&EFA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/2-81-002
March 1981
Air
Processing
Procedures
For SIP Revisions
(And 111 (d) Plans)
-------
EPA-450/2-81-002
Processing Procedures
For SIP Revisions
(And 111(d) Plans)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
March 1981
-------
This guideline is being issued by the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS) to provide information to EPA Regional
Offices, State and local air pollution control agencies, and the public
on EPA preparation and processing of revisions to State Implementa-
tion Plans. The guideline will be available , as supplies permit, from
the Library Services Office (MD 35), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, or for a nomi-
nal fee, from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Publication No. EPA-450/2-81-002
ii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This guideline was primarily prepared by Ted Creekmore and
Joseph Sableski of the Control Programs Development Division, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection
Agency. Other EPA Headquarters' Offices and EPA Regional Offices
contributed many valuable comments and suggestions during preparation
of the guideline.
m
-------
PREFACE
is our intention to make this guideline a dynamic record of SIP
-srttWKa
revised as EPA makes major changes in SIP
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Ac know!edgement
Preface
List of Figures vii
List of Abbreviations V1'ii
1 .0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
1.2 Overview
2.0 FEDERAL REGISTER PACKAGES ................................... 4
2.1 Content ................................................ J
2.1.1 Proposed Rulemaking ............................. 4
2.1.2 Final Rulemaking ................................ 5
2.1.3 Relevant Information for SIP Review ............. 5
2.1.4 SIP Revisions Originated by the Regional
Office .......................................... 8
2.2 Rn-Manrp fnr Preparation of Federal Register Actions... 9
2.3 Rationale for Approval/Disapproval of State
Submitted SIP Revisions ................................ 10
2.4 Procedural Problems - When SIP Revisions are not
Approvable ............................................. ]?
2.5 Incorporation by Reference ............................. 13
3.0 NORMAL/SPECIAL CLASSIFICATION OF PLAN REVISIONS ............. 16
3.1 General ................................................ 16
4.0 HEADQUARTERS REVIEW AND COORDINATION ........................ "19
4.1 Office of the Administrator ............................ 19
4.1.1 Office of General Counsel ....................... 19
4.1.2 Office of Regional Liaison ...................... 19
4.2 Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation .................... 20
4.2.1 Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards ....................................... 20
4.2.2 Office of Transportation and Land Use
Policy .......................................... 20
4.2.3 Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution
Control ......................................... 20
-------
4.3 Office of Enforcement 21
4.3.1 Office of General Enforcement 21
4.3.2 Office of Mobile Source, Noise and
Radiation Enforcement 21
4.4 Office of Planning and Management 21
4.4.1 Office of Planning and Evaluation 21
4.4.2 Office of Administration 22
4.5 Assistance to Regional Offices by Headquarters
Staff Offices 22
5.0 PROCESSING OF NORMAL SIP REVISIONS 24
5.1 Proposed Rulemaking 24
5.2 Handling Public Comments 26
5.3 Final Rulemaking 26
5.4 Procedure for Headquarters to Change a Normal
Action to a Special Action Issue 27
6.0 PROCESSING OF SPECIAL ACTION SIP REVISIONS 28
6.1 Proposed Rulemaking 28
6.2 Handling Public Comments 29
6.3 Final Rulemaking Action 29
6.4 Non-Concurrence 30
APPENDIX A Plans for 111(d) Implementation A-l
APPENDIX B Special Processing Requirements B-1
APPENDIX C Address of Headquarters Offices which
Review or Process SIPs L" '
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Pa^e
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 5
Organization Chart for Headquarters Review
and Coordination
Federal Register Components - Final Rulemaking,
Normal Action
Federal Register Components - Final Rulemaking,
Special Action •
Procedures for Normal SIP Revisions (and lll(d)
Plans)
Procedures for Special Action SIP Revisions (and
lll(d) Plans)
7
31
32
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
OGC
ORL
AQNRD
Administrator
Office of General Counsel
Air Quality, Noise, and Radiation Division
Office of Regional Liaison
OANR
OTLUP
OAQPS
CPDD
OMSAPC
ECTD
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Office of Transportation and Land Use Policy
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Control Programs Development Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
OE
OGE
DSSE
OMSNRE
FOSD
Office of Enforcement
Office of General Enforcement
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Office of Mobile Source, Noise and Radiation Enforcement
Field Operations and Support Division
0PM
OPE
OA
SRD
PIRU
Office of Planning and Management
Office of Planning and Evaluation
Standards and Regulations Division
Office of Administration
Public Information Reference Unit
AA
RO
RA
OFR
FRO
Assistant Administrator
Regional Office
Regional Administrator
Office of Federal Register
Federal Register Officer
vm
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
PROCESSING PROCEDURES FOR SIP REVISIONS (AND lll(d) PLANS)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
This guideline was originally issued in June 1973. Subsequent
revisions were made in April and October 1975, and September 1976. The
major revisions to previous guidelines involved publication of State
submitted revisions to SIPs as proposed rulemaking for public comment,
and the use of the normal and special action categories in processing
SIP revisions.
This document supersedes OAQPS Guideline No. 1.2-005A (Revised
9/76) entitled Revisions to_ State Implementation Plans - Procedures for
Approval/Pisapproval Actions which was distributed on October 12, 1976.
Major new provisions in this action are as follows:
a. At present, ORL only distributes copies for the Regions of
Part D special action plans to Headquarters offices located in Washington, D.C.
In the future ORL has agreed to distribute all special actions to Headquarters
offices located in Washington, D.C.
b. Procedures for processing m(d) plans are now covered by this
guideline. These procedures are generally the same as those for processing
SIP revisions. For a discussion of lll(d) plans see Appendix A - Plans
for 111(d) Implementation.
c. Section 307(a) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 specifies
administrative procedures which require that a docket be established for
each EPA originated SIP rulemaking action at the proposal stage. The
docket must contain all data, information, and documents on which the
proposed rule relies as of the date of the publication of the proposed
-------
rule. This requirement does not apply to State-submitted SIP revision
plans. This guideline includes a brief discussion of docket requirements
for Regional Office-originated SIP revisions (see Section 2.1.4).
d. New procedures for incorporation by reference of State-
submitted SIP materials are discussed in Section 2.5 - I notation by_
Reference^
e. Exceptions to the general processing guidance are discussed in
Appendix B. Future exceptions will be incorporated into Appendix B
through supplemental issuances of that Appendix.
f. The guideline has a new cover because the OAQPS Guideline
Series has been discontinued. All future guidelines will have EPA
numbers only. This action also changes the title from Revision to
SIPs - Procedures for ^^^^^1^^ ^1^- to Prpcessina Procedures.
for SI£ ReyjJLionjL land TjUdl Plans!. We feel that the new title is
more descriptive.
1 .2 Overview
These procedures apply to m(d) plans and to all SIP-related
actions that involve a change or modification in the SIPs (compliance
schedules, control strategy, emergency episode, resources, etc.).
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, any materials received
-------
from a State which will have a bearing on EPA rulemaking should be
forwarded immediately to involved Headquarters' offices.
EPA uses a classification system to determine how SIPs are processed.
Normal actions require minimal Headquarters' review. Special actions
require Headquarters' concurrence. The ORL in Washington will coordinate
processing of special action SIP revisions.
States, EPA Regional Offices or Headquarters may initiate SIP
revisions. This guideline covers principally State-initiated actions.
Procedures for SIP processing are shown in Figures 4 and 5 on pages 31
and 32.
An issue of major concern to the reviewing offices is the completeness
of the materials they receive for review. Five offices receive copies
of the entire rulemaking package; OGC, CPDD, SRD, PIRU, and OFR. OTLUP,
DSSE, FOSD, and ECTD receive only that portion of the plan which pertains
to their program area. 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.
-------
2.0 FEDERAL REGISTER PACKAGES
2.1 Content
2.1.1 Proposed Rulemaking - federal Register: actions submitted by the
States 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. All proposed rulemaking
packages should include three components: the transmittal memorandum
(original), proposed regulatory portion (original and 5 copies), and
attachments (1 copy).
The transmittal memorandum should:
a. Designate the proposal as a special action, or a normal
action in the subject line,
b. Detail any information needed to explain the package, and
for special actions, explain why the SIP revision is so classified.
c. Include the name and telephone number of a person in the
Region to be contacted if questions arise, and
d. For special actions only, list the reviewing offices
receiving copies of the package.
The regulatory portion composed of the preamble and regulations
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.
The attachments include a copy of the State submittal, and any
other appropriate technical documentation. For special actions, a
summary of the State hearing should be included.
-------
2.1.2 Final Rulemaking - The final rulemaking package may contain as
many as five components. Figures 2 and 3 list in sequence the possible
components of the final rulemaking packages for a normal and special
action SIP revision. The transmittal memorandum should cover the same
four items as discussed above for the proposal. The action memorandum
should specify (a) the date the proposal was published in the Federal
Register, (b) the normal versus special action determination, (c) the
initiator (i.e., a State or EPA), and (d) significant aspects of the
revision. The attachments should include any revisions to the State
submittal made since Federal proposal. Finally, the Regional Offices
should include a copy of the State submittal for incorporation by reference.
Sections 5 and 6 of this guideline discuss the preparation of final
rulemaking packages.
An alternative to this structure is to combine the items in the
transmittal and action memoranda into one action memorandum as some
Regions do. This is especially appropriate when it is a normal action
of a routine nature.
2.1.3 Relevant Information for SIP Review - In processing SIPs, it is
important that review offices receive all relevant materials at the
beginning of the 14-day comment period. If Headquarters offices do not
receive all relevant material, the 14 day period will not start.
If the plan revision is controversial, the Regions should send a
copy (along with any other pertinent information) to appropriate Headquarters
offices immediately after receipt from the State. This will allow
Headquarters more time to become familiar with the action, and may
prevent review problems later.
-------
FIGURE 2. FEDERAL REGISTER PACKAGE COMPONENTS -
FINAL RULEMAKING, NORMAL ACTIONa'b
STATE SUBMITTAL
(For incorporation
by reference)
ATTACHMENTS
(Rationale and
supplementary materials)
REGULATORY PORTION
(Includes Preamble and
Regulatory Section)
ACTION MEMO
From RA to the
Administrator
TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM
From RA to Federal
Register Officer
a. The ROs send the following to the EPA Federal Register Officer for use
in Federal Register^ publications and for PIRU:
1. Transmittal memorandum - Original
2. Action memorandum - Original and 1 copy
3 Regulatory portion - Original and 5 copies
4. Attachments - 1 copy (includes any revisions to State submittal
since proposal)
5. State submittal - 1 copy (for incorporation by reference, see
Section 2.5)
b. The ROs should also send copies (except a(5)) as follows:
1. CPDD, SRD, OGC each receive a copy of the entire package, and
2. ECTD, OTLUP, DSSE, FOSD receive copies as appropriate where I/M,
TCMs, stationary source, or mobile source issues are involved.
-------
FIGURE 3. FEDERAL REGISTER PACKAGE COMPONENTS -
FINAL RULEMAKING, SPECIAL ACTIONa"d
STATE SUBMITTAL
(For incorporation
by reference)
ATTACHMENTS
(Rationale and
supplementary materials)
REGULATORY PORTION
(Includes Preamble and
Regulatory Section)
ACTION MEMO
From RA to the
Administrator
TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM
From RA to ORL with
Review Offices listed
c.
d.
The ROs send the following to ORL for eventual transfer to the EPA
Federal Register Officer (the FRO sends one of these copies to PIRU)
after the 14-day concurrence period:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Transmittal memorandum - Original
Action memorandum - Original and 1 copy
Regulatory portion - Original and 5 copies
Attachments - 1 copy (Includes any revisions to State submittal
since proposal.)
State submittal - 1 copy (for incorporation by reference)
If all Washington review offices are involved (SRD, OGC, OTLUP, DSSE
be 1 C°P1'6S °f ^ ^ PaCkag6 (eXCSpt a(5)) must'
The ROs send separate copies of the package (except a(5)) to CPDD
and as appropriate to ECTD.
Part D plans must be sent via overnight mail. The ROs will judge
the urgency of other actions and mail accordingly.
-------
2.1.4 SIP Revisions Originated by the Regional Office - Rulemaking for
Regional Office-originated SIP revisions includes the same components
discussed in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2. However, these actions propose
regulations and/or procedures which EPA desires to promulgate, rather
than summarizing a SIP revision proposed by the State for which EPA is
soliciting comments. Consequently, the rulemaking must follow definite
procedures established by law.
Section 307(d)(6) of the 1977 Amendments to the Act specify that
EPA-originated rulemaking actions must state their basis and purpose.
The statement of basis and purpose must include:
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.
Section 307(d) also requires that both the Regions and Headquarters
prepare a docket for the 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 755-0245).
In addition to general requirements discussed above, the proposed
rulemaking preamble must notify the public of EPA's intention to hold
public hearings. The final rulemaking 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.
8
-------
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.
2.2 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. General guidance, such as the OAQPS "Air Programs Policy and
Guidance Notebook" (May 1980), is also available. Questions should be
directed to specific Headquarters offices. 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 preambles 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 our position, finding, and basis for action. This applies as much
where EPA expects to approve, as where EPA expects to disapprove a plan.
2. Regional Offices should consider designing proposals to encourage
States to correct any deficiencies in their submittals; and to allow EPA
to approve most corrected submittals without additional notice and
comment. 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, the terms "photochemical
oxidants" and "oxidants" should be changed to "ozone." 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 the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service,
Washington, D.C. 20408 (FTS 523-5266).
2-3 Rationale for Approval/Disapproval of State Submitted SIP Revisions
Some approval/disapproval actions result in lawsuits. Also, 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. This is particularly true when the SIP revision alters an
emission limitation and consequently alters a control strategy. For
this situation, the following type of information should be included in
rationale documents:
10
-------
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 the State) or as a summary in the Technical
Support Document (generally appropriate for revisions initiated by the
Regional Office). This information should have been considered by the
11
-------
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 one or more 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 riot 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.
2.4 Procedural Problems - When SIP Revisions 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., 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
12
-------
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.
2.5 Incorporation by Reference
The original SIPs approved in 1972 were incorporated by reference
by the Office of Federal Register (OFR). Since then, the OFR has ruled
that all approved regulatory and nonregulatory revisions of the SIPs
have not been properly incorporated by reference. Under the direction
of CPDD, a contractor has gathered post-1972 SIP regulatory and nonregulatory
revisions approved thru July 31, 1980 and is in the process of submitting
them to OFR. An August 21, 1980 memorandum from CPDD (originated by the
Control Programs Operation Branch - 629-5226) explains how new SIP
actions can be properly incorporated by reference.
13
-------
EPA's Federal Register Liaison Office is preparing detailed guidance
to supplement CPDD's August 21, 1980 memorandum explaining how to incorporate
new SIPs and SIP revisions. In the interim, the following procedures
apply to all final EPA approvals of State-submitted SIP material which
must be incorporated by reference:
1. In the preamble to EPA's notice of final action -
a. The following address must be added to the "address"
section: The Office of the Federal Register, 1100 L Street,
N.W., Room 8401, Washington, D.C. 20460. (This will indicate
where the State submittal may be found for public inspection.)
b. The following boiler plate must be added immediately
following the signature of the Administrator: "NOTE - Incorporation
by reference of the State Implementation Plan for the State of
was approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on July 1, 1980." (The July 1, 1980 date should be
used in every case.)
2. The final action package forwarded to EPA's Federal Register
Officer (for normal actions) or to ORL (for special actions) must contain
one additional copy of the complete State submittal which EPA is approving
(including both regulatory and nonregulatory material). This extra copy
must be accompanied by a cover memo for transmittal to OFR as shown in
Item #3 of this section. The memo should identify the State submittal
using the same wording which appears in the "Identification of Plan"
section of the final action notice found in the regulatory section of
the notice containing the amendments to Title 40 of the CFR. The State
submittal should be in good condition so that copies of it will be
readable.
H
-------
3. Example memo for submission of State SIP revision to OFR:
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).
Not all final SIP actions require incorporation by reference. As a
rough guide, check to see if the regulatory portion of the Federal
Register notice contains an amendment to the "Identification of Plan"
portion of 40 CFR. If it does, incorporation by reference will be
necessary.
Finally, a reminder that each Regional Office must file and make
available to the public all approved State SIP submittals for the States
in its jurisdiction. This action is also needed to satisfy the public
availability requirement of the incorporation by reference regulations.
15
-------
3.0 CLASSIFICATION OF PLAN REVISIONS
3.1 General
All SIP revisions fall into two categories: normal or special
action. For normal plan revisions, Headquarters may comment but has no
concurrence role. For special action plan revisions, Headquarters has
concurrence/non-concurrence responsibility at the proposal and final
rulemaking stages.
The special action category is generally reserved for revisions
which have national policy or multi-regional implications. National
policy implications are inherent in revisions which address unresolved
policy issues, which might compromise ongoing litigation, or which raise
new conceptual issues. For example, at the present time, national
policy implications are inherent in any revision addressing issues such
as Part D Nonattainment plans, S02 relaxation, visibility, and approval
of State plans to prevent significant deterioration. Eventually, however,
these issues will be resolved. After resolution through promulgation of
regulations, or through other appropriate mechanisms, and after sufficient
experience with interpretation and implementation of the promulgated
regulations, the great majority of revisions dealing with these subjects
will be considered as normal. After that time, special actions dealing
with these subjects would be required only if the revision involved a
departure from the generally agreed upon policy.
16
-------
The magnitude of a plan revision and the environmental, social, or
economic impact of that revision are generally not relevant in determining
whether a revision needs special action, although special attention
should be given by the Regional Office to revisions which do have major
environmental, social, or economic impacts to insure that national
policy issues are not involved. To automatically require Headquarters
concurrence on major plan revisions solely due to their magnitude (such
as revisions to SIPs which are "substantially inadequate" for attainment)
would result in duplication of Regional Office efforts, and an appropriate
Headquarters review could not be accomplished in the 14-day time period
permitted by the existing procedures. For example, a SIP revision might
result in major environmental, social, and economic impact. However, if
regulations and guidance for development and implementation of the plan
have been distributed to the Regional Offices, and the review was conducted
consistent with that guidance, the action should be classified normal.
Thus, criteria for classification of normal and special action plan
revisions may be summarized as follows:
a. Normal Action - Issues which do not have national or multi-
regional implementations, and for which policy has been established.
For these purposes, policy has been established when the Regional Offices
have received guidance from Headquarters in the form of regulations and
guidelines which have been approved by appropriate EPA offices as representing
Agency policy. Some examples of normal issues are:
17
-------
(1) Non-regulatory change to a SIP,
(2) Revisions to State-specified sampling or stack testing methods,
(3) Changes in control strategies in the SIP to replace the example
region approach,
b. Special Action - Issues which have national or multi-regional
implications and for which policy has not been established.
Regional Offices may exercise discretion in classifying a revision
for special action to get Headquarters policy review, even though a
certain revision might usually be classified as normal. Appendix B,
"Special Processing Requirements," contains a list of issues generally
classified as requiring special action. It is our intention to periodically
update Appendix B as EPA revises its review policy.
18
-------
4.0 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., OTLUP,
ECTD, etc., receive all pertinent 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. Appendix C includes the address of each office.
4.1 Office of the Administrator
4.1.1 Office of General Counsel (OGC) - 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 special action
packages, AQNRD may recommend appropriate non-concurrence actions to OGC
when warranted.
4.1.2 Office of Regional Liaison (ORL) - ORL is the staff office
of the Administrator which coordinates the processing of proposed and
final rulemaking packages for special action issues. ORL receives
appropriate copies of the proposed and final rulemaking packages for all
special action issues. ORL's role is to coordinate the review process,
and does not include review responsibility.
19
-------
4.2 Office of Air. Noise, and Radiation (QANR)
4.2.1 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS).
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina - The Control Programs
Development Division (CPDD) of OAQPS maintains an up-to-date SIP file.
CPDD and other elements of OAQPS provide technical support and assistance
to the Regional Offices on the development, evaluation, arid promulgation
of SIPs, including all revisions thereto. The Regional Offices must
send CPDD copies of all proposed and final packages involving SIPs. For ,
special action issues, CPDD may recommend appropriate non-concurrence
action to OANR when warranted.
4.2.2 Office of Transportation and Land Use Policy (OTLUP),
Washington. D.C. - OTLUP is a staff office of OANR which
provides technical support and assistance to the Regional Offices in the
development, evaluation, and promulgation of transportation and land use
related SIP actions. The Regional Offices send OTLUP that portion of
the proposed and final rulemaking packages which includes transportation
and land use elements. For special action packages, OTLUP may recommend
appropriate non-concurrence action to OANR when warranted.
4.2.3 Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control (OMSAPC),
Washington, D.C. - The Emission Control Technology Division
(ECTD) of OMSAPC 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 special action packages, ECTD may recommend appropriate non-
concurrence action to OANR when warranted.
20
-------
4.3 Office of Enforcement (OE)
4.3.1 Office of General Enforcement (OGE). Washington. D.C. -
a. The Division of Stationary Source Enforcement (DSSE) of OGE
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. DSSE
also provides support on the enforcement aspects of SIP revisions
involving regulations for the control of stationary sources. The Regional
Offices send DSSE copies of all compliance schedule approval/disapproval
actions. DSSE also receives that portion of proposed and final rulemaking
packages which include regulations for the control of stationary sources
(this would include all lll(d) plans). For special action issues, DSSE
may recommend appropriate non-concurrence action to OE when warranted.
4.3.2 Office of Mobile Source Noise and Radiation Enforcement
(OMSNRE), Washington. D.C. - The Field and Support Division
(FOSD) (formerly part of MSED - Mobile Source Enforcement Division) of
OMSNRE provides technical support with regard to enforcement of regulations
to control emissions from mobile sources. The Regional Office sends
FOSD that portion of proposed and final rulemaking packages involving
transportation control measures, inspection/maintenance, vapor recovery
at service stations, and other regulations affecting mobile sources.
For special action packages, FOSD may recommend appropriate non-concurrence
action to OE when warranted.
4.4 Office of Planning and Management (0PM)
4.4.1 Office of Planning and Evaluation (OPE), Washington, D.C. -
The Standards and Regulatory Division (SRD) of 0PM contains two
components which coordinate SIP actions as follows:
21
-------
a. SRD's Policy Analysis Staff conducts evaluations of proposed
regulations pursuant to its reponsibility for procedural management and
substantive evaluation of the developmental process for agency standards,
regulations and guidelines. SRD receives copies of all proposed and
final rulemaking packages. For special action packages, SRD may recommend
appropriate non-concurrence action to 0PM when warranted.
b. The Federal Register Officer is located in SRD's Communications
Branch and serves as a liaison between EPA and the Office of the Federal
Register. All rulemaking actions are routed through SRD as shown in
Figures 4 and 5.
4.4.2 Office of Administration (OA), Washington. D.C_._ - The Management
and Organization Division (MOD) of OA contains the Public Information
Reference Unit (PIRU) which serves as a focal point in making EPA actions
available to the public. Copies of all proposed and final rulemaking
actions, along with related attachments are forwarded to PIRU by the EPA
Federal Register Officer.
4.5 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
Register notices prior to signature by the Regional Administrator.
Where national policy issues do not exist but several Regions are developing
individual regulations for similar sources, appropriate Headquarters
offices (CPDD, OTLUP, DSSE, 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
22
-------
availability of resources. 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 special action SIP revisions.
23
-------
5.0 PROCESSING OF NORMAL SIP REVISIONS
5.1 Rroposed Rulemakinc^
SIP revisions classified as normal will be processed as depicted in
Figure 4 on page 33. If substantive or procedural problems occur with
a State-submitted SIP revision (submittal contains major deficiencies),
the Regional Office should negotiate with the State as discussed in
Section 2.4. The proposed rulemaking package must be signed by the
Regional Administrator.
The preamble to the proposal should adequately describe the content
of the proposed revision, and identify major issues so that interested
parties can determine the scope and impact of the proposal; then, if
further detail is desired, the plan can be reviewed at the identified
locations. The preamble should also contain a statement as to whether
EPA thinks the revision is approvable as discussed in Section 2.0. It
is important to prepare the proposal as soon as possible after receipt
of the State submission to. facilitate timely action.
For EPA-originated actions, the docket must be established as
discussed in Section 2.1.4. Also, when necessary, the technical support
document must be prepared and available at proposal time.
The Regional Office must mail the proposed rulemaking package to
the Federal Register Officer through the Office of Planning and Management,
Standards and Regulations Division (OPM-SRD), Attention: Federal Register
Officer, EPA (PM-223), Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460. The package must include the original proposal (double spaced
with pages numbered at the bottom) and five copies.
24
-------
The Federal Register Officer will send the necessary copies to the
Federal Register, PIRU, and the Office of Management and Budget.
Additional copies of the entire ruletnaking package must be fowarded
by the Regional Office to the following at the addresses shown in Appendix
C:
a. CPDD, SRD, and OGC (OGC does not want the rationale),
b. DSSE, FOSD, ECTD, OTLUP as appropriate, and
c. Cognizant State and local air pollution control agencies (preamble
and regulation only).
Once the proposed rulemaking package has been received by 0PM
(Federal Register Officer), it will be forwarded directly to the Federal
Register without further review or delay. It is expected that these
actions will appear in the Federal Register in 5 to 10 working days
after receipt by 0PM. If you have any questions on the status of a
particular package, call the Federal Register Officer at 287-0778.
5.2 Handling Public Comments
A copy of all comments must be forwarded to the Public Information
Reference Unit (specify page and date of Federal Register referred to;
e.g., XX FR XXXXX, X/X/XX) at the previously mentioned address. The
Regional Office will take substantive comments into proper consideration
as to how they impact on approval/disapproval and proposal actions. In
preparing the final rulemaking Federal Register package, public comments
must be discussed in the preamble, along with EPA's response to such
comments. If no comments were received, it must be so noted.
25
-------
For EPA-originated SIP revisions, public comments must also be
included in the docket (see Section 2.1.4).
5.3 Final Rulemaking
Final rulemaking for normal SIP actions are to be processed as
shown in Figure 4. Final rulemaking action must be for the Administrator's
signature. There will be no concurrence prior to submission of the
Federal Renter package to the Administrator although Headquarters may
comment on the SIP action during the public comment period. Thus, as
discussed in Section 5.2, the Regional Office will consider substantive
comments on the proposed rulemaking action and discuss these in the
action memorandum and preamble of the final rulemaking action along with
EPA's response to such comments. As discussed in Section 2.0, the final
Federal Register package must include the transmittal memo (original),
action memo (original and 1 copy), the regulatory portion (original and
5 copies), and the rationale for approval/disapproval (1 copy). Also,
provision must be made for incorporation by reference of the State-
submitted SIP revisions as discussed in Section 2.5.
The Regional Administrator forwards the final rulemaking package
through the Federal Register Officer to the Administrator for signature
with copies to OGC, CPDD, and SRD. The Regional Administrator also
sends additional copies to FOSD, DSSE, OTLUP, and ECTD as appropriate.
5.4 Procedure for Headquarters to Change a Normal Action to a
Special Action Issue
If a staff office believes that a proposed rulemaking action classified
as normal by a Regional Office should be a special action rulemaking,
26
-------
that office may recommend that the appropriate Assistant Administrator
(or the General Counsel) consult with the Regional Administrator on the
need for special action on the rulemaking. A memorandum from the Assistant
Administrator should be forwarded to the Regional Administrator (cc ORL)
prior to the end of the comment period on the proposed rulemaking. The
Regional Administrator and involved AAs are to reach agreement as to
whether the rulemaking action will be treated as a normal or special
action SIP revision at the final rulemaking stage, and the action is to
be processed accordingly.
27
-------
6.0 PROCESSING OF SPECIAL ACTION SIP REVISIONS
Rulemaking for SIP revisions classified as special action are to be
processed as depicted in Figure 5. If substantive or procedural problems
occur with State-submitted SIP revisions, the Regional Office is to
negotiate with the State as discussed in Section 2.4.
Certain actions, covered in Appendix B, have been designated as
special actions by Headquarters.
6.1 Proposed Rulemaking Action
The proposed rulemaking must be signed by the Regional Administrator
and forwarded, in the appropriate number of copies, to ORL (attention:
Director, ORL (A-101), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460). ORL forwards copies to the Washington review
offices: OGC, SRD, OTLUP, DSSE, and FOSD as is indicated by the transmittal
memo. In addition, the RAs send copies to CPDD and ECTD (for I/M plans).
All Part D actions must be sent via overnight mail. For other actions,
the RAs must determine their urgency and mail accordingly.
At the end of the 14-day period, if no non-concurrences have been
received from an Assistant Administrator or the General Counsel, concurrence
will be assumed. ORL will notify the Regional Administrator and forward
the package to OPM/SRD for transmittal to the Federal Register.
28
-------
6.2 Handling Public Comments
The public comments received by the Regional Office are to be
discussed in the preamble of the final rulemaking package. If no comments
are received, it must be so noted. The Regional Office will forward one
copy of all public comments to PIRU and will supply copies of the comments
to other Headquarters offices upon request.
For EPA originated actions, public comments are to be submitted
directly to the docket at the following address: Central Docket Section,
EPA, West Tower Lobby, Gallery I, 401 M St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
6.3 Final Rulemaking Action
As for the proposal, the Regional Administrator sends copies of the
final rulemaking to CPDD and ECTD (for I/M plans) and the appropriate
number of copies to ORL. ORL forwards, as indicated by the transmittal
memo, copies to the Washington review offices: OGC, SRD, OTLUP, DSSE,
and FOSD. Again, all Part D actions should be sent via overnight mail.
During this time ORL will notify the appropriate staff offices of the
time limits of the review period by telephone. At the end of that time,
if no non-concurrences have been received from an Assistant Administrator
or the General Counsel, ORL will notify the Regional Administrator and
forward the package through SRD to the Administrator for signature.
The purpose of the Headquarters staff review is to focus on issues
with national policy implications, the potential for Regional inconsistencies,
or issues that may result in litigation. This does not preclude Headquarters
from commenting on other areas, but the fundamental purpose of their
review should be to address the broad areas delineated in the previous
29
-------
sentence. When, as a result of comments by Headquarters staff the
Regional Office revises a package, Headquarters should then complete
its review of the revised package as expeditiously as practicable;
normally within two days after receiving the revised package.
6.4 Non-Concurrence
If a non-concurrence is warranted at the proposal or final rulemaking
stage, the Assistant Administrator or General Counsel will forward it to
the Regional Administrator with a copy to ORL. ORL will provide appropriate
staff offices with copies of the non-concurrence. The Regional Administrator
will initiate actions as appropriate to resolve the issue. Upon resolution,
ORL will inform the other appropriate offices. If the non-concurrence
is resolved by revising the original Federal Register package, the
revised package will be resubmitted through the concurrence procedure.
This procedure can be expedited by resolving changes via telephone and
agreeing on a shorter concurrence time for the subsequent revision. The
Regional Office then forwards the revision to ORL. ORL circulates the
package to appropriate reviewers who must respond within an agreed upon
period.
If an agreement cannot be reached, the Regional Office will prepare
the package with the non-concurrence memorandum tabbed and transmit the
package to the Administrator through ORL, with copies to appropriate
review offices.
30
-------
FIGURE 4. PROCEDURES FOR NORMAL SIP REVISIONS (AND lll(d) PLANS)a"d
RO receives or
prepares revision
RA signs PRMC
PRM to OPM/SRD
PRM published in
FEDERAL REGISTER
RO evaluates comments
and prepares FRM
FRM to OPM/SRD
If State Revision contains major
deficiency, RO negotiates with State
for acceptable changes
Copies of PRM to CPDD, OGC,C SRD,
Aand to DSSE, OTLUP, FOSD, and ECTD
as appropriate
Copies of FRM to CPDD, OGC, SRD,
and to DSSE, OTLUP, FOSD, and ECTD
!_as appropriate
FRM to AX for Administrator's signature
FRM published in FEDERAL REGISTER
a. lll(d) plans are discussed in Appendices A and B to this guideline.
b. The Proposed Rulemaking Package (PRM) includes the transmittal
memorandum, the action memorandum; original and one copy; preamble
and regulatory portion: original and 5 copies; and 1 copy of any
attachments. OPM/SRD will forward one of these copies to PIRU.
OGC does not want copies of support documents.
The Final Rulemaking Package (FRM) includes the same components
as the PRM. Prior to promulgation, OPM/SRD will forward one of
these copies to PIRU. One copy of material to be incorporated by
reference (see Section 2.5) must be included.
c.
d.
31
-------
FIGURE 5. PROCEDURES FOR SPECIAL ACTION .
SIP REVISION (AND lll(d) PLANS)3'0'1"
RO receives or
prepares revision
If State Revision contains major deficiency,
RO negotiates with State for acceptable changes)
RA signs PRML
PRM published in
FEDERAL REGISTER
I
RO evaluates comments
and prepares FRM
RA sends copies of PRM to ORL. CPDD and ECTD
~~ "
non-concurrence to ORL within 14 days
ORL forwards to OPM/SRD after 14 days or
after resolution of non-concurrence issue
RA sends copies of FRM to ORL, CPDD and
ECTD
non-concurrence to RA within 14 days|
ORL forwards to AX after 14 days or
after resolution of non-concurrence
|FRM signed by Administrator]
[FRM published in FEDERAL REGISTER
a.
c.
lll(d) plans are discussed in Appendices A and B to this guideline.
Appendix B also discusses actions which are generally classified
special.
The Proposed Rulemaking Package (PRM) includes the transmittal
and action memoranda, preamble and regulatory portion, and
attachments. If all review offices receive copies, ORL needs the
original and 5 copies of the total package for circulation to SRD,
OGC, DSSE, OTLUP, and FOSD. ORL also needs another 4 copies of
only the preamble and regulatory portion for transfer to the
Federal Register officer after the 14-day concurrence period, and
a copy of the preamble, regulatory portion, and attachments for
transfer to PIRU. The RO sends CPDD and ECTD their copnes
separately. Part D plans must be sent via overnight mail. The
ROs will judge the urgency of other actions and mail them accordingly.
The Final Rulemaking Package (FRM) includes the same components as the
?m The same number of copies are needed except 1 copy of material
to be incorporated -by reference must be included (see Section 2.5).
32
-------
APPENDIX A
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 certain 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
A-l
-------
the best adequately demonstrated systems of emission reduction, considering
costs, as applied to existing facilities.
On April 6, 1977, CPDD distributed Guideline No. 1.2-072, Requirements
and Procedures for Implementing Section lll(d) to the ROs. 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.
Approval/disapproval of lll(d) plans are made in 40 CFR 62, which
is modeled on Part 52, the approval/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 4 and 5. All negative declarations will
be classified as normal actions. Section lll(d) plans also need to be
incorporated by reference.
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B
SPECIAL PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS
FEBRUARY 1981
This appendix includes a list of actions generally classified
special and a discussion of the Region V Pilot program to reduce SIP
processing time. In classifying actions not listed here, Regions should
use the criteria in Section 3 to determine if the action should be
normal or special.
1.0 ACTIONS GENERALLY CLASSIFIED SPECIAL
1.1 PSD plans.
1.2 Nonattainment plans required to meet section 172 of
the Act (including I/M plans).
1.3 Relaxation of S02 regulations.
1.4 Visibility plans.
1.5 Plans affecting copper, lead, and zinc smelters.
1.6 Lead SIPs - only the following should be classified special
action:
- A SIP for which a substantial part is proposed for disapproval,
e.g., a major portion of the control strategy, and
- States requesting an extension beyond the October 1982
attainment date.
1.7 Stack height regulations.
1.8 Bubble proposals.
1.9 Where regulatory actions may involve inconsistent
application of the requirements of the Act.
B-l
-------
2.0 Steel Industry - Those actions which have a significant
impact upon the industry or upon a specific permittee
or facility or for which EPA's position will receive
exceptional public scrutiny should be classified special.
Notification of receipt from a State of such a plan
must be given to DSSE. With the agreement of all
reviewing offices a period shorter than 14 days may
be established. Questions on classification of steel
industry actions should be directed to DSSE, Washington,
D.C., 755-2564.
2.1 Section lll(d) Plans - Initial section lll(d) plans
will be classified special. EPA feels that the initial
plans need a "special" classification until we obtain
more expertise in preparing lll(d) plans. Negative
declarations are normal actions. Questions on
classifications of lll(d) actions should be directed
to Control Programs Development Division, Control
Programs Operations Branch, FTS 629-5226.
2.0 REGION V PILOT SIP REVIEW PROGRAM
An effort is underway to reduce Headquarters' review of some SIP
packages and expedite these actions. OAQPS has agreed with Region
V on a pilot SIP review program to reduce processing time for all
Part D SIP revision packages that were initially proposed as special
action but did not generate significant public comments. For six
months beginning in February 1981, these final Part D actions from
Region V will be processed as normal actions. At the end of this
period EPA will evaluate the results of the pilot program and
revise SIP processing procedures accordingly.
B-2
-------
APPENDIX C
ADDRESS OF HEADQUARTERS OFFICES
WHICH REVIEW OR PROCESS SIPS
The first seven Headquarters Offices shown below are all located at
401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
1. U.S. EPA, Office of General Counsel, Air, Noise, and Radiation
Division (A-133) .
2. U.S. EPA, Office of Regional Liaison (A-101).
3. U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Land Use Policy (ANR-445).
4. U.S. EPA, Division of Stationary Source Enforcement (EN-341).
5. U.S. EPA, Field Operations and Support Division (EN~53r).
r^'r^' ?tandards and Regulatory Division (PM-223). (Also for
EPA Federal Register Officer, use this address.)
Ref'erenJe UnT^lS)*? °r9am'Zatl'on Division> Pub1^ Information
S Deve1°pment Division ^search
6'
C-l
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-450/2-81-002
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Processing Procedures for SIP Revisions (ar
lll(d) Plans)
7. AUTHORlS)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standarc
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Plans Guidelines Section
Control Programs Development Division
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
lu 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Is
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
EPA/OAQPS Guideline
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
200/04
15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
This is a revision to the guideline published in September 1976.
16 ABSTRACT
The guideline summarizes State Implementat
procedures used by EPA's Regional Offices c
and promulgate SIP provisions. The guide! •
how SIPs are classified as "normal" or "sp<
are processed according to these classifies
description of the role of various EPA Heac
review, and a brief discussion of the compc
action.
ion Plans (SIPs) processing
ind Headquarters to propose
ine contains a discussion of I
jcial" action, and how SIPs I
itions. It also contains a T
^quarters offices in SIP
Dnents of a Federal Register
17 KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
SIP Processing
Rulemaking
EPA Review Offices
Classification of Rulemaking
18 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COS AT I field/Group
Proposed Rulemaking 13B
Final Rulemaking
Normal Action
Special Action
Incorporation by Reference
19 SECURITY CLASS (This Repurt) 21 . NO. OF PAGES \
None 45 1
20 SECURITV CLASS (This page) 22. PRICE
None 1
»
»
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |