GUIDELINE SERIES
QAQPS NO. 1.2-005A (Revised)
INTERIM GUIDELINE
REVISIONS TO STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS -
PROCEDURES FOR APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL ACTIONS
APRIL 1975
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
1.2 Overview
2.0 SPECIAL ISSUES
2.1 Division of Authority
2.2 Delegation of Authority to the Regional Administrator
to Sign Proposed Rulemaking Packages
2.3 Court Decisions
2.3.1 Opportunity of Public Comment
2.3.2 Requirements for Approval/Disapproval Action
3.0 FEDERAL REGISTER PACKAGES (State Submitted Proposed Changes)
37TContent .
3.2 Procedural Problems - When State Submlttal is Not Approvable
4.0 PREPARATION OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING PACKAGES (State submitted changes)
4.1 Proposed Federal Register Package
4.2 Public AdvertTsement
4.3 Handling Public Comments
5.0 PREPARATION OF FINAL RULEMAKING PACKAGES (State submitted changes)
5.1 Intra-agency Review
5.2 Public Comments 1n Final Rulemaking Package
5.3 Final Federal Register Package
6.0 TRANSPORTATION CONTROLS (State submitted changes)
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Proposed Rulemaking Package
6.3 Final Rulemaking Package
6.3.1 Intra-agency Review
6.3.2 Public Comments in Final Rulemaking Package
6.3.3 Final Federal Register
7.0 PROCEDURES FOR PREPARATION OF SIP REVISIONS ORIGINATED BY THE
REGIONAL OFFICE.
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Proposal of Corrective Regulations
7.3 Final Federal Register
Appendix A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Appendix B Transmlttal Memorandum
Appendix C Action Memorandum v
»
Appendix D Preamble
-------
Appendix E Rulemaking Section
Appendix F Rationale for Approval/Disapproval
Appendix G Public Corment Acknowledgment Letter
Figure 1. Federal Register Components - Final Rulemaking
Figure 2. Procedures for Approval/Disapproval of Revisions
and Submittals Except Those Involving Transportation
Control Measures
Figure 3. Procedures for Approval/Disapproval of Revisions
and Submittals of SIPs Involving Transportation
Control Measures
n
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
OAWM Office of A1r and Waste Management
OTLUP Office of Transportation and Land Use Policy
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
CPDD Control Programs Development Division
OPMO Office of Program Management Operations
OE Office of Enforcement
DSSE Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
MSED Mobile Source Enforcement Division
OGC Office of General Counsel
0PM Office of Planning and Management
MOD Management and Organization Division
RO Regional Offices
RA Regional Administrators
TCP Transportation Control Plan
iii
-------
REVISIONS TO STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS - PROCEDURES FOR APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL ACTIONS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this guideline is two fold. First, to update the
June 1, 1973 guidelines (OAQPS No. 1.2-005) which outlined the procedures
for approval/disapproval of State submittals to State Implementation
Plans (SIPs). Second, to outline the procedures for the preparation of
rulemaking actions which originate with the Regional Office.
The administrative procedures for approval/disapproval of revisions
to State Implementation Plans were updated on June 1, 1973. Since that
date, several changes in the procedures have been made. Court orders
have required that State submissions be proposed for public comment
before final EPA approval/disapproval action may be taken, and have
raised the issue of EPA non-action on correctly submitted State
revisions. The Administrator has delegated authority to the Regional
Administrator to sign proposed rulemaking packages involving State
submitted SIP action. Also, certain changes have been made in the
procedure for approval/disapproval of proposed plans which contain
transportation control measures.
Procedures for the preparation of rulemaking actions which originate
with the Regional Office have not been discussed in the guidelines here-
tofore. This situation usually develops when EPA issues a call for a
plan revision and the State fails to respond. These procedures have
-------
been added 1n Section 7 1n an attempt to cover review and processing for
all R.O. Federal Register preparations regarding SIPs.
1.2 Overview
These procedures shall apply to all SIP related actions that
Involve a change or modification 1n the approval of State Implementation
Plans (control strategy, emergency episode, resources, etc.) except
compliance type actions (I.e., compliance schedules, enforcement orders,
etc., which are covered under general enforcement procedural guidelines
issued by the Office of Enforcement and General Counsel, Division of
Stationary Source Enforcement, OEGC/DSSE, See guideline S-5,
Procedures for Review and Approval of Compliance Schedules Pursuant to
40 CFR S 51.6). However, any compliance schedule, variance, postponement
request or action that extends the date of compliance with emission
regulations beyond the ambient air quality standard attainment date
in the applicable SIP, or makes a change in the allowable emission
rate for a source(s), is considered an SIP revision since such actions
may affect the attainment of air quality standards. The processing
and evaluation of such actions will be handled in accordance with these
guidelines. Since State submissions Involving transportation control
measures will be processed differently than those submissions not
involving such measures, Section 6 has been added to explain this pro-
cedure. The major difference in review procedure is that for transportation
control plans, different groups within the Office of Air and Waste
Management (OAWM) and the Office of Enforcement (OE) will review
the Regional Office Federal Register package.
-------
Section 7 has been added to explain the procedures for the pre-
paration of rulemaking actions which originate with the Regional Office.
The Regional Offices are responsible for direct interface with the
State in matters involving the development and submittal of SIP revisions
where the revision originates with the State. The Regional Office will
review and summarize the record of hearings conducted by the State,
and distribute the submittals to the EPA headquarters offices for appro-
priate review and comment.
Thus, the Regional Offices are responsible for seeing that all
material germane to the SIP action or matter at hand has been received
from the States and is circulated as needed for the review, evaluation,
recommendations and action. The OAWM in Washington will serve as a focal
point for final processing actions. This will include the coordination
and arrangement of the Administrator's briefing, any external coordination,
Federal Register publications, and preparation of materials for national
news releases.
It is estimated that a typical state submittal which contains no
major deficiencies will require approximately four months to complete
Federal Register action. The following flow chart gives an estimate
of the time lapse from Regional Office reception of State submission
to final promulgation.
R.O. Receives
state
submission
4 ^
weeks '
Publication
of proposed
rulemaking
package
4
weeks ^
Public
comments
received
6-8
weeks '
Final
promulgation
-------
In summary, the procedure normally Involved 1n processing State
submitted SIP submittals can be listed as follows:
a. R.O. receives State submission, performs cursory review, and
Immediately prepares proposed rulemaking package. This notice
summarizes the content of the State submission which EPA is con-
sidering as an addition to the SIP and invites public comment within
30 days (see section 4).
b. R.O. forwards the proposal to the Federal Register for publication
with copies to CPDD, DSSE*. MSED* and OTLUP*.
c. R.O. evaluates plan revision and public comments, and prepares final
Federal Register package (see sections 5 and 6).
d. R.O. forwards draft of final Federal Register package to CPDD,
DSSE, MSED* and OTLUP* for review,and concurrence (see sections
5 and 6).
e. After non-concurrences, if any, are resolved, the final Federal
Register package is submitted through OAWM to the Federal Register
for publication.
2.0 SPECIAL ISSUES
2.1 Division of Authority
A division of authority regarding policy-making must be established
to resolve non-concurrence during interagency review when the parties
involved are unable to reach agreement. This division 1s necessary to
* Whether or not the submission includes transportation controls
determines who receives copies. See sections 4,5, and 6.
-------
provide an orderly procedure for handling such issues and at the same
time provide each organization the opportunity to be heard. The
location of basic authority on SIP decisions is as follows:
Primary Responsibility for; Office
Matters of national policy and precedent OAWM
Legal/procedural questions OGC
Regulatory/non-regulatory questions, Regional
where policy and precedent has been Offices
established and Local Policy issues
In instances where differences cannot be resolved, the final
Federal Register package will be prepared by the Office having primary
responsibility. The position and recommendations of the non-concurring
office(s) will be presented with full TAB attachments to the action
memorandum as submitted by the non-concurring office(s).
2.2 Delegation of Authority to the Regional Administrator to Sign
Proposed Rulemaking Packages
On May 30, 1974 (39 FR 18805) the Administrator delegated authority
to the Regional Administrator to sign proposed rulemaking packages
involving State submitted SIPs. This authority is limited to pro-
posed rulemaking packages in which the State proposal is presented for
the 30 day public comment period.
2.3 Court Decisions
A court decision requires that EPA provide for public comment
prior to approval/disapproval actions on SIP actions submitted by States,
-------
and that an official statement be made in the Federal Register regarding
all correctly submitted state submissions, even if the submission is
unapprovable or contains major deficiencies.
2.3.1 Opportunity for Public Comment - In response to the court decisions,
EPA will provide an opportunity for public review and comment on sub-
missions by States of changes and additions to the SIP. This opportunity
for public review and comment shall be provided through publication
of a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (see
sections 3 and 4).
2.3.2 Requirements for Approval/Disapproval Actions - The Environmental
Protection Agency has been criticized for failure to take action on
State submittals and revisions to SIP's which include unapprovable
regulations and procedures. This criticism was a major issue in a court
decision [NRDC v. EPA, 5 ERC 1879 (1st Cr., 1973)], and has been
referred to in subsequent court decisions. Although these cases do
not hold that EPA must take Federal Register action on all aspects of
State submissions, serious constitutional problems could arise in
enforcement actions if EPA fails to take this approach. A basic tenet
of due process of law is that those covered by a law must be able to
discern clearly what is required of them and what is not.
• Thus, for every State submittal which is transmitted in accordance
with EPA's procedural requirements, EPA must disapprove those portions
of the submission which are substantively deficient through Federal
Register action.
-------
3.0 FEDERAL REGISTER PACKAGES (When States submit proposed changes
in SIP)
3.1 Content
These Federal Register actions have two stages. They consist of
the proposed rulemaklng stage, 1n which public comment 1s solicited on
the proposed action, and the final rulemaklng stage in which the action
is promulgated. The proposed rulemaking package normally includes two
components, the cover memorandum and the notice of proposed rulemaking
which simply states that certain specified material has been received
from a state as a proposed amendment to the SIP and that it 1s available
for public comment. An example of the notice of proposed rulemaklng
is presented in Appendix A. The final rulemaking package may contain
as many as five components. Figure 1 lists 1n sequence the possible
components of the final rulemaking package and the number of copies
of each component that must be prepared by the Regional Office. The
cover memo, action memo, preamble and regulatory section, and attach-
ments are prepared by the Regional Office. The transmittal memo 1s
prepared by the reviewing office. Section 5 discusses the preparation
of the final rulemaking package. Appendices B, D, and E present
examples of the transmittal memo, preamble and regulatory section,
respectively. For guidance in writing action memorandums, the
Assistant Administrator for Planning and Management at the request of
the Administrator, has developed an Outline for Action Memorandum which
has been included as Appendix C.
-------
It should be emphasized that many approval/disapproval actions
result 1n lawsuits. Thus, 1t 1s necessary not only to explain EPA's
actions fully 1n the Federal Register preamble, but also to prepare a
detailed "Rationale for Approval/Disapproval" of the State's submission
showing EPA's analysis of how the submission meets all of the substantive
and procedural requirements for approval. The Rationale may appear
1n two forms. It could appear 1n the form of an evaluation report
(see Appendix F) where EPA presents a detailed review of the State
submlttals with regard to applicable portions of the 40 CFR 51 regu-
lations. It could appear 1n the form of a technical support document
with supportive calculation where EPA developed regulations are being
promulgated, or where certain calculations are required 1n evaluation
of a State submission.
A copy of the Federal Register Handbook on Document Drafting,
January 1975, should be obtained by all personnel involved in the pre-
paration of Federal Registers.
-------
Figure 1. Federal Register Package Components - Final Rulemaklng
ATTACHMENTS (4 copies)
REGULATORY PORTION
(original + 10 copies)
(includes Preamble & Regulatory
Section)
ACTION MEMO (original + 3
copies)
From R.A. to the Administrator
COVER MEMO (original)
From R.O. to CPDD or OTLUP
TRANSMITTAL MEMO (original)
From CPDD or OTLUP to OAWM
-------
3.2 Procedural Problems - When State Submittal is Not Approvable
If the State subnvittal contains major deficiencies, the Regional
Office will attempt to negotiate with the State to correct these
deficiencies. In such cases, the Regional Offices shall notify the
State by letter of such deficiencies within 15 days after receipt of
plans. This notification shall explain why the submission is unapprovable
and what, 1f any, corrective action may be necessary. The State shall
be allowed 15 days to respond to this letter. If the negotiations
are successful and the major deficiencies are corrected, the Regional
Office shall proceed to section 4.0 Preparation of Proposed Rulemaking
Packages. If the negotiations are unsuccessful (the State will not
revise or withdraw the submission), the deficiencies must be disapproved
under Part 52 in the final rulemaking package, and corrective regu-
lations proposed 1f necessary. Corrective regulations may be necessary
if the proposed changes in the State submission render a regulatory
portion of the SIP unapprovable.
4.0 PREPARATION OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING PACKAGES
This Section and Section 5 describe the procedures for proposal
and promulgation of State submitted changes to SIP's which do not include
transportation controls (TCPs). The flow chart 1n Figure 2 outlines
this procedure. Section 6 describes the procedures to be followed when
10
-------
the State submission consists of TCPs. If both TCP and non-TCP pro-
visions are Included in the State submission, the R.O. must make a
decision as to which provision is the most significant. See section
6.1. Section 7 discusses the procedure for preparation of R.O.
originated rulemaking packages.
4.1 Proposed Federal Register Package
The Regional Office shall be responsible for preparing a Federal
Register proposal which announces receipt of the revision to the
SIP, describes the content and significance of the State submission,
provides for a 30-day public comment period, Identifies places
where the plan can be examined, and stipulates to whom comnents should
be addressed. This notice shall be signed by the Regional Administrator.
The general format of the memorandum and notice of proposed rule-
making is Illustrated in Appendix A. The notice should adequately
describe the content of the proposed revision 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. It is important to prepare the proposal as soon as possible
after reception of the State Submission to facilitate timely action.
11
-------
The Regional Office shall mail the proposed rulemaking package to
the Federal Register through the Office of Planning and Management,
Management and Organization Division (OPM-MOD), (Attention: Mr. James
Parker, Waterside Mall (PM-213), Room 411B, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460). The package shall include the original Federal
Register notice (double spaced with pages numbered at the bottom) and
eight copies. Two of the copies shall contain the statement, "Certified
to be a true copy of the original" typed at the bottom of the signature
page. Additional copies of the proposed rulemaking Federal Register
and a copy of the entire State submission shall be forwarded to:
a. Mr. Jean Schueneman, Director, Control Programs Development Division,
OAQPS, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, for review and inclusion
in the official SIP files.
b. Ms. Rubye Mullins, Freedom of Information Center, EPA, A-107, 401
M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460 for public availability at
headquarters.
c. Mr. Richard Wilson, Director, Division of Stationary Source Enforce-
ment, OEGC, Waterside Mall, 1125B-West Tower, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
d. Cognizant State and local air pollution control agencies (State and
local agencies should get copies of the preamble and regulatory
sections. It is not necessary for them to be sent a copy of the
State submission.)
Messrs. Schueneman and Wilson shall also receive a copy of the
summarized record of the testimony from the State public hearings.
12
-------
Once the proposed rulemaklng package has been received by OPM-MOD
(James Parker), 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 Mr. Parker. If you have any questions on the status of a particular
package, please call Mr. Parker at (202) 755-0830.
In summary, the following information should be included in the
proposed Federal Register notice:
a. An identification of the plan under consideration.
b. A summary of the action or important aspects of the .plan. Describe
any court orders requiring the revisions.
c. Identify places where the plan can be examined and periods of availa-
bility for review. As a minimum, this will include the offices or
cognizant State and local air pollution control agencies, including
State district offices; the EPA Regional Office, and the Freedom
of Information Center in Washington, D.C. 20460.
d. Identify the comment period and to whom comments shall be submitted.
4.2 Public Advertisement
When the State submittal is of a more important or controversial
nature, the Regional Office will summarize the information included in
the Federal Register notice and make this information available as a
news release to newspapers of general circulation throughout the area
affected by the proposed plan. The decision as to what constitutes a
more important or controversial issue will be made by the Regional Office.
The results of the State public hearings may be used as a guide. If little
13
-------
or no public interest in the revision was exhibited at the State's
public hearing, then the Federal Register publication alone would
probably constitute adequate notice. If the revision was a highly con-
troversial one and/or one which had undergone modifications subsequent
to the public hearing, a public notice should be prepared and published
in newspapers of general circulation in the affected areas. The public
notice should be published as soon as possible after the Federal Register
notice has been published. Caution must be exercised in preparing the
notice to assure consistency with the Federal Register with regard to
period of comment, plan content, etc.
4.3 Handling Public Comments
Receipt of any comments shall be promptly acknowledged (for example,
see Appendix G). A copy of all comments will be forwarded to Ms. Rubye
Mull ins and Mr. Jean Schueneman OAQPS/CPDD (specify date and page of
Federal Register referred to; e.g., XX FR XXXX, X/X/XX) at the previously
mentioned addresses. 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, these public comments must be discussed in the preamble to the
final regulations to be published in the Federal Register package, along
with EPA's reaction to such comments (see Appendix D).
5.0 PREPARATION OF FINAL RULEMAKING PACKAGES
5.1 Intra-agency Review
As previously noted in Section 4.1, copies of the State submission
will be sent by the Regional Office to CPDD (J. Schueneman) and DSSE
(R. Wilson) along with copies of the proposed rulemaking package prepared
14
-------
by the Regional Office. CPDD and DSSE will prepare comments, if they
have any, or if requested to do so by the Regional Office. All legal
questions which have not been resolved through the appropriate Regional
Counsel's office should be referred to the Air Quality Noise and
Radiation Division (EG-333), Office of General Counsel, Waterside Mall,
Washington, D.C. 20460 (202-755-0744).
5.2 Public Comments in Final Rulemaking Package
Public comments will be received by the Regional Office and a
summary of these comments will be included and discussed in the pre-
amble of the final Federal Register package. If no comments were
received, it must be so noted. CPDD and the Freedom of Information
Center shall receive copies of the public comments in order to update
their SIP files. CPDD will not render any review of such comments
unless a policy or procedural issue is raised or it is requested to do
so by the Regional Office. (See Appendix D, pages D-3 and D-4 for an
example of discussion of public comments in the Federal Register
preamble).
5.3 Final Federal Register Package
After the Regional Office has received input from the reviewing
groups, if any, and summarized public comments, it shall prepare a
draft final Federal Register rulemaking package and telecopy or mail
it to CPDD and DSSE within 21 days of the end of the public comment
period. The "Rationale for Approval/Disapproval" (technical support
document or evaluation report) shall also be included in this submission.
15
-------
CPDD and DSSE will review the Federal Register package supported
by the "Rationale", and relate their concurrence or non-concurrence to
the Regional Office by telephone within 5 days. This is to be confirmed
in writing by CPDD or DSSE by a memorandum to the Regional Office,
with a copy to other concerned offices. In the case of nonconcurrence
which cannot be settled through negotiation on the telephone (expected
to be very few cases), the nonconcuring group will have 14 days from
the day of package receipt to prepare the necessary background Information
and justification for nonconcurrence. This information will be forwarded
to the Regional Office with a copy to the other involved office(s).
Every attempt should be made to develop a mutually agreed upon position.
This may require a meeting of the parties concerned to thoroughly
discuss the Issues and alternative actions. If mutual concurrence cannot
be attained, the final rulemaking package will be prepared by the office
having primary responsibility. The position and recommendations of
the nonconcuring office(s) will be presented with full TAB attachments
to the action memorandum as submitted by the nonconcurring office(s).
Having received input from the reviewing groups and having
evaluated and summarized public comments, the Regional Office next
prepares the final Federal Register rulemaking package. As discussed
1n Section 3.0, the package will contain the following:
cover memo - original
action memo - original and 3 copies
regulatory portion - original and 10 copies
attachments (rationale) - 4 copies
16
-------
The regulatory portion (double spaced with pages numbered at the bottom)
actually appears in the Federal Register and consists of the preamble
and regulatory section. Two copies of the regulatory portion shall
contain the statement "Certified to be a true copy of the original"
typed at the bottom of the last page of the preamble under the Adminis-
trator's signature. The package shall be forwarded to OAQPS/CPDD with
a copy of each component to OE/DSSE. OAQPS will review the package
and forward it to OAWM (Attn: Ms. Cathy Thompson, Office of Program
Management Operations (OPMO), Waterside Mall, Room 943-West Tower, 401
M Street, Washington, D.C. 20460) which will coordinate headquarters
review. If significant comments and recommendations are received from
this review, OPMO will transmit such information to the appropriate
Regional Office, CPDD, and DSSE. Any proposed changes will be reviewed
by CPDD and DSSE and applicable comments will be phoned to the Regional
Office within three (3) working days of receipt from OPMO and confirmed
by memorandum transmitted by telecopy or mail as appropriate. The
revised error free Federal Register package will be prepared in
accordance with the before mentioned procedure in this section for final
rulemaking packages.
After the package has been reviewed and the initial concurrences
have been obtained from CPDD and DSSE, the R.O. will transmit a copy
of the "Rationale for Approval/Disapproval" and any other attachments,
to the Freedom of Information Center so that they will be available to
the public immediately upon promulgation. A cover memorandum shall be
included with the "Rationale" which clearly explains its purpose.
17
-------
After the package 1s published 1n the Federal Register, the
Regional Office shall transmit a copy of all the SIP plan change(s)
approved therein to the Freedom of Information Center at the before
mentioned address 1f portions of the State proposal have been dis-
approved. If the State proposal was approved 1n Its entirety, the R.O.
must Inform the Freedom of Information Center that the copy of the
State proposal which it received via the proposed rulemaklng action
represents the approved change to the SIP. The SIP plan changes shall
be attached to a memorandum which clearly denote the Federal Register
to which they pertain and the date on which the Federal Register
was published.
6.0 TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONTROLS
6.1 Introduction
The Office of Transportation and Land Use Policy (OTLUP) will
coordinate all Federal Register action regarding transportation controls
(TCPs). Indirect source regulations and air quality maintenance plans
shall be coordinated through CPDD. In the event these proposals Include
TCP related actions, OTLUP and MSED will be forwarded a copy of the
proposal and the State submittal for their review. The procedure for
processing TCP related revisions parallels that employed for pro-
cessing of other revisions as described in Sections 4.0 and 5.0. Sections
6.2 and 6.3 discuss this procedure. A separate flow chart (Figure 3)
has been Included to summarize the review and promulgation procedures
for these proposals.
18
-------
Where plan supplements contain both TCPs and non-TCPs, the
Regional Office must make a decision as to which provision is the
most significant. If the TCP portion is the most significant, OTLUP
would be responsible for final review of the promulgation. If not,
CPDD would be responsible for final review. In either case, DSSE would
be included in the concurrence-nonconcurrence step to review the
stationary source control aspects of the submission.
6.2 Proposed Rulemaking Package
After the proposal has been submitted by the State, the Regional
Office shall prepare a notice of proposed rulemaking as described in
Section 4. The Regional Office shall forward the proposed rulemaking
package (cover memorandum and notice of proposed rulemaking) directly
to James Parker, (OPM-MOD) at the address given in Section 4.2. The
package shall include the original Federal Register notice (double
spaced with pages numbered at the bottom) and eight copies. Two of
the copies shall contain the statement, "Certified to be a true copy
of the original" typed at the bottom of the last page.
A copy of the proposed rulemaking Federal Register package and
a copy of the state revision shall be forwarded to:
a. Mr. John L. Hidinger, Director, Office of Transportation and Land
Use Policy (AW-443), Room 935, Waterside Mall West, 401 M Street,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
b. Mr. Jean J. Schueneman, Director, Control Programs Development
Division, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, for review and
inclusion in the official SIP files.
19
-------
c. Ms. Rubye Mull ins, Freedom of Information Center, EPA, Room 232,
401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, for public availa-
bility at headquarters.
d. Mr. Norman Shutler, Director, Division of Mobile Source Enforcement,
Waterside Mall, EG-340, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
e. Cognizant State and local air pollution control agencies (state and
local agencies should get copies of the preamble and regulatory
sections. It is not necessary for them to be sent a copy of the
state submission.)
Messrs. Hidinger, Schueneman, and Shutler shall also receive a copy
of the summarized record of the testimony from the State public hearings.
In regard to public advertisement of the proposed rulemaking
package and the evaluation of public comments, procedures outlined
in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 apply. A copy of the public comments shall
be forwarded to John Hidinger in addition to those persons listed in
Section 4.3.
6.3 Final Rulemaking Package
The final rulemaking package shall be prepared in accordance
with Section 5. The major difference 1n procedures is the groups
within OAWM and OE that review the package once the Regional Office
has prepared it. OTLUP, MSED, and CPDD are responsible for the con-
currence, nonconcurrence reviews.
6.3.1 Intra-agency Review - This procedure parallels that described
in Section 5.1. As discussed in Section 6.2, state submissions will be
forwarded by the Regional Office to OTLUP (John Hidinger), CPDD (Jean
20
-------
Schueneman), and MSED (Norman Shutler) along with copies of the proposed
rulemaking package. OTLUP, CPDD and MSED will prepare comnents 1f
they have any or if requested to comment by R.O. and send them to the
R.O. with copies to the other reviewing offices. All legal questions
which have not been resolved through the appropriate Regional Counsel's
office should be referred to the Air Quality, Noise and Radiation
Division (EG-333), Office of General Counsel, Washington, D.C. 20460
(202-755-0744).
6.3.2 Public Comments in Final Rulemaking Package - This procedure
parallels that described in Section 5.2. Public comments will be
received by the Regional Office and a summary of these comnents will
be included and discussed in the preamble of the final Federal Register
package. OTLUP, CPDD, and the Freedom of Information Center shall
receive copies of the public comments in order to update their SIP
files. OTLUP and CPDD will not comment on the public comnents unless
a policy or procedural issue is raised or they are requested to do so
by the Regional Office.
6.3.3 Final Federal Register - This procedure parallels that described
in Section 5.3. After the Regional Office has received Input from the
reviewing groups, 1f any, and summarized public comments, it shall
prepare a draft final Federal Register rulemaking package and telecopy
or mail it along with the "Rationale for Approval/Disapproval" to OTLUP,
CPDD, and MSED within 21 calendar days of the end of the public comment
21
-------
period. OTLUP, CPDD, and MSED will review the Federal Register
package and relate their concurrence or nonconcurrence to the Regional
Office by telephone within 5 days. This is to be confirmed in writing
by OTLUP, CPDD, and MSED by a memorandum to the Regional Office, with
a copy to other concerned offices. In the case of nonconcurrence
which cannot be settled through negotiation on the telephone (expected
to be very few cases), the nonconcurrence group will have 14 days from
the day of report receipt to prepare the necessary background Informa-
tion and justification for nonconcurrence. This information will be
forwarded to the Regional Office with a copy to the other involved
office(s). Every attempt should be made to develop a mutually agreed
upon position. This may require a meeting of the parties concerned
to discuss the issues and alternative actions. If mutual concurrence
cannot be attained, the final rulemaking package will be prepared by
the office having primary responsibility. The position and reconmen-
dations of the nonconcuring office(s) will be presented with full TAB
attachments to the briefing document as submitted by the nonconcuring
office(s).
Having received input from the reviewing groups and having
evaluated and summarized public comments, the Regional Office next
prepares the final Federal Register rulemaking package in error free
copy.
22
-------
As discussed previously, the package contains the following:
cover memo - original
action memo - original and 3 copies
regulatory portion - original and 10 copies
attachments (rationale) - 4 copies
The regulatory portion (double spaced with pages numbered at the bottom)
actually appears in the Federal Register and consists of the preamble
and regulatory section. Two copies of the regulatory portion shall
contain the statement "Certified to be a true copy of the original"
typed at the bottom of the last page under the Administrator's
signature. The package shall be forwarded to OAWM/OTLUP with a copy
of each component to OAQPS/CPDD and OE/MSED. OTLUP will review the
package and forward it to OAWM/OPMO which will coordinate headquarters
review. If significant comments and recommendations are received from
this review, OAWM will transmit such information to the appropriate
Regional Office, OTLUP, CPDD, and MSED. Any proposed changes will be
reviewed by OTLUP, CPDD, and MSED and applicable comments will be
phoned to the Regional Office within three (3) working days of receipt
from OPMO and confirmed by memorandum transmitted by telecopy or mail
as appropriate. The revised error free Federal Register package
(original and ten (10) copies) will be prepared 1n accordance with
the before mentioned procedure for final rulemaking packages.
After the package has been reviewed and the initial concurrences
have been obtained from OTLUP, CPDD, and MSED, the R.O. will transmit
a copy of the "Rationale for Approval/Disapproval"
23
-------
and any other attachments to the Freedom of Information Center so
that they will be available to the public Immediately upon promulgation.
A cover memorandum shall be Included with the "Rationale" which
clearly explains Its purpose.
After the package 1s published 1n the Federal Register, the
Regional Office shall transmit a copy of all the SIP plan change(s)
approved therein to the Freedom of Information Center at the before
mentioned address. If the state proposal was approved 1n Its entirety,
the R.O. must inform the Freedom of Information Center that the copy
of the State proposal which it received via the proposed rulemaklng
action represents the approved change to the SIP. The SIP plan changes
shall be attached to a memorandum which clearly denotes the Federal
Register to which they pertain, and the date on which the Federal
Register was published.
7.0 PROCEDURE FOR PREPARATION OF SIP REVISIONS ORIGINATED BY THE REGIONAL
OFFICE
7.1 Introduction
The "Guidelines for Determining the Need for Plan Revisions to
the Control Strategy Portion of the Approved SIP," OAQPS No. 1.2-011,
explains the rationale EPA applies in determining when to call for a
plan revision. Once the plan revision has been requested, the pro-
cedures for evaluation of the subsequent State submittal and preparation
of the required Federal Register actions are discussed herein in
Sections 4, 5, and 6. In the case where a negative response or where
np_ letter of Intent to submit the requested SIP revision 1s received
24
-------
from the State, the Regional Office must take action 1n a timely
fashion to propose corrective regulations.
7.2 Proposal of Corrective Regulations
If the proposed Federal Register action is prepared by the R.O.
to satisfy the requirements for the plan revision, it must be signed
by the Administrator. Thus, full concurrence by the appropriate
reviewing offices which may Include all of the following will be
necessary: OTLUP, CPDD, MSED, and DSSE. The proposal shall be sub-
mitted to the Administrator through OAWM, by procedures similar to
those given in Sections 5 and 6 for final rulemaking actions. These
procedures are summarized as follows:
Proposed Rulemaking
a. State fails to submit requested revision.
b. Regional Office prepares draft of proposed rulemaking and circulates
for comment and review to CPDD, DSSE, (MSED and OTLUP if regulation
requires TCP). The proposal shall explain why 1t is being presented,
propose regulations to implement the necessary plan revision, and
indicate that public hearings will be held. The time and place
of the public hearings shall be announced in the Federal Register
after publication of the proposed rulemaking action. Written
comments shall be accepted until the date of the hearings.
c. If the Regulation proposed by EPA would significantly affect
emission control regulations, or the enforcement thereof; or
25
-------
would have significant national policy Implications (I.e., establish
a precedent), a more complete review 1s required. This might
Include steering committee or Interagency review. The necessity
for this review shall be determined through consultation between
the R.O. and OAWM. These reviews shall be coordinated through the
appropriate section of OAWM (CPDD, OTLUP) and OE (DSSE, MSED).
d. R.O. forwards final draft of proposed rulemaklng package for
concurrences to the appropriate reviewing groups which are CPDD
and DSSE for TCP actions; and are OTLUP, CPDD, and MSED for TCP
actions.
e. R.O. prepares final proposed rulemaklng package (Including rationale),
submits original and ten copies to CPDD or OTLUP for final review
as appropriate. A copy of the proposed rulemaklng Federal
Register package along with the related technical support docu-
ment shall be forwarded to the following:
1. Freedom of Information Center, EPA, A-107, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460 for public availability at headquarters.
11. Cognizant State and local air pollution control agencies
(State and local agencies should get copies of the preamble
and regulatory sections. It is not necessary for them to be
sent a copy of the State submission).
111. For non-TCP actions - DSSE.
1v. For TCP actions - MSED.
26
-------
f. OTLUP or CPDD forwards to OAWM for final review and concurrences.
g. OAWM obtains the necessary final concurrences from OE, OGC, and
0PM.
h. Administrator's signature.
7.3 Final Federal Register Rulemaking
Proceed as described 1n Sections 5 and 6.
27
-------
Appendix A
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(40 CFR Part 52)
APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS - MARYLAND
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Proposed Plan to Achieve
Secondary Standards for Maryland
On May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842), pursuant to section 110 of the
Clean Air Act and 40 CFR Part 51, the Administrator granted an 18-
month extension for submission of a plan to attain and maintain the
secondary standard for sulfur oxides in the Metropolitan Baltimore
Intrastate Region. On July 31, 1973, the Governor of Maryland sub-
mitted the plan as required.
The Administrator hereby issues this notice setting forth the
Maryland Plan for Implementation of the Secondary Standards for sulfur
oxides in the Metropolitan Baltimore Intrastate Region as proposed
rulemaking, and advises the public that comments may be submitted on
whether the control strategy should be approved or disapproved as
required by section 110 of the Clean Air Act. Only comments received
within 30 days from the publication of this notice will be considered.
The Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the plan is based
on whether it meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) and
EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 51.
The proposed plan does not alter or supplement the present
Maryland regulations for sulfur dioxide. Rather, the plan is submitted
to demonstrate the implementation and enforcement of existing Maryland
A-l
-------
regulations in the Metropolitan Baltimore Intrastate Region will be
sufficient to achieve the secondary standards for sulfur dioxide by
1975. The control strategy developed by Maryland in the original
plan (submitted January 28, 1972, hereafter referred to as the original
plan) to meet the secondary standards for sulfur oxides was not approved
because calculations in the plan regarding projected air quality for
1975 indicated that the secondary standards could not be met using
reasonably available technology. Thus, an 18-month extension was
granted.
The Maryland proposal states that certain developments have taken
place since the original implementation plan was submitted, which alter
projected sulfur oxide air quality significantly. These developments
are given by Maryland as follows:
1. A new data base has been formulated for air quality due to changes
in measurement and data reduction techniques.
2. More detailed information has been obtained on actual emission rates
and dynamic effluent characteristics.
3. Considerable change in fuel burning sources and control plans are to
be expected due to negotiations with emitters that had not previously
been dealt with.
4. Improved capability has been developed with the computer used in
the analysis.
The results of the model effort predict a maximum concentration of
35 ug/m ; emissions of sulfur oxides will be reduced from 180,250 tons/
year for the base year of 1971 to 90,996 tons/year by 1975.
A-2
-------
Copies of the Maryland plan are available for public inspection
during normal business hours at the Office of EPA, Region III, Curtis
Building, Second Floor, 6th and Walnut Streets, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19106, and in the Office of the Maryland State Department
of Health and Mental Hygiene, 601 N. Howard Street, Baltimore, Maryland
21201, and at the Freedom of Information Center, EPA, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Interested persons may participate in this rulemaking by sub-
mitting written comments, preferably in triplicate, to the Regional
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Curtis
Building, 6th and Walnut Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106.
Relevent comments received within 30 days of this notice will be considered,
and receipt of comments will be acknowledged. Comments received will
be available during normal working hours at the Region III offices and at
the Freedom of Information Center. Authority: Section 110(a) of the
Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1857c-5(a).
Date
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
"Certified to be true copy of the original"
(THIS APPEARS ON TWO COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT)
A-3
-------
Appendix B
Transmlttal Memorandum
SUBJECT: Transmlttal of (Final) Federal Register Package
FROM
TO:
CPDD (General Non-TCP Associated Revisions - Rulemaklng) or
OTLUP (TCP Associated Revisions - Rulemaking)
Office of Air and Waste Management
Attention: Office of Program Management Operations
STATE:
AQCR:
ACTION: (Example - Tennessee Complex Source Regulation)
PROPOSAL PUBLISHED IN FEDERAL REGISTER FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON:
PACKAGE RECEIVED BY (OAQPS, CPDD, SIB) ON:
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES: [brief discussion of any issues that have or
will slow processing of action]
cc: R.O.
DSSE
OTLUP
B-l
-------
APPENDIX C
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JAN 2 4 1975
SUBJECT: Proposed Standards and Regulations --
ACTION MEMORANDA FOR THE AIMNISTRATOR
FROM: Alvin L. Aim
Assistant Administrator
for Planning and Management
TO: Assistant Administrators
A A
The Administrator has requested that action memoranda accompanying
proposed standards and regulations be prepared in a more consistent
and concise format. The revised Standards and Regulations Manual pro-
mulgated by Mr. Train's memorandum of December 6, 1974 establishes this
format and specifies the key issues which should be addressed. The
attached outlin)^ is included in the Manual and should be adhered to in
the preparation of future regulatory packages.
With regard to content, it is particularly important that action
memoranda sumnarize the environmental economic and energy implications
of the proposed action and of alternatives considered, as well as
Federal, State and local resources required for implementation. In
addition, memoranda should indicate the degree of public participation
in the development of the regulations and any areas of concern which
may have been identified.
I have asked the Steering Coircnittee to review action memoranda
accompanying future regulatory proposals and to return those that do-
not conform with the Manual to the originating office for appropriate
revisions. To facilitate implementation I have forwarded copies of
this memorandum to the working group chairmen for standards and regula-
tions now under development.
Attachment
cc: Working Group Chairmen
C-l
-------
OUTLINE FOR ACTION MEMORANDUM
*
Action Memoranda for the Administrator on proposed rulemaking
activities should outline the full implications of the proposed action
and follow the outline presented in this appendix.
The action memorandum should be as concise as possible and not
exceed six pages. Appendices should be used liberally, however, to
support the conclusions and recommendations made in the texi of the
memo.
Subject: (Title of the Proposed Action) -
ACTION MEMORANDUM
From: Lead Office A A
To: The Administrator
Thru: l AX \ '
I. General Description of the Proposed Action
a) Title and Statutory basis: State the title and the
• I
authority under which the action is being taken.
b) Problem Addressed: Briefly explain the problem
•\4
sought to be corrected by the proposed action.
c) Recommended Course of Action: Briefly explain
what the recommended action entails.
d) Alternatives Considered and Why Rejected: List
the major alternatives considered to remedy tiie
problem and why these approaches were
rejected.
2. Major Decision Issues
a) Introductory sentence: Delineate the major issues
to be discussed.
C-2
-------
h) Discussion ol Issues: (Repeat the steps below
%
for each issue.)
(1) Statement of issue: State the first issue.
(2) Options with pros and cons for each: Separately
state each option considered for resolution of the
issue with its advantages and disadvantages.
(3) Recommendation with the rationale for the
selected option (if one is chosen): Explain why
the particular resolution of the issue is recommended
over the other options available. If no recommenda-
tion is made, indicate that the Administrator must
resolve the question.
» •» •
3. Summary t)f Comments
a) Public Participation: List the entities who have been
or will be requested to comment on the action.
• i .
b) Major Adverse Comments: Summarize the content of
adverse comments received (and from whom they were
h4 .
made) and indicate how these were incorporated into
the recommended action or why they were rejected.
c) Anticipated public reaction: Assess the degree of
public acceptance anticipated.
4. Summary of the positive and negative environmental and
non-environmental effects for the recommended action.
a) Cost and economic impacts: Describe the costs to
industry of implementing the recommended action,
C-3
-------
its potential economic repercussions, and the
expected cost savings incurred by adopting this
course of action.
b) Intermedia effects: Explore both the beneficial and
and adverse impacts of the recommended action on
air, water, solid waste, and noise pollution, as well
as the potential effects on land use.
c) Programmatic and resource consequences: Discuss
the required Agency, State and local resource
requirements necessary to implement or administer
the recommended action.
i •» •
N
d) Energy consequences: Indicate any irreversible
commitments of natural resources and expected
energy savings from adoption of the recommended
action.
e) Significant technical details: Explore any
significant consequences of adopting a particular
methodology in the development or implementation
of the rec-ornmended action.
5. Recommendation: Indicate the action recommended to
to the Administrator.
C-4
-------
Voluntary Environmental Impact Statements:
Where required. Voluntary Environmental Impact Statements ,
shall be prepared in accordance with detailed instructions ^'
to be promulgated by the Office of Federal Activities shortly.
Inflation Impact Statements:
OMB is expected to promulgate soon detailed instructions
on Inflation Impact Statements as well as a description of
the types of regulatory activities for which such documents
will be required.
C-5
-------
Appendix D - Preamble
Title 40 - Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Subchapter C - A1r Programs
PART 52 - APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Approval of Washington Implementation Plan Revision
Complex (Indirect) Sources
On May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842), pursuant to Section 110 of the Clean
A1r Act and 40 CFR Part 51, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) approved, with specific exceptions, the State
of Washington plan for implementation of the national ambient air
quality standards. Pursuant to a Court ruling by the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case Natural Resources
Defense Council v. Environmental Protection Agency, 475 F. 2d 968 (D.C.
Cir. 1973), the Administrator disapproved all State plans with respect
to maintenance of standards.
On June 18, 1973 (38 FR 15834), the Administrator promulgated
requirements directing States to submit implementation plan revisions
by August 15, 1973, to provide for preconstruction review and approval
of indirect sources of air pollution to insure maintenance of standards.
The State of Washington submitted amendments to the Washington Adminis-
trative Code (WAC) as a revision to the plan, in accordance with require-
ments of 40 CFR Part 51, but subsequently withdrew that submlttal. On
February 25, 1974 (39 FR 7270), pursuant to Section 110 of the Clean
D-l
-------
Air Act, 40 CFR Part 51, and an order of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia, the Administrator sustained disapproval
of the Washington plan and promulgated regulations for the review
of indirect sources of air pollution to insure maintenance of national
ambient air quality standards.
On June 14, 1974, the State of Washington re-submitted to EPA
amendments to WAC 18-24 to provide for preconstruction review and approval
of complex (indirect) sources of air pollution as a revision to the State
implementation plan. Public hearings were held by the State on May 1
and May 3, 1974, in the cities of Spokane and Seattle, respectively. On
July 17, 1974 (39 FR 26167), the amendments to WAC 18-24 were published
as proposed rulemaking and opportunity for public comment was provided.
The amendments to WAC 18-24 provide for preconstruction review of
new or modified parking facilities which will provide 250 or more spaces
in King, Pierce, Snohomish, Clark and Spokane counties and 1,000 or more
spaces in all other areas of the State. New highways designed for use by
20,000 or more vehicles per day, modified highways designed to allow
increased vehicle usage by 10,000 or more vehicles per day, new airports
which will have 50,000 or more regularly scheduled operations per year
or use by 1,600,000 passengers per year, and airport modifications which
will increase regularly scheduled operations by 50,000 or more per
year or use by 1,600,000 passengers per year are also subject to the
amended regulations.
Administrative procedures to implement these amendments (which
contain guidelines for developers) have been developed and are on file
at the State Department of Ecology (DOE).
D-2
-------
Three separate comments were received from the public on the
proposed revision to the State implementation plan. Two comments were
from private businesses, and one was from a local government. Consideration
was given all comments in making the final decision to approve the State
regulation as part of the State Implementation Plan.
Two of these comments suggested that the effective date of the
regulations, August 15, 1974, places an unjust burden upon applicants for
obtaining local jurisdiction permits because of increased costs of
delayed projects. This comment was carefully considered; however, the
Administrator was presented with no evidence that the costs would be
unduly severe when compared with the benefit to the public health from
initiating these review procedures in an expeditious manner. Moreover,
Section 116 of the Clean Air Act precludes the Administrator from dis-
approving a State submission merely because it is more stringent than
comparable federal requirements.
One comment pointed out that complex source reviews are just one
part of the total concept of land use planning. The comment proposed
that since many land use measures are established at the local government
level the State implementation plan regulations should authorize the
delegation of authority to local governments to carry out the provisions
of the complex source review regulations. The State of Washington has
indicated its interest to delegate review authority to local air pollution
control agencies. The Washington Clean Air Act allows DOE to delegate
authority only to local air pollution control agencies. The Administrator
agrees that complex source review should be incorporated in general
D-3
-------
land use planning and encourages cooperation between the State, local
governments and local air pollution control agencies on all complex
source projects.
As proposed in the July 17, 1974, Federal Register notice of
proposed rulemaking, approval of the State of Washington's complex source
review regulations enables the Administrator to remove the requirements
for federal review of new or modified indirect sources in the State. There-
fore, the Administrator is revoking 40 CFR 52.2495, promulgated February
25, 1974 (39 FR 7270).
In addition, because the State regulation provides for a
sufficiently stringent review of new and modified parking facilities in
the areas of the State subject to the promulgated transportation control
plan (38 FR 32688, November 27, 1973), the Administrator today is also
removing those requirements of the promulgated parking supply management
regulation which require federal review of new or modified parking
facilities of 50 or more spaces in the counties of King, Pierce,
Snohomish, Kitsap, and Spokane, outside the Seattle and Spokane central
business districts (CBD). Those requirements of the parking management
regulation which relate to the CBD, i.e., reservation of parking spaces
for carpool vehicles, reporting requirements of the cities regarding the
number of parking spaces, and the prohibition of an increase in non-
residential parking spaces, remain in effect. Applications for parking
in the Seattle or Spokane CBD's are subject only to the EPA regulation
due to a specific exception in the Washington regulation. The amended
parking supply management regulation (40 CFR 52.2486) of the Washington
transportation control plan is presented below.
D-4
-------
The major effects which result from approval of the State regu-
lation and the revoking or amending of federal regulations are discussed
below. In the Puget Sound Region (subject to the Transportation control
plan), Kitsap County is no longer subject to the same parking facility
review criteria as the other three counties of the Region; in the counties
of King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Spokane, the threshold for review of
new or modified parking facilities changes from 50 spaces (federal
regulation) to 250 spaces (State regulation). In Clark County of the
Port!and-Interstate Region, the threshold for review of parking facilities
is decreased from 1,000 spaces (federal regulation) to 250 spaces (State
regulation). In addition, the effective date of the State regulation is
August 15, 1974, whereas the federal regulations would have been
applicable to sources the construction or modification of which commenced
after December 31, 1974.
The State regulatory requirements for the review of new or modified
airports are as stringent as federal requirements. The State regulation
is more restrictive with respect to review of new or modified highway
sections in that such review is required statewide while EPA requirements
applied only in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas. With the
exception of the change in size of parking facilities subject to review
in the two transportation control plan Regions of the State, the State
regulation is more stringent, both in terms of its geographical coverage
and its effective date, than the corresponding federal regulations.
Based upon experience in parking facility review and additional research
conducted since the federal parking regulations were promulgated, EPA
has found parking facilities with a capacity of 250 motor vehicles to be
of reasonable size for meaningful air quality analysis, except in
special circumstances.
D-5
-------
The Administrator finds good cause for making this approval
effective immediately since the Washington regulation is now in
effect and it serves no useful purpose to defer revoking the federal
indirect source regulation or amending the parking management regulation.
The proposed revision has been reviewed by EPA for compliance
with 40 CFR Part 51 and is found to be approvable except that the
necessary public comment procedures were not included in regulatory
form. The Administrator is, therefore, promulgating a corrective reg-
ulation for Washington relating solely to public comment procedures. Since
these procedures are clearly required by 40 CFR 51.18 and the regulation
merely gives legally enforceable form to the procedures spelled out by
the State in its submission, the Administrator finds good cause for
promulgating such a correction without having proposed it. An evaluation
report of the adequacy of the State regulation is available for public
inspection at the Region X Office of the EPA, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101 and at the Freedom of Information Center, EPA, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. Authority: (Sections 110(a)(2)
(B), 110(c) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
1857c-5(a)(2)(B), 1857c-5(c), and 1857g(a).)
Date
Administrator
D-6
-------
Appendix E - Regulatory Section*
Subpart WW of Part 52 of Chapter 1, Title 40, of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
Subpart WW - Washington
1. S 52.2470 [Amended]
Paragraph (c)(3) is amended by adding the date, June 14, 1974,
in proper chronological order.
2. Section 52.2486 is revised to read as follows:
S 52.2486 Management of parking supply.
(a) Definitions:
(1) "Parking facility" (also called "facility") means a lot,
garage, building or structure, or combination or portion thereof, in
or on which motor vehicles are temporarily parked.
(2) [Reserved]
* The designation of the Regulatory section as appendix E is made for
demonstrative purposes. In reality this portion is not separate from
the preamble. The page numbers follow in sequence, although a new
page 1s begun for the Regulatory Section.
E-l
-------
(3) "Construction" means fabrication, erection, or installation
of a parking facility, or any conversion of land, buildings, or
structures, or portions thereof, for use as a facility.
(4) "Modification" means any change to a parking facility that
increases or may increase the motor vehicle capacity of, or the motor
vehicle activity associated with, such parking facility.
(5) "Commence" means to undertake a continuous program of on-site
construction or modification.
(6) "Parking space" means any area or space below, above, or at
ground level, open or enclosed, on-street or off-street, that is used
for parking one motor vehicle at any time.
(7) "Residential parking facility" means a parking facility the
use of which is limited exclusively to residents (and guests) of a
residential building or group of buildings under common control and in
which no commerical parking is permitted.
(8) "Seattle central business district" means the area enclosed
by Yesler Way, the 1-5 freeway, Eighth Avenue, Virginia Street, and the
Alaska Way Viaduct. Streets forming boundaries (excluding the 1-5
freeway and the Alaska Way Viaduct) shall be part of the central business
district (CBD).
(9) "Spokane central business district" means the area enclosed
by Trent Avenue, Monroe Street, Third Avenue, and Division Street. Streets
forming boundaries shall be part of the central business district.
(b) This section shall be applicable in the Seattle and Spokane CBD's.
(c) [Reserved]
E-2
-------
(d) [Reserved]
(e) [Reserved]
(f) All applications for approval under this section shall include
the following information:
(1) Name and address of the applicant.
(2) Location and description of the parking facility.
(3) A proposed construction schedule.
(4) [Reserved]
(5) The total motor vehicle capacity before and after the construc-
tion or modification of the facility.
(6) Additional information, plans, specifications, or documents
required by the Administrator.
(g) [Reserved]
(h) [Reserved]
(i) Each application shall be signed by the owner or operator of
the facility, whose signature shall constitute an agreement that the
facility shall be operated in accordance with the information submitted
in the application and with applicable rules, regulations, and permit
conditions.
(j) [Reserved]
(k) [Reserved]
(1) There shall be no increase in the number of non-residential
parking spaces within the Seattle and Spokane CBD above the number present
as of November 19, 1973. Any parking facility which provides or would
provide vehicular ingress or egress to or from a street forming a
E-3
-------
boundary or a CBD shall be considered included within such CBD. Any
parking facility beneath a street forming a boundary shall be considered
to be included within such CBD.
(m) On a semiannual basis, beginning Februrary 15, 1974, the
city of Seattle and the city of Spokane shall report to the Administrator
the total number of non-residential and the total number of residential
on-street and off-street parking spaces in their respective CBD's.
Thereafter, such cities shall report any reduction in the number of such
parking spaces to the Administrator.
(n) No person or entity, after November 19, 1973, shall commence
construction or modification or any new non-residential parking facility
in the Seattle or Spokane CBD, nor shall any person or entity take any
action having the effect of creating new non-residential parking spaces
in such CBD, unless and until such person or entity has obtained from
the Administrator or from an agency approved by the Administrator a
permit stating that construction, modification, or enlargement of such
facility will be in compliance with paragraph (1) of this section.
(o) By May 31, 1974, each owner or operator of any parking
facility located within the Seattle and Spokane CBD shall reserve 10
percent of the parking spaces in such facility for vehicles transporting
three or more occupants between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. On or before March 1,
1974, each such owner or operator shall submit to the Administrator a
detailed compliance schedule showing the steps it will take to assure
compliance with this paragraph.
E-4
-------
(p) The city of Seattle and the city of Spokane shall report
to the Administrator on a semiannual basis beginning August 15, 1974,
the average daily occupancy of the spaces reserved for vehicles trans-
porting three or more occupants.
3. Section 52.2495 is revised to read as follows:
§ 52.2495 Review of new sources and modifications.
(c) The requirements of § 51.18(h) of this chapter are not met
since the State's procedures for providing for public comment are not
legally enforceable.
(d) Regulation providing for public comment. (1) Prior to approval
or disapproval of the construction or modification of an indirect source,
the Director shall:
(i) Make a preliminary determination whether the indirect source
should be approved, approved with conditions or disapproved;
(ii) Make available in at least one location in each region in
which the proposed indirect source would be constructed, a copy of all
materials submitted by the owner or operator, a copy of the Director's
preliminary determination, and a copy or summary of other materials, if
any, considered by the Director in making his preliminary determination;
and
(iii) Notify the public, by prominent advertisement in a newspaper
of general circulation in each region in which the proposed indirect
source would be constructed, of the opportunity for public comment on the
information submitted by the owner or operator and the Director's pre-
liminary determination on the approvability of the indirect source.
E-5
-------
(2) A copy of the notice required pursuant to this paragraph shall
be sent to the Administrator through the appropriate regional office; to
all other State and local air pollution control agencies having juris-
diction in the region where the indirect source will be located; and to
any other agency in the region having responsibility for implementing
the procedures required under Chapter of the Washington rules and regulations.
(3) Public comments submitted in writing within 30 days of the date
such information is made available shall be considered by the Director in
making his final decision on the application.
E-6
-------
Appendix F - Rationale for Approval/Disapproval
EVALUATION REPORT
FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
COMPLEX (INDIRECT) SOURCE REVIEW REGULATION
Prepared By
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
SEPTEMBER 1974
F-l
-------
S 51.4 Public hearing
Summary of requirement - three major requirements must be met
as follows:
(1) Certification that the public hearing was announced at least
30 days prior to the date of such hearings.
(2) Subject proposal must be available for review in at least
one location in each region (AQCR, AQMA) to which it applies, and
(3) Certification that the public hearing was held and that a
record is available for inspection by the Administrator upon request.
§ 51.5 Submission of plans
All regulatory changes to the SIP (except compliance schedules)
must be submitted by the governor or his designee. All other changes
may be submitted by the appropriate control agency.
F-2
-------
June j.o,
Federal Register Requirements
For Indirect Source Review
I 51.11 Legal authority.
(a)(A) Legal authority required to
prevent construction, modification, or
operation of an indirect source of any
pollutant at any location which will
prevent attainment and maintenance of
standards.
§ 51.18 Review of new sources and
modifications.
(a) Plan must have legally enforce-
able procedures which will enable state
or local agency to determine whether
construction or modification of direct
or indirect source will result in vio-
lation of control strategy or interfere
with attainment or maintenance of
standards.
(b) Procedure must include means by
which state or local agencies can prevent
construction or modification of source
which will interfere with control strate-
gy or attainment and maintenance of
standards.
(c) Procedure must provide for
submission by source owner or operator
of information sufficient to permit
evaluation of consistency with control
strategy and standards attainment and
maintenance.
(d) Procedure must provide that
approval of construction or modification
shall not affect the responsibility of
the owner or operator to comply with
applicable portions of the control strate-
gy.
(e) Responsible state or local agency
oust be identified. If responsibility
does not rest with air pollution control
agencies, consultation with such agencies
must be provided.
(f) Procedures must identify sources
subject to review and the basis for
determining which sources shall be subject
to review. '
(g) Plan shall include administrative
procedures which will be followed in
determining whether a source may be
constructed or modified.
(h)(l) Procedures must include pro-
visions for public comment, prior to
agency decision on the approvability of
a proposed indirect source, on information
submitted by source owner or operator and
on agency analysis of information.
(h)(2)(i)Materials, including
infornation submitted by source owner or
operator and agency analysis of proposed
indirect source, must be available at one
location in region.
(h)(2)(ii) Procedure must provide
for 30-day period for submittal of public
comment (or other period approved by the
Administrator—see (h)(3)).
(h)(2)(iii)Notice of source
information and agency analysis must be
given by prominent advertisement in
affected region.
F-3.
Notice of materials available
for public comment must be sent to
Regional Office and appropriate state and
local agencies.
-------
Washington Complex Source Regulation (MAC 18-24)
Evaluation of Plan Compliance with Requirements of 40 CFR Part 51
A. Section 51.4
Public hearings were held on May 1, 1974 and May 3, 1974 in the cities
of Spokane and Seattle respectively. The requirements for proper notice
and availability of materials were satisfied.
B. Section 51.5
The subject plan was officially adopted on June 12, 1974, by the Department
of Ecology (DOE) and was officially submitted to EPA by Governor Evans on
June 14, 1974.
C. Section 51.11
The requirements of this section are satisfied as indicated in the November 8,
1973 legal opinion of the Assistant Attorneys General to the Director of
DOE and approved by EPA on February 25, 1974 (39 FR 7284). -
D. Section 51.18(a)
The requirements of this section are satisfied. WAC 18-24-090(2) and
(4) provides that the DOE may request information needed to evaluate
the effect of a proposed complex source. WAC 18-24-090(5) references
the procedures (on file with the Department) the DOE will use to determine
the effect of operation or use of a complex source on ambient air quality;
these procedures are acceptable to EPA.
E. Section 51.18(b)
Requirements of this section are satisfied. WAC 18-24-090 5(b)(ii) provides
that the Department shall issue an order of prevention upon finding that
operation, maintenance, or use of a complex source will prevent attainment of
F-4
-------
standards or will interfere with achievement of a provision of the State
Implementation Plan. MAC 18-24-060 specifies that DOE may delegate to
local air pollution control agencies the performance and/or enforcement
of the program if the local agency provides demonstration of the capability
to carry out provisions of WAC 18-24. Section G of the State Implementation
Plan discusses the adequacy of local air pollution control agency legal
authority to carry out provisions of the Plan.
F. Section 51.18(c)
Requirements of this section are satisfied. WAC 18-24-090(2) describes
the minimum requirement for submittal of information by an applicant.
WAC 18-24-090(4) provides that the Department may request any additional
information necessary to evaluate the impact of the source, including but
not limited to, nature and amounts of emissions and the design, construction,
operation and maintenance of the complex source as it relates to motor
vehicle usage.
6. Section 51.18(d)
The requirements of this section are satisfied by WAC 18-24-110 which specifies
that an order of approval shall not affect an owner's responsibility to
comply with all applicable portions of the Washington Clean Air Act and the
State Implementation Plan.
H. Section 51.18(e)
The requirements of this section are satisfied by WAC 18-24-030 which extends
the DOE statewide jurisdiction to control motor vehicle emissions to the
regulation of the construction and modification of complex sources. WAC 18-24-060
provides that the DOE may delegate provisions of the plan to local air
pollution control agencies.
F-5
-------
I. Section 51.18(f)
The requirements of this section are satisfied by MAC 18-24-020(2)
which identifies examples of the types of facilities subject to review
and by WAC 18-24-070 which identifies the size and location criteria
which determine applicability of the regulation to sources. On
September 11, 1974, the State submitted materials which discuss the
basis for determination of which facilities shall be subject to review.
J. Section 51.18(q)
The requirements of this section are met since the Department has such
procedures on file (WAC 18-24-090(5)) and has provided EPA with a copy
of these procedures.
K. Sections 51.18(h)(1) ,(2)(i). (2)(11),(2)(1i1)t and (4)
The requirements of these sections are satisified in WAC 18-24-090(5)(a)
which specifies that the Department shall, by notice published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the source will be
located, announce a 30-day public review and comment period on the
submitted application and the Department's analysis and proposed determination.
The materials will be made available in at least one location in the county
(counties) in which the source will be located and notification will be
made to EPA and appropriate State and local agencies.
F-6
-------
WASHINGTON COMPLEX SOURCE REVIEW PLAN COMPLIANCE WITH EPA REVIEWER COMMENTS
1. COMMENT — Requirements of 51.11(f) must be met either through WAC 18-24-060
or elsewhere in the State plan.
Disposition: Pages G-4 and G-5 of the State Implementation Plan discuss
the adequacy of activated local air pollution control agency
legal authority to carry out provisions of the plan, and page
G-15 of the plan specifies that the DOE can assume implementa-
tion or enforcement of plan provisions where a local agency
fails to adequately carry out a program.
2. COMMENT -- Confusion may arise because the regulation contains separate
definitions for "commence construction" and for "construction" and "modification1
Suggest use of just one definition for "commence construction" and "commence
modification".
Disposition: Although this suggestion was not incorporated in the adopted
regulation, there is no basis in S 51.18 for disapproval of the
plan in this regard.
3. COMMENT — WAC-18-24-070(2)(e) should include the parameter of number
of passengers served as well as number of airline operations.
Disposition: The adopted regulation includes the suggested parameter in
WAC 18-24-070(2)(d).
4. Comment -- Concerns were expressed about possible loopholes in WAC 18-24-090
(4)(b)(i) and (iii), and, it was suggested that in paragraph (ii), the word
"only" be deleted and in paragraph (i), the word "may" be changed to "shall".
F-7
-------
Disposition: The reviewer's concerns were not clearly expressed, but
suggested language changes for this section were made to DOE;
some suggested changes were adopted, others were not. However,
there is no basis in S 51.18 for disapproval of the plan in
this regard.
5. COMMENT — MAC 18-24-020(2) should include review of all source categories
included in the EPA promulgated regulation.
Disposition: 40 CFR 51.18 sets forth requirements for plan development and
there is no requirement for State plans to duplicate the EPA
promulgated regulation. However, the DOE regulation indicates
that the requirements of the State plan are not limited to
the types of facilities cited as examples in WAC 18-24-020(2).
6. COMMENT — Definition of modification (HAC 18-24-020(8)) should be
consistent with that contained in S 52.01(d).
*
Disposition: While some suggestions concerning definitions were forwarded
to DOE, this suggestion was not forwarded, since there is
no requirement in 40 CFR 51.18 that State plans must duplicate
the Federal regulation. In addition, the definition of
modification in § 52.01(d) refers to stationary sources.
7. COMMENT — WAC 18-24-070(2)(a) and (b) should include provisions for covering
modified sources.
Disposition: WAC 18-24-070(2)(a) of the adopted regulation covers modified
sources. Paragraph 2(b) has been deleted from the final
regulation.
8. COMMENT -- A definition of "operations" (regularly scheduled airline)
should be included in the regulation.
F-8
-------
Disposition: OGC indicated there is no requirement concerning definitions
that must be included in a State plan in order for the plan
to be approvable.
9. COMMENT — MAC 18-24-090(4)(b)(i) should clearly indicate that conditions
of operation levied by the Department must be legally enforceable by the
State and EPA.
Disposition: Although no changes were made in this section in the adopted
regulation (WAC 18-24-090(5)(b)(i), it is unnecessary
to restate that conditions are enforceable by the State and
EPA since by virtue of their being issued pursuant to the
State Implementation Plan, conditional permits are enforceable
by the State. Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, EPA can
assume federal enforcement of State Implementation Plans where
necessary.
10. COMMENT -- In addition to formally submitting the adopted plan, the
State must submit to EPA the basis for determining which facilities
are subject to review.
Disposition: On September IT, 1974, the State submitted materials which
discuss the basis for determination of which facilities shall
be subject to review.
11. Other clarifying suggestions were made to the DOE and needed corrections
of minor errors noted. These corrections were made in the adopted regulation
and many of the clarifying suggestions were incorporated.
F-9
-------
Appendix G: Public Comment Acknowledgement Letter
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
City Wide Industries
Anywhere
Any Town, U.S.A.
Dear Sir:
This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of July 27, 1973,
containing comments on the proposed changes concerning nitrogen
dioxide which appeared in the Federal Register (XX FR^XXXX) X/X/XX.
We are in the process of assembling all the comments received on this
issue so we can, after due consideration, make such changes as may be
necessary in the final promulgation.
We sincerely appreciate your prompt attention in submitting
comments.
Sincerely yours,
Richard G. Rhoads, Chief
Standards Implementation Branch
Control Programs
Development Division
cc: R. Mull ins
J. Schueneman
-------
a,b
Figure 2. PROCEDURES FOR APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL OF REVISIONS OF SIP's
EXCEPT THOSE INVOLVING TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES
R.O. Receives
Copies of
Submittals
from State
Apprcvable
Upon Cursory
Review
New Developments or Recnmmendalions
I ^ . *
CPDD
5 j
days'
R.O.
< R
~" davs
DSSE
21 days
14 days
L.
R.O. Prepares
Proposed Rule-
making Package
for Public
Comment & RAs
signature.
-ak-
14 ^
days
OPM-MOD
receives pro-
posed rule-
making package,
and forwards it
directly to the
F.R. for publication
R.O. Prepares
Draft of Final
Rulemaking
Package
14 days
Copy to
OAQPS-
CPDDC
I Copy to
OE r
|DSSEC
OAQPS-CPDD
Final Review
Administrator's
Signature and
Promulgation'
14 davs
5 days
R.O. Prepares final
rulemaking package
with any non-concurrence
tabbed and public com-
ments discussed. R.O.
sends 10 copies to
CPDD and 1 copy to DSSE.
a. If the State submission contains mostly,TCP measures, follow the procedures outlined in Figure 3.
b. The days given represent the time in calendar days necessary to prepare tasks described in the following box.
C- Copy of revision and submittal included. Reviewer discusses proposal with R.O. if necessary, by telephone and confirms by
' memorandum to R.O. with copies to other reviewing offices.
d. Reviewers must telephone concurrences or non-currences within 5 days of reception; conftrm by memorandum to R.O. with copies
e.
to reviewing office. If differences cannot be resolved, 14 days are allowed to prepare the non-concurrence memorandum.
Concurrences must be received from OPM-MOD, OE, OGC, 0PM, and OAWM.
f. After promulgation, R.O. sends copies of approved SIP changes to the Freedom of Information Center.
-------
Figure 3. PROCEDURES FOR APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL OF REVISIONS OF SIP.'s
INVOLVING TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES
R.O. Receives
Copies of
Submission
from State
15 days
unapprovable
Approvable
Upon Cursory
Review
15 days
Negotiates with
States for
Acceptable Changes
30 days
14 days
R.O. Prepares
Proposed Rule-
making Package
for Public Comment
& RAs signature
J4
days
Public Comments
Received by R.O.
21 days
R.O. Prepares
Draft of Final
F.R. Notice
Copy to
OE
MSEDC
OPM-MOD
receives rule-
making package
& forwards it
directly to
the F.R. for
publication.
New Developments or Recommendations
OTLUP!
1
CPDD
5 v
days'
R.O.
j 5
^days
MSED
Final Reviewe
OAWM and
Concurrences
14 days
Administrator's
Signature and
Promulgation^
OAWM-OTLUP
Final Review
14 days
5 days
R.O. prepares final
rulemaking package
with any non-con-
currences tabbed and
public comments
discussed. R.O.
sends 10 copies to
OTLUP and 1 copy to
HSED and CPDD.
a. If the State submission contains some Non-TCPs control measures DSSE is included in the review.
b. The days given represent the time in calendar days necessary to prepare tasks described 1n the following boxes.
c. Copy of revision or submittal included. Reviewer discusses proposal if necessary by telephone and confirms by memorandum to R.O.
with copies to other reviewing offices.
d. Reviewers must telephone concurrence or nonconcurrence within 5 days of reception and confirm by memorandum to R.O. with copies
e.
to other reviewing offices. If differences cannot be resolved, 14 days are allowed to prepare the nonconcurrence memorandum.
Occurrences must be received from OPM-MOD, OE, 06C, 0PM, and OAWM.
f. After promulgation, R.O. sends copies of approved SIP changes to the Freedom of Information Center.
------- |