o
-C O, J=
CO
C i— C
O ITJ O
o o o
•K
•K -K
to co
O C -i- to
!_ -r- 4-> CU
J_> ~C5 O -i-
c 3 ai a.
O i— in O
O O O
C CU
>,••- cu cu
£- to OJ
c _c
O O >,+J
a; tn ra "a
!_ •!- tO C
> to ro
i. cu cu
O £_ O i—
a. cu ro
rOO.CC
> 1—1 •!-
oo m en
C -i- -i-
O CU {_
•4-> O CU
10 ^ '£ S
4-> 4_3 ^ ra
to cu
cu i— c
(J C CO ro
•f o s:
> 00.
t_ £_ 1-4
cu o <*- oo
wlu-~ cu
•K
*
•x
UJ +J
1"S
24
-------
O
oo
oo
oo
LU
O
O
oo
:
as
as
t—
oo
c
0
'ui
•£
QJ
OS
oo
o
c
fO
c
c
o
•T—
to
•'-
01
ry
oo
t_
O
c
•E
•a
(U
in
a.
o
a.
•a c
e o
ai i— .-o
4-> T3 3
fT3 4.) —
4-> 4-> "3
00 -= >
6= LU
3 O
oo as
c
o o
4-J CU
(j y
!_ C
0 0
2L t!
3 0
CDQ.
Ol
•o c
c o
IT3 •!—
4-1
Ol i — 03
4->
™ Li_l
-Q
3 0
00 aS
C
o o
4-> O)
(J ^-
>.
«- c
o o
iT3 4-)
i— t_
3 0
O>Q_
0)
Ol
u
•r—
t
0
0
^
0
0
o
to
O)
0
it-
CD
C
0
4J
co
c
•t-v
-= <
O
,_,
t— i
1—4
1—4
•/*}
o-
o
o
r— I
0
-*
r— 4
•)(
Q
O
OO
OO
0
,_,
o
1—4
«— 4
•fe
•tt
a
uo
0
u_
t-H
i— t
.— 1
T— 4
^H
r— 4
O
CU
o
r— 4
o
CO
O
o
CO
o
as
u_
,— t
O
f— 4
O
o
o
as
Q_
to
IT3
3
OO
CO
CM
,— t
CM
•«J-
^
1—
m
-M
O
+->
Q
3
c/>
^H
r-H
r-H
1— *
^H
-*
*
-X
Q
O
a.
o
T— (
1— 1
r— t
r— t
t— 4
-*
^
•K
^
a
L3
LU
LO
O
f— ^
^.
_^
^"
VO
CT>
f— •
IT3
4->
O
H-
O
!_
Q.
O)
C
C
cu
4-9
c
T3
o
3
o
Q.
c
o
CO
CL
c o
to 3
co en
!- CU
3 «- •
to o
T3 cu a;
cu j= u_
S 4-1
01
O • O 4->
4-> = i/> O
c .-o cu 4->
o c- •—
en a_4->
E to
^ "o
O") C»
O 4->
£- C
a. o
o
CO
o c
c o
o o c
-a s- o cu
i IO
« CU -i- i—
•^^^ 4—J ^3 fl
— c -a
a
•r- O
>. Ol E
c t-
—•i O -C OO
•^ 4-1 00
CU 4J t
31 (J -u.
fQ ^ *^^ ^*^
4-> Q.OO
to to • E
1— C UO C_
•^ o
to C u_
•— en o
O C -f- t-
£_ •<- 4-> O
4-> T3 O
C 3 X' to
o <— to at
00 T-
C CU Q.
>,•>- Ol O
t. t/> O
cu to —•
> c cu
o o >, cu
o -t- s_ u
O) (/> T3 .C
t- -t- 00 4->
s_ cu ^J ^3
•TJ a. c
> >—I f—
OO i/>
4-> O 01 -1-
4-> 4-> > O
to CU
1 cu^4- S
o c ca
•— o s -a
> o =
£_ 5- *-
to U_ >—4 O-
1—1
•• oo
UJ
* I— CU
f o .c
25
-------
FIGURE 2
PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING A MAJOR OR MODERATE SIP REVISION(a) (b)
State-SIP Revision
Regional Office
comments
CPDD
FRO
comments
SSCD, OPE
PRM(C)
ECTD
PRM(C) comments
OAQPS
comments
PRM(c)
OGC, OSR(d)|
FOSD I
PRM(C)
comments
! AA
FRO/FR
aThis procedure applies in most cases. For unusual cases see Section 3.0.
For a discussion of nonconcurrence see Sections 2.5, 6.4 and 6.5.
bOMB review after AA approval only if portion or all of SIP disapproved.
cThis procedure also applies for Final Rulemaking (FRM). The Proposed
Rulemaking (PRM) is signed by Regional Administrator and FRM is signed
by Administrator.
dQSR only receives copies of major actions.
26
-------
FIGURE 3
PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING A MINOR SIP REVISION (a)(b)
CPDD
SSCD
State-SIP Revision
Regional Office
FRM
FRO
FRM
OAQPS
FRM
FRO/FR
comments
ECTD
OGC, FOSD
aThis procedure applies in most cases. For unusual cases see Section 3.0.
t>OMB review prior to submittal to A only if portion or all of SIP disapproved.
27
-------
7.0 HEADQUARTERS REVIEW AND COORDINATION
Several offices within EPA review and/or coordinate SIP actions.
Figure 1 (page viii) presents a skeleton organization chart of these
groups. As discussed in the overview, it is important that each review
group receive a complete SIP revision which includes all pertinent
information. The Regional Offices should also be sure that reviewing
offices receiving only portions of a State submission, i.e., FOSD, ECTD,
receive all pertinent transportation information. All additional information
or later revisions should also be promptly sent to the review offices. The
function of each group with regard to SIP actions is summarized below.
Chapter 6 gives the address of each office.
7.1 Office of Legal and Enforcement Counsel (OLEC)
Office of General Counsel (QGC) - The Air Quality, Noise, and
Radiation Division (AQNRD) of OGC provides legal advice and assistance
on all Clean Air Act matters. AQNRD receives copies of all proposed
and final rulemaking packages involving SIP actions. For major action
packages, AQNRD may recommend appropriate nonconcurrence actions to
OLEC when warranted. For moderate action packages, AQNRD will generally
not be in the formal review process unless requested by the Regional
Offices or Headquarters.
7.2 Office of Air. Noise, and Radiation (OANR)
7.2.1 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Washington, D.C.,
and Research Triangle Park, N.C. - Three components coordinate SIP actions.
Two of those components are located in Washington, D.C., and a third is
located in RTP, N.C.
28
-------
a. The SIP processing staff in Washington, D.C., coordinates
the review of proposed and final rulemaking packages for moderate
and major actions. It receives appropriate copies of the proposed
and final rulemaking packages for all moderate and major issues.
b. The Control Programs Development Division (CPDD) is located
in the Research Triangle Park, N.C. CPDD maintains a SIP file, and
provides technical support and assistance to the Regional Offices on
the development, evaluation, and promulgation of SIP's, including
all revisions thereto. The Regional Offices must send CPDD copies
of all proposed and final packages involving SIP's. For moderate
and major action issues, CPDD may recommend appropriate nonconcurrence
action to OANR when warranted.
c. The Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD) in
Washington, D.C., provides technical support and assistance to the
Regional Offices for the development, evaluation and promulgation of
compliance schedules which are consistent with previously approved
control strategy. SSCD also provides support on the enforcement
aspects of SIP revisions involving regulations for the control of
stationary sources. The Regional Offices must send SSCD copies of
all compliance schedule approval/disapproval actions. SSCD is also
to receive that portion of proposed and final rulemaking. packages
which include regulations for the control of stationary sources
29
-------
(this would include all lll(d) plans). For moderate or major action
issues, SSCD may recommend appropriate nonconcurrence action to OANR
when warranted.
7.2.2 Office of Mobile Sources (QMS), Washington, P.O., and
Ann Arbor, Mich. - QMS contains two components which coordinate SIP
actions:
a. The Emission Control Technology Division (ECTD) of QMS
in Ann Arbor, Michigan, provides technical support to the Regional
Offices for portions of the SIP related to inspection/maintenance.
The Regional Offices send ECTD that portion of the proposed and
final rulemaking packages which include inspection/maintenance
provisions. For moderate or major action packages, ECTD may recommend
appropriate non-concurrence action to OANR when warranted.
b. The Field Operations and Support Division (FOSD) of OMS
in Washington, D.C., provides technical support with regard to
enforcement of regulations to control emissions from mobile sources.
FOSD receives that portion of proposed and final rulemaking packages
involving transportation control measures, inspection/maintenance,
vapor recovery at service stations, lead control measures, and other
regulations affecting mobile sources. For moderate or major action
packages, FOSD may recommend appropriate nonconcurrence action to
OANR when warranted.
7.2.3 Office of Policy and Evaluation (OPE), Washington, D.C. -
OPE conducts evaluations for the Assistant Administrator to assure that
OANR policy is consistent with Agency policy. Also, OPE evaluates SIP
revisions which contain transportation control measures to assure
30
-------
they are consistent with the Clean Air Act. For moderate or major action
packages, OPE may recommend appropriate nonconcurrence action to OANR
when warranted.
7.3 Office of Policy and Resource Management (OPRM)
7.3.1 Office of Standards and Regulations (QSR), Washington, D.C. -
OSR performs two functions in coordinating SIP actions as follows:
a. OSR's Regulation Management Staff conducts evaluations of
proposed regulations pursuant to its responsibility for procedural
management and substantive evaluation of the developmental process
for agency standards, regulations and guidelines. OSR receives copies
of proposed and final rulemaking packages for major actions. OSR
may recommend appropriate nonconcurrence action to OPRM when warranted.
b. The Federal Register Officer is also part of the Regulation
Management staff and serves as a liaison between EPA and the Office
of the Federal Register. All rulemaking actions are routed through
OSR as shown in Figures 2 and 3.
7.3.2 Office of Administration (QA), Washington, D.C. - The
Management Information and Support Services Division (MISSD) of OA
contains the Public Information Reference Unit (PIRU) which serves as
a focal point in making final EPA Federal Register actions available
to the public. Copies of all final rulemaking actions, along with
related attachments are forwarded to PIRU by the EPA Federal Register
Officer.
7.4 Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
OMB is primarily interested in reviewing SIP's which are not fully
approved by EPA. Thus, when EPA recommends partial or total disapproval
31
-------
of a SIP, OMB wants to determine if the action is consistent with
•
Executive Order 12291.
7.5 Assistance to Regional Offices by Headquarters Staff Offices
Upon request of a Regional Office, EPA staff offices will continue
to provide advance comments on any State SIP revision or draft Federal
•f
Register notices prior to signature by the Regional Administrator.
t
Where national policy issues do not exist but several Regions are
developing individual regulations for similar sources, appropriate
Headquarters offices (CPDD, ECTD, SSCD, etc.) will monitor development
of these regulations and inform the Regional Offices of other Regions
working on similar regulations. Such regulations might relate to, for
example, nonattainment plans, transportation control measures, or PSD.
Any additional assistance requested will be provided commensurate with
availability of resources in a time-frame agreed upon by Headquarters and
the Regional Offices on a case-by-case basis. Such solicitation of comments
will not, however, abrogate the authority and responsibility of the
Regional Administrator, nor will receipt of comments from Headquarters
staff offices require the Regional Administrator to act in accordance
with the comments or relieve the Regional Administrator from the requirement
- - " to obtain concurrence at the Assistant Administrator or General Counsel
level on moderate or major action SIP revisions.
32
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
CATEGORIES OF SIP REVISIONS
1. Major Actions
Major SIP actions have the greatest potential effect on air quality
in terms of the populations and geographic areas affected. Major actions
will include:
. Actions establishing areawide or statewide control requirements
submitted to meet Part D requirements (e.g., Group II VOC
regulations)
. Actions establishing or modifying statewide programs for precon-
struction review of major new sources or source modifications
(e.g., prevention of significant deterioration plans and generic
bubble rules)
. Actions changing sulfur dioxide limits for major power plants
. Actions establishing new Agency precedents
. Actions involving litigation
. Actions likely to lead to Section 126 petitions
. Actions involving major unresolved Agency policy issues
. Actions disapproving SIP revisions
2. Moderate Actions
Moderate actions affect the air quality of more limited geographic
areas. Moderate actions will include:
. Actions changing the emission limits for major point sources,
except for
A-l
-------
. Actions approving variances for major sources that delay
attainment dates
. Actions where a State does not fully agree
. Actions receiving significant local interest and comments
3. Minor Actions
Minor actions are generally routine SIP revisions having little
effect on air quality and generating minimal public interest. Minor
actions wi11 include:
. Actions where the Agency simply affirms a State action except
where the action falls into the major or moderate category
. Final actions where no comments were received on the proposal,
even though the proposed action was categorized as major or
moderate
. Actions generally causing minimal changes in air quality. The
subjects of such actions include:
- Section lll(d) negative declarations
- Lead SIP's relying solely on the lead-in-fuel program
- Composition of State boards
- Air quality monitoring networks and procedures
- Variances for sources not delaying attainment dates
- Approval of emission offsets for a new source permit
- Bubbles for individual sources.
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B
PLANS FOR lll(d) IMPLEMENTATION
Section lll(d) of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to establish
procedures under which States submit plans to control certain existing
sources of pollutants. On November 17, 1975 (40 FR 53340), EPA
implemented Section lll(d) by promulgating Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 60,
establishing procedures and requirements for adoption and submittal of
State plans for control of "designated pollutants" from "designated
facilities." Designated pollutants are pollutants which are not included
on a list published under Section 108(a) of the Act (National Ambient
Air Quality Standards) or Section 112(b)(l)(A) (Hazardous Air Pollutants),
but for which standards of performance for new sources have been
established under Section lll(b). A designated facility is an existing
facility which emits a designated pollutant and which would be subject
to a standard of performance for that pollutant if the existing
facility were new.
Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 60 provides that EPA will publish a
guideline document for development of State emission standards for existing
sources after promulgation of any standard of performance for a designated
pollutant. The document will specify emission guidelines and times
for compliance and will include other pertinent information, such as
discussion of the pollutant's effects on public health and welfare and
a description of control techniques and their effectiveness and costs.
The emission guideline will reflect the degree of emission reduction
attainable with the best demonstrated systems of emission reduction,
considering costs, as applied to existing facilities.
B-l
-------
On April 6, 1977, CPDD distributed Guideline No. 1.2-072, Requirements
and Procedures for Implementing Section lll(d) to the Regional Offices.
This guideline summarizes the requirements for the applicable EPA
requirements in 40 CFR Part 60. It includes a checklist to be used in
reviewing State-submitted plans which can be used in plan development.
Approvals/disapprovals of Hl(d) plans are made in 40 CFR 62, which
is modeled on Part 52, the appproval/disapproval vehicle for SIP actions.
If the State submits a negative declaration (they have no subject sources),
this information is to be noted in the appropriate Section of Part 62.
EPA will process Section lll(d) plans in the same manner as SIP
revisions as shown in Figures 2 and 3. All negative declarations will
be classified as minor actions. Section lll(d) plans also need to
be incorporated by reference.
B-2
-------
APPENDIX C
ACTION MEMO FORMAT
SUBJECT:
FROM: Regional Administrator
TO: Administrator (Final rulemaking actions)
OR
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise, and Radiation
(Proposed rulemaking actions)
IDENTIFICATON OF ACTION
This brief introductory paragraph should describe the action in
one or two sentences, indicate whether the action is a proposed or final
rule, and identify the category (major, moderate, or minor) into which
the action falIs.
SUMMARY OF ACTION
This section of the memo should discuss the action in more detail.
The discussion should include:
. Sources or source categories affected
. Geographic area affected, including the potential for long-range
transport
. Potential changes in air quality, including the effects on
national ambient air quality standards and prevention of
significant deterioration increments
. Statutory requirements for the action
C-l
-------
COORDINATION WITH STATE OR STATES
This section of the memo should describe the coordination between
the State and the Regional Office and indicate the State's position on
the action. The reason for any disagreement between the Regional Office
and the State should be included. If the SIP revision affects other
States, a summary of any discussions with those States and, if appropriate,
other Regional Offices should also be included.
ISSUES
This section should identify the major issues associated with the
action and describe the response or recommendations of the Regional
Office for these issues. This section should discuss any associated
litigation, describe any local controversy associated with the action,
and identify any organizations or individuals particularly affected by
the action. An action memo for a notice of final rulemaking should
describe any comments received on the proposal.
C-2
-------
APPENDIX D
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The original SIP's approved in 1972 were incorporated by reference
by the Office of Federal Register (OFR). Since then, the OFR has ruled
-v/
•
that all approved regulatory and nonregulatory revisions of the SIP's
r have not been properly incorporated by reference. A January 9, 1981
memorandum from OSR (originated by the Regulation Management Staff,
629-5226), explains how new SIP actions can be properly incorporated
by reference. These materials include whatever information the States
have provided that details their plans to meet Clean Air Act require-
r
ments — regulatory text, scientific studies, plans and justifications.
OFR does not need any additional EPA documents such as action memos,
reprints of past Federal Register entries, or technical support
documents. This information must be consistent with the materials
on file in the Regional Office.
The following procedures apply to EPA action on State-submitted
SIP material which must be incorporated by reference:
1. Provide Headquarters with Necessary Materials. Along with the
original and appropriate copies of the final rule notice, the ROs must
i •
send to Headquarters:
•
, " a. The State materials which EPA reviewed and took final
action on.
b. One transmittal memo for submission of State SIP revision
to the OFR -- example memo as follows:
D-l
-------
SUBJECT: Submission of the Revision to the State Implementation
Plan for the State of for Incorporation by
Reference
FROM: EPA Federal Register Officer
TO: Office of the Federal Register
Please add this document to the Implementation
Plan file and tab it in the appropriate sequence.
Identification of the Document: (Example - Ohio Nonattainment
Plan for Ozone).!
2. Include Appropriate Language. Each Federal Register notice
announcing a final rulemaking action on a SIP or SIP revision must
include boilerplate language which shows that the Director of OFR has
accepted the State's submittal for incorporation by reference. This
language should read:
Incorporation by reference of the State
Implementation Plan for the State of
was approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal
Register on July 1, 1980.
Insert it just before the authority citation. Note that this changes
the previous guidance which suggested inserting this language after the
Administrator's signature. The following address must also be added
to the address section of the preamble in the final notice:
The Office of the Federal Register
1100 L St., N.W., Rm. 8401
Washington, D.C.
The EPA FRO must have these materials, otherwise EPA is in violation
of OFR's requirements. We risk the danger of losing any lawsuit brought
against us on procedural grounds if these materials are unavailable to
the public for their review. Call the Federal Register Officer (382-2731)
if you have questions.
D-2
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Insmtctions on the reverse before completing!
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/2-83-003
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Processing Procedures for
lll(d) Plans)
2.
SIP Revisions (and
7 AUTHORIS)
Ted Creekmore, Joe Sableski, Bruce Hogarth
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AIN
U.S. Environmental Protect
Office of Air, Noise, and
Office of Air Quality Plan
Research Triangle Park, NC
D ADDRESS
ion Agency
Radiation
ning and S tandards
27711
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Plans Guidelines Section
Control Programs Development Division
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
Acril 1983
6 3ERFOPMING ORGANIZATION COOS
3. 'E.RFQiiVtlNG ORGANIZATION REPORT
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1 1. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVER
EPA/OAQPS Guideline
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
This guideline replaces EPA-450/2-81-002 of the same title published in March 1981.
16. ABSTRACT
The guideline summarizes State Implementation Plans (SIP's) processing procedures
used by EPA's Regional Offices and Headquarters to propose and promulgate SIP
provisions. The guideline contains a discussion of how SIP's are classified as a
"major," "moderate," or "minor" action, and how SIP's are processed according to
these classifications. It contains a discussion of processing procedures to save
time and resources developed to speed SIP processing to prevent backlogs of
EPA actions. It also contains a description of the role of various EPA Head-
quarters offices in SIP review, and a brief discussion of the components of a
Federal Register action.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT -ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
SIP Processing
Rulemaking
EPA Review Offices
Classification of Rulemaking
is. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Proposed Rulemaking
Final Rul-emaking
Normal Action
S pecial Action
Incorporation by Referenc
19. SECURITY CLASS {This Report)
None
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
None
c. COSATI Field/Group
13B
a
21. .MO. OF PAGES
49
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
-------
|