o
ctf
Office of Inspector General
/ Report of Review
% no^e0*
7111
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan
Program Consolidated Report
Review Report No. E1KAE6-05-0044-6400100
September 30,1996
-------
Inspector General Divisions
Conducting the Review:
Consolidated:
Regional Reviews:
Regions Covered:
Program Offices Involved:
Northern Audit Division
Chicago, Illinois
Eastern Audit Division
New York, New York
Northern Audit Division
Chicago, Illinois
Southern Audit Division
Dallas, Texas
Regions 2, 3, 5, and 6
Office of Air and Radiation,
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards
Office of Mobile Sources
Regional Air Divisions
-------
2 Ok \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
i ^^ ^^^^^ _^ iLi
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 30 !996
OFFICE OF
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Special Report No. E1KAE6-05-0044-640Q10Q
Air State Implementation Plan (SIP) Program
FROM: Michael Simmons
Deputy Assistant Inspector General
for Internal and Performance Audits
TO: Mary D. Nichols
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
A copy of the subject final report is attached. We appreciate the cooperation we received from
your staff in conducting this work. The open lines of communications with Regions 2, 3, 5, and
6, the SIP Steering Committee, and the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
have enabled us to agree upon recommendations that will benefit the program.
This report contains findings and recommendations identified during our review of the SIP
program. The report represents the opinion of the Office of Inspector General. EPA managers
will make a final determination on matters in the report following established EPA audit
resolution procedures. Accordingly, the findings described in the report do not necessarily
represent the final EPA position.
Action Required
In responding to the findings in our draft report, you concurred with the recommendations.
However, no specific corrective actions or milestone dates were given. In accordance with EPA
Order 2750, you, as the action official, are required to provide this office a written response to
this report within 90 days. For corrective actions planned, please describe the actions that are
ongoing and provide a timetable for completion.
We have no objections to the further release of this report. Should you or your staff have any
questions, please contact Kimberly O'Lone, Audit Manager, at (312) 886-3186 or Janice Miller,
Team Leader, at (312) 886-3084.
n q Fnvironmental Protection Agency
U.b. tnvirounre ££> Recyctod/Reeyclabte
RefitOn D, Library (rL-l£J> rA_AJ Printed wfthSoy/Canola Ink on paper that
o . . _ r-i _..!_. I 1 O4U Cl*f*» V \(7 nnntain* at laaet *nt rA/i*r4Art fiKor
r\c«iiwti MJ u-i^tM.^ *• — - —'
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor "QC7 conu^attoast^recwber
Chicago, II 60604-3590
-------
r - ] ] • >
. • I /«
[This page was intentionally left blank.]
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regions (1) had
adequate procedures in place for obtaining, reviewing, and
approving State Implementation Plans (SIP), (2) established a good
working relationship with Headquarters and states, and (3) worked
up front with states to get SIPs submitted on time. For example,
the regions designated a coordinator for each state so there would
be one primary contact person in the region for the state to deal
with. The regions conducted monthly conference calls with
Headquarters and states to resolve issues. Also, they held
conference calls every six weeks to discuss new guidance and
SIPs. On a national level, the Office of Air and Radiation created
the SIP Improvement Workgroup (Workgroup), that recommended
many changes to SIP processing.
Parts of the SIP program could be improved on a national basis.
For example, EPA could improve its relations with states by
establishing a forum to allow state officials to address their
concerns of inequities in the SIP program. EPA could also
increase the timeliness of SIP submission and processing by
resolving the causes of the delays. Finally, future SIP guidance
should be organized and issued timely, to help states meet SIP
deadlines.
AGENCY COMMENTS
AND ACTIONS The Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation concurred with
the recommendations in our report, including to:
1. Establish a forum to allow states to address concerns of
inequities in EPA's treatment of states. This may include
working with already established state organizations.
2. Request that Regional Air Directors coordinate early those
SIPs that span regional or state lines.
3. Build in extra time for developing and reviewing complex
SIPs, when EPA has some authority in setting deadlines.
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
4. Develop a centralized numbering system for all SIP
guidance and, as recommended by the Workgroup, develop
a computerized listing of specific types of SIPs, with cross
references to guidance, policies, and regulations.
Additional recommendations are included at the end of each
chapter, beginning with chapter 2. For details on the purpose and
background of the report, see page 1.
11
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Scope and Methodology 3
Prior Audit Coverage 5
2 STATES PERCEIVED INEQUITABLE TREATMENT 8
Lack of Communication Caused Perceptions 8
Perceived Inequities Created Barriers 9
Workgroup Developed Process for National Consistency 12
Conclusion 13
Recommendations 14
Agency Actions 14
OIG Evaluation 14
3 EPA NEEDED TO REDUCE SUBMISSION AND PROCESSING DELAYS 15
Background 15
Workgroup and Office of Inspector General Identified Delays 16
Conclusion 21
Recommendations 22
Agency Actions 22
OIG Evaluation 23
4 SIP GUIDANCE DID NOT ALWAYS MEET NEEDS OF STATE OFFICIALS .... 24
EPA Issues SIP Guidance 24
States Adopt SIPs Through Laws or Regulations 25
Guidance Was Not Always Timely 26
Guidance Was Not Organized 26
Some Guidance Was Continually Changing 28
Conclusion 30
Recommendations 30
Agency Actions 31
OIG Evaluation 31
iii
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
EXHIBITS
1 WORKGROUP RECOMMENDATIONS 32
2 EMISSIONS INVENTORY REQUIREMENTS
FOR OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIPS 34
APPENDICES
1 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION RESPONSE TO DRAFT REPORT 36
2 ABBREVIATIONS 38
3 DISTRIBUTION 39
IV
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
PURPOSE
BACKGROUND
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has performed a series of
regional special reviews of the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) State Implementation Plan (SIP) program. We
performed work in Regions 2, 3, 5, and 6. Because we identified
national issues during these reviews, we have consolidated the
work into this report. The objectives of this consolidated review
were to determine:
• if EPA regions process SIPs so that all states are treated
equitably,
• whether SIPs were submitted timely and processed within
the 18-month time frame, according to the Clean Air Act,
as amended in 1990 (Act), and
• whether EPA Headquarters has provided clear, organized,
and timely guidance to the regions and states.
The Act is the basic statute governing the nation's effort to protect
the public health and welfare from the harmful effects of air
pollution. Under Title I of the Act, EPA sets limits on how much
of a particular pollutant can be present in the air for any given
location within the United States. EPA, states, and local
governments are required under the Act to implement measures to
prevent and control air pollution, with significant responsibility
resting with the states.
The major mechanism used to attain the standards in individual
areas is a SIP. A SIP is a collection of the regulations a state will
use to clean up polluted areas, called nonattainment areas. Most
SIPs are routine and non-controversial. A few, however, are
extremely controversial. The Act established deadlines for states
to submit SIPs to EPA. After the states finalize regulations, SIPs
are submitted to EPA for its review and action. States develop a
1
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
separate SIP for each standard or air pollutant of concern. SIPs
address pollutants such as: ozone, carbon monoxide, and
particulate matter (PM-10).
A SIP must be clear, enforceable, and stringent enough to protect
the national air quality. Otherwise, states will not achieve the
desired air quality results. Once a SIP is approved, it is legally
binding under both state and federal law, and may be enforced by
either government. SIPs are also important because a state
operating permit can be no more stringent than the underlying
requirements applicable to a source, including those in the SIP.
The operating permit sets emission limits for individual sources,
such as power plants and factories. Therefore, if SIPs contain
regulations that are vague, unenforceable, or not sufficiently
stringent, the permits will not achieve the overall desired air
quality.
EPA has a special set of sanctions to encourage state submittal and
implementation of SIP measures. In general, these sanctions apply
when a state does not make reasonable efforts to submit an
adequate SIP or to implement an approved SIP. Sanctions
automatically go into effect in an area 18 months after EPA finds
that a state has not submitted a SIP by the deadline, or has
submitted an incomplete SIP. Mandatory sanctions include (1)
required emission offsets that affect new and expanding
businesses, and (2) a prohibition on grants of certain Federal
highway funds. In applying the emissions offset requirements,
sources must offset increased emissions at new or expanding
facilities by reducing emissions at another location. The offset
sanction goes into effect first and the highway funds sanction
begins six months later, if the state has not submitted a complete
SIP. The same process applies if EPA disapproves a SIP or finds a
state is not implementing an approved SIP. EPA also has the
authority to withhold grants to the state air pollution programs as
another sanction, but this does not apply automatically.
Based on recommendations made during an April 1994 Regional
Air Directors meeting, EPA established a SIP Improvement
Workgroup (Workgroup) to examine SIP processing procedures
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
and recommend improvements. In its April 5, 1995 report, the
Workgroup recommended improving the SIP process in the areas
of resources, communication, and guidance and policy
development.
METHODOLOGY This report consolidates audit work completed in Regions 2, 3, 5,
and 6. It also builds upon the Workgroup report.
To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed applicable SIP policies
and procedures. Also, we reviewed SIP case files and interviewed
responsible EPA and state officials in each region. As criteria, we
used the Act; the SIP General Preamble for Implementation of
Title 1 of the Act; the SIP Processing Manual; and relevant U.S.
General Accounting Office (GAO) and OIG audit reports.
To assess internal controls, we reviewed the Office of Air and
Radiation (OAR) and the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) 1994 and 1995 Federal Managers' Financial
Integrity Act reports. The 1994 OAQPS report identified
weaknesses in internal controls relating to inaccurate data in the
SIP tracking system. However, the 1995 OAQPS report stated that
the SIP tracking system weakness was corrected. No other
weaknesses, other than those described in this report, came to our
attention.
Our first objective was to determine if EPA regions process SIPs
so that all states are treated equitably. During the regional reviews,
we interviewed state officials to determine if inequities existed in
how EPA treated them. We also reviewed files to try to confirm
their statements. In consolidating this issue, we reviewed the prior
OIG regional reports, compared SIP processing procedures in each
region, and interviewed OAQPS and Office of General Counsel
(OGC) officials to determine if they were aware of inconsistencies
in how regions processed SIPs that affected states inequitably.
Our second objective was to determine whether SIPs were
submitted timely and processed within the 1 8-month time frame
the Act established. We reviewed OIG regional reviews and SIP
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
case files. We also compared issues identified during regional
reviews to those the Workgroup identified, and we interviewed
OAQPS and OGC officials.
Our third objective was to determine whether EPA Headquarters
provided clear, organized, and timely guidance to the regions and
states. We reviewed guidance documents, OIG regional reviews,
and we interviewed OAQPS and Office of Mobile Sources (OMS)
officials to see if certain kinds of guidance were late more than
others.
We conducted this review between December 4, 1995, and July 26,
1996. We discussed our findings and recommendations with OAR,
OAQPS, OGC, and regional air officials during the course of our
audit. These discussions included formal briefings about our
potential findings during May 1996. On June 21, 1996, we issued
position papers to these officials. On July 17, 1996, we held a
conference call with officials from these offices to discuss the
position papers. We made appropriate changes to the draft report.
On August 7, 1996, we issued our draft report. We held a
telephone exit conference with officials from OAR, OAQPS, OGC,
and regional air offices on September 11, 1996. The Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation responded on September 20,
1996. We made appropriate changes, based on the exit conference
and the written response, and finalized the report. The Assistant
Administrator's response is included as appendix 1.
This review, like all special reviews, was not designed to be a
statistical research study or a detailed audit. Rather, it was an
information gathering study that sought to identify issues for top
management attention. Thus, it was more limited in scope than an
audit and, as such, did not necessarily encompass all generally
accepted governmental auditing standards. Alternatively, this
review was conducted in accordance with the provisions of OIG
Manual Chapter 150, Special Reports.
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
Scope of
Regional Reviews
PRIOR AUDIT
COVERAGE
From 1994 to 1996, we reviewed the SIP programs in four regions.
In each of these regions, we looked at SIP submittal, review, and
approval activities since the amended Act was enacted on
November 15, 1990. Details of the scope of the regional reviews
follow:
Region 2: Our review covered the Air Program Branch of
the Air and Waste Management Division, and the States of
New York and New Jersey. The fieldwork was performed
from October 12, 1994, to December 28, 1994. We
performed follow-up work during March through June
1996, to reconstruct work papers that were lost in the mail
which had documented the work performed in Region 2.
Region 3: Our review covered activities in the Air,
Radiation and Toxics Division and the States of
Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The fieldwork was
performed from July 31, 1995, to November 28, 1995.
Region 5: Our review covered the Air and Radiation
Division and the States of Illinois and Ohio. Our fieldwork
was performed from April 11, 1994, to October 21, 1994.
We also reviewed additional case files from February
through April 1996.
Region 6: Our review covered activities in the Air
Programs Branch of the Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division
and the States of Texas and Louisiana. The fieldwork was
performed from May 2, 1995, to September 29, 1995.
Over the past few years, the GAO and the OIG have issued reports
about the SIP program or other areas that related to this report.
Several reports identified similar issues with the timely issuance of
EPA guidance, inconsistent treatment of states, and submission and
processing delays. In June 1993, the GAO reported that, despite
efforts by EPA and the Congress to address long standing
problems, delays continued in the states' submission and EPA's
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
review and approval of SIPs (GAO/RCED-93-113). In April 1995,
GAO reported that, in other EPA program areas, inconsistent
treatment of states across regions strained the EPA/state
relationship (GAO/RCED-95-64). State program managers
believed EPA regional offices treated the states inconsistently.
OIG Regional
Reviews The four regional reviews the OIG conducted leading up to this
consolidated review found that EPA regions had (1) adequate
procedures in place for obtaining, reviewing, and approving SIPs,
(2) established a good working relationship with Headquarters and
states, and (3) worked up front with states to get SIPs submitted on
time. Because the regional reviews raised issues that were more
appropriately resolved at the national level, we issued this
consolidated report.
In November 1994, the OIG reported that Region 5(1) proactively
addressed a problem with enforcement reviews, (2) reorganized to
improve SIP processing, and (3) held monthly conference calls
with states (Report No. 5400013). The review also noted that SIPs
were sometimes submitted late and the Region did not always
timely process them.
In March 1995, the OIG reported that Region 2 had adequate
procedures in place for obtaining, reviewing, and approving SIPs,
and the SIP process worked well (Report No. 5800001). Region 2
had one SIP contact point for all the states, and a different designee
for each SIP element. The Region interacted with the states from
the beginning of the process. Regional officials tried to handle the
SIPs expeditiously and met with the states periodically to discuss
SIP implementation and effectiveness. To facilitate timeliness, the
Region usually notified the states as a deadline approached. If the
state was extremely late, the Region followed up with a letter. In
addition, there was a good rapport between the Region and
Headquarters. Monthly contact with Headquarters was maintained
during conference calls, while workgroups discussed new guidance
and SIPs via conference calls held every six weeks. Although
Region 2 had improved its SIP processing, states were still
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
submitting some SIPs late and the Region was not always timely
processing them.
In October 1995, the OIG found that Region 6 had a good working
relationship with states.1 Region 6 designated a coordinator for
each state so there would be one primary contact person in the
Region to deal with each state. Also, Region 6 conducted monthly
conference calls with each state to resolve issues. State officials
indicated that Region 6 provided guidance when they received it
from EPA Headquarters. The Region worked with the states to get
SIPs submitted on time. States submitted the majority of the SIPs
by the due dates. Region 6 met the Act's 60-day requirement for
considering SIPs complete, though the Region did not always act
timely to approve or disapprove the SIPs.
In February 1996, the OIG reported that Region 3 prioritized its
SIPs waiting for review (Report No. 6400032). The Region also
established an internal tracking system to ensure it provided
guidance to states promptly. The system allowed Region 3 to
provide guidance to the states within 24 hours from the time the
Region received it from Headquarters. States did not always
submit SIPs timely and the Region did not always process them
timely.
'A formal report was not issued for Region 6.
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
CHAPTER 2
States Perceived Inequitable Treatment
LACK OF
COMMUNICATION
CAUSED
PERCEPTIONS
State officials believed that inequities existed in how EPA
administered its SIP program. For example, state officials thought
regions processed SIPs inconsistently and EPA made policy
exceptions for some states. We were not able to factually
substantiate these concerns. Instead, a lack of communication
between regions and states caused the perceived inequities. As a
result, (1) state officials became frustrated, causing strained
relationships between them, EPA, and other states, (2) EPA, and
the Act, lost credibility with states, and (3) state legislatures
changed their SIPs or hesitated to take action because they thought
EPA held other states to less stringent standards.
EPA also identified consistency as a potential concern in the
Workgroup report, since the Workgroup proposed delegating SIP
review and approval to the regions in most instances. The
Workgroup developed a process for EPA regions to ensure
consistent application of regulations and policy, while allowing
regional flexibility to address local issues. While this process
allows regional officials to address possible inequities, states do
not have a similar process for dealing with their concerns of
inequities.
A 1995 GAO report found that states were concerned that EPA
was inconsistent in its oversight across regions. Although that
report did not cover the air program, our work showed that state
SIP program officials had similar concerns as those GAO
described.2 In the report, EPA officials said that states believed
disparities in treatment were widespread. They did not know,
however, whether the perceptions were well founded. State
officials conceded that they lacked complete information about
Environmental Challenges Require a Better Working Relationship. Report No. GAO/RCED-95-64, April 1995.
GAO's review covered (1) the hazardous waste program, (2) the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
program, and (3) the Public Water Supply Supervision program.
8
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
PERCEIVED
INEQUITIES
CREATED BARRIERS
Regional Inconsistencies
how other states implement their programs. The officials
acknowledged that, if more information were available, they might
better understand the reasons for the variation and perhaps feel less
"singled out" by EPA.
The GAO report suggested that EPA needed to determine whether
inconsistencies were (1) merely the appropriate exercise of
flexibility, (2) inappropriate and raise genuine questions of
fairness, or (3) less a reality than a perception arising from
miscommunication or lack of information. While state officials
said they believed inequities existed in the SIP program, we were
not able to confirm this. Instead, we found that miscommunication
or a lack of information caused the perception of inequities.
Officials from several states raised concerns about being treated
inequitably. This treatment, as they perceived it, could create
difficulties for the states. It (1) strained relationships, (2) hurt
EPA's credibility, and (3) gave state legislatures a reason to change
or delay SIPs. These problems made it more difficult for states to
develop SIPs to attain air quality standards.
Six of eight states reviewed, in four regions, felt regional
inconsistencies caused them to be treated unfairly. As a result,
state officials became frustrated, and relationships between them,
EPA, and other states were strained. A lack of consistency, or the
perception of it, could also have an economic impact on states. If
states or industries believe inconsistencies exist in the way EPA
applies regulations, it can affect competition for new businesses.
State officials said industry is more likely to establish new plants
in, or move current operations to, places where EPA seems to
apply the Act less stringently.
A West Virginia SIP provides an example of state officials
perceiving that another region would be less strict in approving
SIPs than their own region. Louisiana and Ohio officials
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
incorrectly perceived that Region 3 redesignated a West Virginia
nonattainment area before it met all Act requirements.3
• A Louisiana official believed that, although West Virginia's
redesignation request contained very little information,
Region 3 approved it without question. The Louisiana
officials felt they were treated unfairly because they had
submitted a very detailed redesignation request to Region 6,
yet it was not approved. However, Region 3 officials
questioned parts of West Virginia's plan, requiring them to
revise it several times before approving it more than two
years after the state's original request.
• An Ohio official did not think West Virginia had completed
all SIP requirements, such as submitting a final SIP
inventory, before Region 3 approved the redesignation.
The Ohio official said that personnel from their Region (5)
would not consider redesignating areas until states had
submitted all requirements. However, Region 3 officials
did not grant approval of the redesignation until the entire
area met all Act requirements.
These perceived inconsistencies strained relationships between
states and EPA. As a result, as seen with Louisiana and Ohio,
states complained about other states and EPA's treatment of them.
EPA Policy Exceptions State officials felt that EPA policy exceptions caused EPA and the
Act to lose credibility. The officials said exceptions also resulted
in state legislatures changing or delaying SIPs. For example, state
officials felt that, when EPA first allowed an exception to policies
on the enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program, it
damaged the credibility of the Act.4 It also caused states, such as
Louisiana, to lose legislative support for other environmental rules
3Areas can be redesignated to attainment once they meet air quality standards and other statutory requirements.
4I/M programs reduce pollution by ensuring that pollution control devices on automobiles are operating correctly
and requiring repairs to systems that are not operating as required. Enhanced I/M programs use special machines that test
cars during actual driving conditions.
10
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
and regulations. Now, when the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality proposes a regulation, it needs to
demonstrate that the rule will be beneficial and cost effective.
In November 1993, the EPA Administrator wrote Louisiana that
EPA would use its discretionary authority to impose sanctions on
any state that failed to adopt an acceptable program. California did
not submit an I/M program and Region 9 began preparing a
sanctions proposal. However, on November 24, 1993, based on
progress in EPA and California talks, EPA Headquarters
temporarily halted the Region's action and announced its decision
to work together with California to resolve the situation. EPA's
decision to change the I/M policy affected several states.
• Texas officials said that, when EPA changed the I/M rules,
they lost public support for the program and they could no
longer say that it was an EPA requirement. As a result, the
Texas legislature eliminated its I/M program in January
1995. Texas officials said that, because the rules changed,
the State, EPA, and the whole SIP process lost credibility.
Also, because EPA did not apply discretionary sanctions
against states that did not comply, industry criticized Texas
for complying with Act requirements.
• Because Headquarters and Region 6 officials continually
warned states that EPA would impose sanctions, Louisiana
used this warning to persuade its legislature to pass I/M
rules. Louisiana's legislature opposed an enhanced I/M
program for the Baton Rouge area, since it felt that cars did
not contribute significantly to that area's pollution problem.
A Louisiana staff member said that State officials,
including the legislature, favored a decentralized I/M
program, but EPA required the centralized program and
originally would not consider alternatives.5 Louisiana saw
EPA's policy change on California's I/M program as a basis
Decentralized programs allow privately owned garages and service stations to conduct emissions tests and
perform repairs. Centralized programs require state employees, or their contractors, to conduct emissions tests, while
repairs are performed elsewhere.
11
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
WORKGROUP
DEVELOPED
PROCESS FOR
NATIONAL
CONSISTENCY
to petition EPA for the basic program it thought was more
appropriate for its state.
Since EPA first made the policy exception for I/M, many things
have changed in the program. EPA changed its rules and Congress
passed new legislation which provided additional flexibility in
implementing I/M programs to all states. As a result, both Texas
and Louisiana have taken advantage of this new flexibility and are
proceeding with decentralized I/M programs.
As the GAO report said, EPA needs to be able to exercise
appropriate flexibility. This includes tailoring policies to meet
individual local circumstances. When it does so, however, EPA
should consider whether this decision will have an impact on other
states. If so, then EPA should work with the states to minimize the
impact. This could involve developing a communications strategy
that explains the reasoning behind the variation in policy and how
it affects other states. EPA could work with both individual states
and already established state organizations toward this end.
To improve the way existing regulations and policy are applied,
and to address areas where policy development is needed, in 1995,
the Workgroup recommended, and the OAR adopted, a process
that incorporated a:
• way to communicate, within EPA, policy decisions that
impact across regions;
• mechanism to identify issues with national implications,
which all participating regions should discuss;
• process that quickly raises identified issues to the
appropriate top managers; and
• mechanism to encourage regions to be accountable to one
another when proposing variations from existing policy.
12
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
The Workgroup created two tiers to deal with consistency issues.
Tier I issues involve deviations from national policy that are likely
to affect other regions or establish national precedents, while Tier
II issues do not. Regions are not required to use this process for
Tier II issues. When a region considers taking an action that could
be a Tier I deviation, the region should initiate the consistency
process. The regional staffs prepare and distribute a one-page
summary which identifies (1) the proposed deviation, (2) affected
regional offices, (3) the reasons for the deviation, and (4) potential
consequences. Then, the staff holds a call to:
• explain the issue;
• determine the appropriate decision level given the time-
critical nature of the decision; and
• explore possible options.
Subsequently, regional officials negotiate a decision to satisfy all
interested parties.
While this process allows regional officials to address possible
inequities, a similar mechanism is not in place for states. EPA
officials agreed that a similar process could be established for
states to raise concerns. They suggested that one possibility was to
use the already established state organizations, such as the State
and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators
(STAPP A)/Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials or
the Western Governors' Association, as a forum for discussing
potential inequities.
CONCLUSION
EPA has a responsibility to ensure basic national consistency on
legal, policy, and technical issues. SIP decisions are under
constant scrutiny because they test the balance sought between
flexibility and consistency provided by national directives. EPA
needs to communicate the reasons for any variations in actions on
states' SIPs, not only between EPA regions, but also between the
states. By addressing states' perceived inequities, EPA could both
13
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
RECOMMENDATIONS
AGENCY ACTIONS
OIG EVALUATION
improve environmental performance and address a significant
impediment to the EPA/state relationship.
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation establish a forum to:
2-1. Allow state officials to address concerns of inequities in
EPA's treatment of states. This may include working with
already established state organizations.
2-2. Explain reasons for policy variations and their effects on
other states.
In responding to our draft report, the Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation concurred with our recommendations. She
suggested that recommendation 2-1 be modified to have the
Assistant Administrator for OAR work in conjunction with
STAPPA to use its meetings as a forum for addressing inequities.
The Assistant Administrator also said that her office is
participating in an agency-wide task force examining how to
improve communication of policies, guidance, and rules. She said
her office will address this issue in implementing the task force
recommendations.
While we agree that STAPPA meetings are an appropriate place to
establish a forum, we do not want to limit our recommendation to
any single organization. During our exit conference, SIP officials
noted that there were many other state organizations that may also
be appropriate forums for addressing inequities. As such, we did
not modify our recommendation as suggested.
While the Assistant Administrator concurred with our
recommendations, she needs to provide specific corrective actions
and milestone dates for addressing them.
14
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
CHAPTER 3
EPA Needed to Reduce
Submission and Processing Delays
EPA and states did not always meet Act deadlines for submitting
and processing SIPs. The SIP Improvement Workgroup identified
several causes for delays in the SIP process. We confirmed some
of their causes for delay and identified additional reasons. As
discussed in chapter 4, of the cases we reviewed, the cause
mentioned most often for delay was the lack of EPA guidance.
This was followed by (1) delays in bringing policy issues to
closure, (2) extended state regulatory review processes, (3) limited
regional resources, and (4) SIPs that were technically deficient. As
a result, states faced sanctions for submitting SIPs after the
deadlines. EPA also faced potential lawsuits for not processing
SIPs within 18 months. The longer it takes to get SIPs processed
and in place, the longer it may take to achieve the desired air
quality results.
BACKGROUND
One charge of the Workgroup was to examine the current SIP
backlog. The Workgroup developed potential Headquarters,
regional, and state reasons for the backlog and made
recommendations to the Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation. In July 1995, the Assistant Administrator accepted the
report. We reviewed case files in Regions 2, 3, 5, and 6 to quantify
the Workgroup results. EPA can use our data to develop a plan of
action that may help states and EPA submit and process SIPs more
timely.
We reviewed 56 SIPs, submitted since passage of the Act on
November 15,1990. See table 1 for the number of SIPs reviewed
in each region. Our first samples were judgmentally selected in
Regions 2 and 6. In selecting a sample, we made no distinction
between SIPs that were on time and those that were late. Our later
samples, in Regions 3 and 5, were randomly selected from SIPs
that were submitted or processed late. We made this change so we
15
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
could use our data to build on the causes for delays the Workgroup
report identified.
Table 1: Sample Sizes
Regional Office
Region 2
Region 3
Region 5
Region 6
Sample Size
14
20
10
12
WORKGROUP AND
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
IDENTIFIED DELAYS
Workgroup
Identified Delays
The Workgroup report and DIG reviews identified several similar
causes for submission and processing delays. We confirmed some
of the causes for delays identified in the Workgroup report, as
shown in table 2. We also found additional causes not mentioned
in the report (see table 3).
The Workgroup report identified causes for delays and listed
several recommendations to address them (see exhibit 1).
Implementation of the Workgroup recommendations may help to
reduce SIP submission and processing delays.
Although the results of our file reviews cannot be projected, they
do suggest a priority EPA could consider in implementing the
Workgroup recommendations. As shown in table 2, almost half
the SIPs we reviewed were late, in part, due to the lack of EPA
guidance.6 The Workgroup considered Headquarters role in the
review process as a major cause for delays. Based on this, they
recommended that Headquarters delegate SIP approval authority to
6The numbers shown in the tables may overlap because multiple reasons may delay the submission or processing
of one or more SIPs.
16
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
the regions, which they believed might help reduce the SIP
backlog. Although we found that Headquarters role caused few
delays, limiting their review responsibilities may free up more time
for the staff to develop guidance.
Table 2: Workgroup Identified Reasons for Delays
Identified In The Workgroup Report
Lack of EPA guidance
Delays in bringing policy issues to closure
Extended State regulatory review process
Limited regional resources
Low priority SIPs
Headquarters role in review
State adoption of non-regulatory provisions
Deviation from national policy
Submission of flawed Federal Register notices
for publication
Suspension of processing in anticipation of
further state submittals
Complex organizational systems
Low threshold for completeness
Number of Cases
From OIG Reviews
23
11
10
8
6
5
3
1
0
0
0
0
Additional OIG
Identified Delays
As shown in table 3, OIG regional reviews identified additional
causes for submission and processing delays that were not
mentioned in the Workgroup report.
17
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
Table 3: OIG Identified Reasons for Delays
Technically
Deficient SIPs
Identified During OIG's Regional Reviews
Technically deficient SIPs
Complicated SIPs
EPA needed to resolve national issues
Coordination of SIPs between regions and states
Number of Cases
8
7
6
4
States sometimes submit technically deficient SIPs that delay
EPA's approval. EPA requires that SIPs contain all technical data
before it will process them. Missing data delays processing
because regions typically wait for states to submit the data. The
Workgroup recommended that the regions work with states to
develop a pre-submittal review process. We believe this may help
ensure that SIP submittals contain all required technical data.
To illustrate, New York's and New Jersey's Enhanced I/M SIPs
were technically deficient. New York's submittal did not include a
complete Enhanced I/M program for 35 of 47 counties. New
Jersey's submittal did not include technical specifications and
procedures, provisions for licensing, and certification of stations
and inspectors. Region 2 found the SIPs incomplete and delayed
processing the SIPs until its States submitted the additional data.
Similarly, Region 3 officials delayed processing the District of
Columbia's New Source Review (NSR) SIP because of technical
deficiencies.7 The deficiencies included (1) the lack of public
notice and comment requirements, (2) a provision in the regulation
that could circumvent the entire NSR regulation, and (3) the
location of emission offsets. Region 3 delayed processing the SIP
to allow the District of Columbia to resolve the deficiencies.
7NSR is a program for pre-construction review of new major sources of air pollution and major modifications of
existing sources.
18
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
Complicated SIPs
EPA Needed to
Resolve National
Issues
SIPs can be very complicated documents that can take a long time
for states to develop and EPA to review. One SIP can contain
many different regulations. Also, states sometimes have to
develop complex rules to implement the SIPs. In the future, EPA
can take steps to simplify SIPs, as much as possible, or allow extra
time for developing and reviewing them.
Region 3 officials took extra time to process Maryland's and
Pennsylvania's Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
Fix-up SIPs because they included many different regulations.8
Maryland's SIP was further delayed because the state revised its
SIP three times after Region 3 declared it complete. Each revision
required Region 3 to perform a new completeness review. As a
result, Region 3 took about 44 months to process Maryland's SIP
and 24 months to process Pennsylvania's SIP.
Indiana delayed submitting its NSR SIP because of complex rules.
The Act required new provisions for the NSR SIPs, and EPA had
not issued guidance to the states. So, states had to decide what
data to include in the SIP. Indiana officials were reluctant to
submit the SIP because (1) it was complex, and (2) they believed
EPA would determine it incomplete or disapprove it, once EPA
issued guidance.
EPA needed to resolve issues having a national impact, before
regions could process some SIPs. In some cases, workgroups were
formed to look into the issues. EPA's prompt resolution of such
issues may improve the timeliness of regional processing.
Region 2 officials delayed processing New Jersey's Nitrogen
Oxide (NOx) RACT SIP. This SIP was designed to reduce the
emission of NOx, one of the pollutants that forms smog. These
delays occurred because additional research was needed to answer
Region 3's comments. Region 3 officials disagreed with Region
Under the RACT requirements, sources must control emissions to the extent such control is economically and
technologically feasible. The RACT requirements apply to stationary sources in ozone nonattainment areas and
throughout an ozone transport region.
19
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
Coordination of
SIPs Between
Regions and States
2's proposal to approve the SIP containing generic rules for
emission limits.9 They felt that the Region 2 proposal was similar
to a Pennsylvania SIP proposal in Region 3. However, Region 2
officials believed there were substantial differences between the
two SIPs. As a result, Region 2 held the final notice on New
Jersey's SIP until a workgroup could research the issue and decide
how to handle generic emission limit provisions. As of August
1996, the workgroup was still ongoing.
Region 2 officials have held, since January 1995, New York's
Volatile Organic Compound RACT Catch-Up SIP because they
needed to resolve issues affecting its approval. They identified a
national consistency issue concerning generic emission limit
provisions. They were waiting on a decision from the workgroup
mentioned above before processing the SIP.
Regions need to coordinate their SIP processing efforts with other
regions and states to ensure national consistency. Such
coordination can require extra time and delay the SIP process.
However, early coordination between regions and states may
quicken the process and ensure that similar SIPs are processed the
same way nationwide.
Region 2 delayed processing New York's Oxygenated Fuels SIP,
designed to reduce carbon monoxide emissions, because it needed
to coordinate with Region 1 about a nonattainment area shared
between the regions. Since smog travels across county and state
lines, when a metropolitan area covers more than one state (for
instance, as shown in figure 1, the New York metropolitan area
includes parts of New Jersey and Connecticut), its governments
and air pollution control agencies must cooperate to solve their
problem. Regions 1 and 2 needed to work together to develop an
Oxygenated Fuel program for New York, New Jersey, and
Connecticut. As a result, Region 2 delayed processing New York's
9The generic rules allow each source to submit plans proposing their own emission limits. EPA interprets the
Act to require states to establish emission limits for all RACT sources, prior to EPA approval of the SIP.
20
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
Oxygenated Fuels SIP while it waited for SIPs from New Jersey
and Connecticut.
Figure 1:
Oxygenated Fuel Program
Coordinated by Regions 1 & 2
Region 1 /'V'F'"
' \ ?*
CONCLUSION
In another example, Region 5's processing of Ohio's PM-10 SIP to
reduce dust and soot emissions was related to West Virginia's PM-
10 SIP in Region 3. To ensure national consistency, the two
Regions needed to coordinate their processing efforts. This
coordination took extra time, delaying Region 3's SIP processing.
The lack of EPA guidance was the most significant cause for
delays in SIP submission and processing. This was followed by
delays in bringing policy issues to closure, extended state
regulatory review processes, and limited regional resources. Our
work also showed that SIPs were delayed because they:
• were technically deficient,
• were complicated,
• needed regions to resolve national issues, and
21
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
• required coordination between multiple regions and states.
By addressing these issues, as well as those recommended by the
Workgroup, EPA may help reduce future SIP submission and
processing delays. EPA can work toward achieving program goals
by addressing the most significant causes first. This may help to
ensure that the desired air quality results are achieved timely.
RECOMMENDATIONS
AGENCY ACTIONS
In July 1995, the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
accepted the recommendations of the Workgroup. We support the
Workgroup recommendations, and urge the Assistant
Administrator to place priority on implementing the
recommendations concerning the most common causes, such as
developing guidance, bringing policy issues to closure, and
working with states early in the SIP development process.
In addition, we recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation:
3-1. Place priority on promptly resolving national SIP issues.
3-2. Request that Regional Air Directors coordinate early on
those SIPs that span regional or state lines.
3-3. Take steps to make future SIPs as simple as possible.
3-4. Build in extra time for developing and reviewing complex
SIPs, when EPA can exercise discretion in setting
deadlines.
In responding to our draft report, the Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation concurred with our recommendations. For
recommendation 3-3, she stated that EPA is sensitive to the
concerns of its state, tribal, and local air quality program partners
in this area and is working toward streamlining and simplifying the
SIP process as much as possible. For example, the National SIP
22
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
Processing Work Group will look for ways of simplifying the SIP
process. The Assistant Administrator also said that her office is
offering states more flexibility in how they implement programs
through the National Environmental Performance Partnership
System. They have already re-engineered and simplified
requirements for important state programs, such as vehicle
inspection and maintenance, and new source review. The Assistant
Administrator did caution, however, that the complexities of SIP
revisions are still, to a large extent, determined by each state.
OIG EVALUATION
The Assistant Administrator needs to provide specific corrective
actions and milestone dates for each recommendation.
23
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
CHAPTER 4
SIP Guidance Did Not Always Meet
Needs of State Officials
EPA SIP guidance did not always meet the needs of state officials.
For example, EPA's guidance was not always timely or organized,
and some guidance continually changed. There were several
causes for guidance problems, including unrealistic Act deadlines
and guidance documents that were issued in numerous forms and
were not numbered. As a result, state officials (1) submitted SIPs
late or revised SIPs to meet new guidance, (2) were not sure they
had all applicable guidance, or if guidance had been superseded,
and (3) were confused by changing guidance. In fact, as discussed
in chapter 3, the leading cause of late SIPs was EPA's untimely
guidance.
EPA officials also identified problems with SIP guidance. The
Workgroup report, for example, stated that "adequate guidance is
not always available to the States in a timely fashion." The
Workgroup recognized that timely guidance is imperative for states
to consistently develop SIPs that comply with the Act. Also,
regions need guidance documents to review SIP packages. The
Workgroup recommended that Headquarters personnel devote
more time to drafting SIP regulations and guidance. The
Workgroup recommended a review process that limited EPA
Headquarters involvement, thus freeing up the staffs time.
Because many deadlines for Act-required SIPs have passed, EPA
officials cannot correct the past guidance problems. Instead, they
can improve future SIPs by making those guidance documents
timely and organized. EPA can also improve SIP guidance by
timely addressing policy issues.
EPA ISSUES
SIP GUIDANCE According to OAR's Implementing the 1990 Clean Air Act: The
First Two Years, one of EPA's roles is to issue guidance to states to
ensure that states devise and carry out adequate SIPs. Two offices
24
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
STATES ADOPT SIPS
THROUGH LAWS
OR REGULATIONS
within OAR are primarily responsible for issuing this guidance.
OAQPS, located in North Carolina, is responsible for developing
and issuing SIP guidance related to stationary sources, such as
power plants. OMS, located in Michigan, is responsible for
developing and issuing SIP guidance related to mobile sources,
such as cars and trucks.
State processes for adopting regulations can be very lengthy. The
SIP process is a cooperative effort involving EPA, state
governments, and local jurisdictions. The state begins the process
by developing a SIP composed of regulations that meet the basic
provisions of the Act. After states develop their SIPs, they go
through a rulemaking process to become adopted as official state
rules. The process varies by state, with some going to the state
legislature and others going through board or commission reviews.
For example,
• West Virginia's rulemaking process lasts nearly one year
and each rule must be authorized by the legislature. Before
the rules go to the legislature, a legislative rulemaking
committee reviews them and holds a public hearing. The
committee then addresses any public comments and
presents the rule to the legislature for authorization.
Generally, for West Virginia's legislature to address a rule
in a certain year, it must be presented to them by mid-
August.
• In Ohio, the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Revisions
(JCARR) reviews state rules. JCARR is a committee of the
State legislature. During JCARR's review, they hold a
public hearing. If JCARR disapproves a rule, it must be
revised and refiled. The rule then goes through another
review and public comment period. Ohio's shortest time
frame for processing State rules is about five months;
however, this does not include development of the rule.
After the State approves a rule, they submit the SIP to EPA
for its review and approval.
25
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
GUIDANCE WAS NOT
ALWAYS TIMELY
GUIDANCE WAS
NOT ORGANIZED
EPA officials did not always issue SIP guidance timely. One
reason this happened, according to EPA and state officials, was
because the Act deadlines for SIP submissions were sometimes not
realistic. For instance, between November 1990 and February
1996, the Act required that over 2,000 SIP elements be submitted.
Fourteen hundred of the SIPs were due by November 1992. As a
result, EPA personnel had difficulties developing and issuing
guidance before SIPs were due. This forced states to make
difficult choices. Sometimes, state officials chose to wait for
guidance before developing the SIPs, causing them to miss
statutory deadlines.
Lack of, or untimely, guidance made it difficult for states and
regions to meet the Act deadlines for SIP submission and
processing. EPA's untimely guidance was the leading cause of late
SIPs we identified.10 Some state officials were reluctant to submit
SIPs without guidance since they felt, once EPA issued guidance,
the SIP would be determined incomplete or need revision. As a
result, states missed statutory deadlines and faced sanctions.
Untimely guidance particularly caused problems for states with
lengthy rulemaking processes.
New York officials stated that untimely guidance was one reason
they missed the deadline for their SIP to reduce NOx emissions,
called the NOx RACT SIP. The SIP, due November 15, 1992, was
one of the first major SIP submissions due. OAQPS personnel
issued guidance on November 25, 1992. Because New York's
rulemaking process takes about 14 months, New York did not
submit its SIP until January 1994. Because of the delayed
submission, New York faced the possibility of sanctions.
State officials could not determine if they had all applicable
guidance for developing a SIP, because EPA did not organize the
10,
'See chapters.
26
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
guidance. Several different EPA program offices issued guidance,
in numerous forms, but there was no centralized listing or
numbering system. As a result, state personnel became frustrated,
delayed submission of SIPs, and the states faced sanctions.
OMS and OAQPS issued guidance in numerous forms, such as
reports, memoranda, letters, and Federal Register notices. Informal
guidance included regulatory interpretations, fact sheets, and
question and answer documents. One state official said that
"guidance can consist of piles and piles of memos and letters."
Therefore, state officials found it difficult to identify all relevant
documents for preparing SIPs. State officials were concerned that,
if they missed a guidance document, it could result in having to
revise the SIP.
For example, OAQPS issued documents related to NOx policy in
the following forms:
• Federal Register notices in 1992 and 1994;
• Several memos from the OAQPS Director to the Regional
Air Division Directors issued in 1994 and 1995;
A 1995 letter from the OAQPS Director to the Mid-Atlantic
Regional Air Management Association, the Northeast
States for Coordinated Air Use Management, and the
Ozone Transport Commission;
• Several OAQPS staff memos to Regional Air Division
Directors issued in 1993 and 1995; and
• An OAQPS staff memo to the Region 5 Air Enforcement
Branch that answered questions from the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA did not keep a complete list of SIP guidance in a central
location. While an OAQPS official said that there was a
comprehensive list of OAQPS-issued guidance available, we were
not able to obtain it. OMS also did not have a comprehensive list
27
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
of guidance. However, OMS provided a list by obtaining
information from each of its divisions. Because EPA did not have
a complete list of SIP guidance available, state officials could not
readily find the guidance or be sure they had all relevant
documents.
OAQPS did not number guidance documents and OMS generally
only numbered guidance documents issued as reports. Therefore,
state officials could not determine if they had all applicable
guidance or if EPA had superseded a document. OMS officials
said their newly issued guidance documents specifically referenced
superseded guidance. However, OAQPS officials stated that their
new documents did not indicate superseded guidance.
EPA's Management Accountability Process System (MAPS)
allowed regions to retrieve guidance by searching on a key word,
but MAPS was not available to states. States had access to the
same SIP guidance found in MAPS on the Technology Transfer
Network (TTN). However, OAQPS officials said TTN was not as
easy to search as MAPS and not all states had access to the system.
While state officials felt the TTN made guidance more available,
they were not confident the TTN contained all guidance.
Regional and Headquarters officials have acknowledged that
improving the availability of guidance would reduce delays in SIP
processing. Making guidance more available to states would also
reduce delays in SIP submission. If state officials could identify
all relevant guidance, before developing and submitting SIPs, it
would result in fewer state revisions. The Workgroup
recommended that Headquarters develop a computerized listing of
specific types of SIPs, with cross references to documents,
guidance, policies, and regulations. This type of listing would be
useful.
SOME GUIDANCE
WAS CONTINUALLY
CHANGING
Continually changing some types of guidance confused state
officials. Guidance sometimes changed because EPA needed to
address many policy and technical issues. These changes made it
difficult for state officials to meet the deadlines for submission the
28
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
Act had established. As a result, state officials sometimes delayed
SIP submission and faced sanctions. EPA and the states also lost
credibility with industry when guidance changed. State officials
said, when guidance changed, industry incurred additional costs.
The Workgroup recommended that EPA identify and resolve
national issues at an early stage and comply with schedules for the
development of national standards and guidance.
For example, the credit, which OAQPS allowed states to take for
the expected reductions from their Architectural and Industrial
Maintenance (AIM) Coatings in their Rate-of-Progress Plan SIP,
kept changing." These SIPs were due November 15, 1993. EPA
estimated the credit value at 25 percent in September, just two
months before the plans were due. Then, a November 29, 1994
memorandum indicated that OAQPS now anticipated the AIM rule
would reduce emissions by only 15 percent. A March 22, 1995
memorandum then increased the reduction estimate to 20 percent.
The estimated credit changes to 15 and 20 percent came more than
a year after the plans were due. (See figure 2.) As a result, state
officials had to revise the SIPs. Late and conflicting guidance
caused uncertainty, created frustration, and damaged the credibility
of both EPA and the states.
Figure 2:
AIM Coatings Credits
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Plans Due
9/93 11/93
11/94 3/95
AIM Coatings include paint and coatings for bridges.
29
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
EPA's emissions inventory requirements were also constantly
changing, confusing state officials. As a result, state personnel
submitted several revisions of their SIPs. For example, EPA
issued at least 19 documents for emissions inventory requirements
for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide SIPs between November 1990
and the November 15, 1992 deadline.12 (See exhibit 2 for listing.)
Also, EPA issued at least 13 additional guidance documents after
the deadline.
Changing guidance particularly affected some states that had
lengthy rulemaking processes. For example, Pennsylvania's
process for developing and adopting regulations takes about two
years. When guidance keeps changing, it is unlikely the State will
meet statutory deadlines. New York's rulemaking process takes
about 14 months. If EPA changes something that New York needs
to address through a revision to its rules, the rules must go through
the whole process again.
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Guidance is an important part of any program's internal control
system. In several instances, SIP guidance documents were not
timely or were continually changing. EPA also did not organize
guidance. Because EPA has now limited Headquarters officials
involvement in the SIP review process, they could have more time
to devote to drafting regulations and guidance. We realize that
EPA officials cannot correct the past guidance problems. Instead,
EPA can improve future SIPs by making those guidance
documents more timely and organized. EPA can also improve SIP
guidance by timely addressing policy issues. This will help to
ensure that the program's activities are carried out consistently and
timely when protecting human health and the environment.
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation:
12OAQPS' TTN Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emission Factors, June 1995.
30
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
4-1. Establish realistic deadlines for future SIPs, where
deadlines are not set in the Act, that will allow adequate
time for EPA to develop useful guidance, when
appropriate.
4-2. Develop a centralized numbering system for all SIP
guidance and, as recommended by the Workgroup, develop
a computerized listing of specific types of SIPs, with cross
references to guidance, policies, and regulations.
4-3. Place a high priority on resolving policy issues that impact
guidance documents.
AGENCY ACTIONS
In responding to our draft report, the Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation concurred with our recommendations.
OIG EVALUATION
The Assistant Administrator needs to provide specific corrective
actions and milestone dates.
31
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
Exhibit 1
Page 1 of2
WORKGROUP RECOMMENDATIONS
The April 1995 SIP Improvement Workgroup report listed several recommendations to address
the causes for delay. Implementation of the Workgroup recommendations may help improve the
timeliness of SIP submission and processing. We have categorized below selected
recommendations according to the causes we confirmed.
Lack of EPA guidance:
• Empower the regions to make more policy decisions.
• Comply with schedules for the development of national standards and guidance.
• Endorse and use SIP Flexibility policies.
Delays in bringing policy issues to closure:
• Ensure early and effective communications with State agencies and Headquarters.
State extended process for regulatory review:
• Ensure early and effective communications with State agencies.
Limited regional resources:
• Retain core of knowledgeable SIP staff.
• Develop Standard Operating Procedures.
• Train junior staff in SIP processing.
• Develop an electronic repository for current guidance.
32
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
Exhibit 1
Page 2 of 2
Low priority SIPs:
• Establish system for prioritizing SIPs.
• Assign SIPs to the "inactive" category.
Headquarters role in review:
• Require proper delegation.
• Retain limited Headquarters review.
State adoption of non-regulatory provisions:
• Develop checklists.
• Develop pre-submittal review process.
33
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
Exhibit 2
Page 1 of 2
EMISSIONS INVENTORY REQUIREMENTS
FOR OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIPS
1. Emission Inventory Requirements For Ozone State Implementation Plans, EP A-
450/4-91-010, EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1991.
2. Emission Inventory Requirements For Carbon Monoxide State Implementation
Plans, EPA-450/4-91-011, EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1991.
3. Procedures For The Preparation Of Emission Inventories For Carbon Monoxide
And Precursors Of Ozone, Volume 1: General Guidance For Stationary Sources,
EPA-450/4-91-016, EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1991.
4. Procedures For Preparing Emissions Projections, EPA-450/4-91-019, EPA,
Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1991.
5. Methodology To Estimate Nonroad Equipment Populations By Nonattainment
Area, EPA, Ann Arbor, MI, September 30, 1991.
6. Commercial Marine Vessel Contribution To Emission Inventories, EPA, Ann
Arbor, MI, October 7, 1991.
7. Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study, 21A-2001, EPA, Ann Arbor, MI,
November 1991 (report and appendices separately bound).
8. "Issues Associated With The 1990 Base Year Emission Inventory and Modeling",
Memorandum, William G. Laxton, Technical Support Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 26,
1991.
9. Section 187 VMT Forecasting and Tracking Guidance, EPA, Ann Arbor, MI,
January 1992.
10. Methodology To Calculate Nonroad Emission Inventories At The County and
Sub-County Level, EPA, Ann Arbor, MI, July 1992.
34
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
Exhibit 2
Page 2 of2
11. Major CO, NO2 And VOC Sources in the 25-mile Boundary Around Ozone
Nonattainment Areas, Volume I: Classified Ozone Nonattainment Areas, EPA-
450/4-92-005a, EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1992.
12. Major CO, NO2 And VOC Sources in the 25-mile Boundary Around Ozone
Nonattainment Areas, Volume II: Transitional Ozone Nonattainment Areas And
Ozone Nonattainment Areas With Incomplete Or No Data, EPA-450/4-92-005b,
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1992.
13. Example Documentation Report For 1990 Base Year Ozone And Carbon
Monoxide State Implementation Plan Emission Inventories, EPA-450/4-92-007,
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1992.
14. Guide For Using The Empirical Kinetic Modeling Approach Interface (EKMAI),
EPA-450/4-92-009, EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1992.
15. User's Guide For The Urban Airshed Model, Volume IV, Part A, Emissions
Preprocessor System (Version 2.0): Core FORTRAN System, EPA-450/4-90-
007D(R), EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1992.
16. Guidance On The Implementation Of An Emission Statement Program (Draft),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC,
July 1992.
17. Quality Review Guidelines For 1990 Base Year Emission Inventories, EPA-
454/R-92-007, EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1992. Replaces EPA-
450/4-91-022.
18. Guidance On The Adjusted Base Year Emissions Inventory And The 1996 Target
For The 15 Percent Rate Of Progress Plans, EPA-452/R-92-005, EPA, Research
Triangle Park, NC, October 1992.
19. Guidelines For Estimating And Applying Rule Effectiveness For Ozone /CO State
Implementation Plan Base Year Inventories, EPA-452/R-92-010, EPA, Research
Triangle Park, NC, November 1992.
35
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
Appendix 1
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 20 1996
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to Draft Special R/p^rt No. EIK3\E06-05-0044-xxxxxx
Air State Implementation BfaiyPrograrn/Y
/ / V^l If f /}
FROM: Mary D. Nichols 'ji^Jfii+d/-t/^^5— "
Assistant AdministratorT ^^
for Air and Radiation do 101)
TO: Michael D. Simmons
Deputy Assistant Inspector General
for Internal and Performance Audits
This is in response to your memorandum of August 7, 1996. We appreciate the opportunity to
review the subject draft report concerning the Office of Inspector General reviews of the Air
State Implementation Program. Your memorandum requested review of the draft report (i.e.,
Chapters 1-4 and Exhibits 1 and 2), and a response indicating concurrence or nonconcurrence.
My staff has reviewed the report and is submitting the following comments for your
consideration:
Chapter 2 Recommendation:
#1 -Allow State officials to address concerns of inequities in EPA's treatment of States. This
may include working with already established State organizations.
Response:
We were pleased to find that the inequities in the treatment of states were more a matter of
perception than fact. Nevertheless, we need to improve our communication with states to
eliminate that perception. Currently, the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators (STAPPA), which represents the various State air pollution control agencies,
holds semi-annual meetings of its entire membership. Representatives from OAQPS and OAR
are invited to attend these meetings. Additionally, OAR and OAQPS host 1 to 2 additional
meetings a year with STAPPA. The recommendation should be modified to suggest the
Assistant Administrator for OAR work in conjunction with STAPPA to use these meetings as a
forum for addressing inequities, perceived or real. The next STAPPA/ALAPCO meeting is
36
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
Appendix 1
Page 2 of 2
-2-
scheduled for Oct 19-23. While the agenda for that meeting is close to being finalized, we will
work with STAPPA/ALAPCO to include as a future agenda item the establishment of a forum
for discussion of SIP inequities. We are also participating in an agency wide task force that is
examining how to improve the communication of our policies, guidance, and rules. In
implementing the recommendations of the task force, we will also address this issue.
Chapter 3 Recommendation:
#3 - Take Steps to make future SIP's as simple as possible.
Response:
EPA is sensitive to the concerns of our State, Tribal and Local air quality program partners in
this area and is working with all of these parties toward streamlining and simplifying the SIP
process as much as possible. Last July I delegated all SIP processing responsibilities to the
Regions to provide for the more expeditious processing of SIP revisions. Coupled with this
delegation was the establishment of the National SIP Processing Work Group that assumed
responsibility for managing the SIP process. This Work Group, in overseeing SIP processing,
will also look at additional means of simplifying the SIP process. We also recognize the
desirability of simplifying SIPs as part of the National Environmental Performance Partnership
System. We are offering states more flexibility in how they implement programs to protect
public health and the environment. We have also re-engineered and simplified our requirements
for important state programs such as vehicle inspection and maintenance and new source review
to allow states more flexibility. We will continue to explore ways to allow states to simplify
their SIPs, reducing the administrative burden on them and on the regulated community. While
we will continue to address the simplification of the SIP processing, the complexity of SIP
revisions themselves are still to a large extent determined by each individual State.
In addition to these comments, I have attached comments that have been provided by the Office
of General Counsel. Aside from these comments, we concur on the report. If you have questions
or need additional information, please contact Jerry M. Stubberfield, of my staff, at
919-541-0876.
I appreciate this opportunity to be of service and trust that this information will be helpful to you.
Attachment
Note: The OGC comments were technical corrections which we worked with OGC to resolve. In
agreement with OGC, we did not publish their comments in our report.
37
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
ABBREVIATIONS
Act Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990
AIM Architectural and Industrial Maintenance
EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
GAO General Accounting Office
I/M Inspection and Maintenance
JCARR Joint Committee on Agency Rule Revisions
MAPS Management Accountability Process System
NOx Nitrogen Oxide
NSR New Source Review
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OAR Office of Air and Radiation
OGC Office of General Counsel
OIG Office of Inspector General
OMS Office of Mobile Sources
PM-10 Paniculate Matter
RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology
SIP State Implementation Plan
STAPPA State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators
TTN Technology Transfer Network
Workgroup SIP Improvement Workgroup
Appendix 2
Page 1 of 1
38
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
Appendix 3
Page 1 of 1
DISTRIBUTION
Headquarters
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation (6101)
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
Director, Office of Mobile Sources (6401)
Agency Followup Official (3101)
Attn: Assistant Administrator, OARM
Agency Followup Coordinator (3304)
Attn: Director, RMD
Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Air and Radiation (6102)
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Legislative Affairs (1301)
Associate Administrator for Communications and Public Affairs (1701)
Headquarters Library (3401)
Office of Inspector General
Inspector General (2410)
Regional Offices
Regional Administrators
Regional Air Directors
Regional Audit Followup Coordinators
Regional Directors of Public Affairs
Regional Libraries
AH State Directors
39
Report No. 6400100
-------
EPA's Air State Implementation Plan Program
[This page was intentionally left blank.]
40
Report No. 6400100
------- |