SI .P G U I DAN CE
.NOTEBO,OK4..
-------
S. SIP Procedures
and Form
-------
S. SIP Procedures and Form
S.l. Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
State Implementation Plans; New SIP Processing Procedures to Save
Time and Resources (Informational Notice) 47 FR 27073 (June 23,
1982)
S.2. State Implementation Plan Completeness Review (Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking) 54 FR 2138 (Jan. 19, 1989)
S.3. State Implementation Plan Completeness Review (Final
Rulemaking) 55 FR 5824 (Feb. 16, 1990)
S.4. Processing of Pending Revisions to Federally-approved State
Implementation Plans (SIP’S) -- Mar. 22, 1991 memo from John
çalcagni
S.5. State Implementation Plan Completeness Criteria (Proposed
Rulemaking) 56 FR 23826 (May 24, 1991)
S.6. Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittals --
July 9, 1992 memo from John Calcagni
S.7. State Implementation Plan Completeness Criteria (Final
Rulemaking) 56 FR 42216 (Aug. 26, 1991)
S.8. Guidelines for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittals
due November 15, 1992 - - July 22, 1992 memo from Michael H.
Shapiro
S.9. Clarificatidn of Date Certain Requirement for Committal
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) - - July 12, 1993 memo from John
S. Seitz
S.10. State Implementation .Plan Processing Reform. (Procedural
Change) 59 FR 24054 (May 10, 1994)
S .11. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio
59 FR 52911. (Oct. 20, 1994)
S.12. Public Hearing Requirements for 1990 Base-Year Emission
Inventories for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas - -
September 2.9, 19,92 memo from John Calcagni
Public Hearing Requirements f or Inspection/Maintenance State
Implementation Plans -- memo from Sara Schneeberg [ See Inspection
and Maintenance section]
P I Apv )
-------
j
Fidertal Register I Vol. 47. No. 121 / Wednesday. June 23. 1982 / Rules end Regulations
270Th
implemented RACI In these areas:
therefore. the emissions in the.. two
bubbles an surplus. These two bubbles
provid, for net decrease of SOC
emissions at both the Texas City and
Chocolate Bayou Plant.
The second criterion for approvability
or a bubble revision I . that lb.
provisions of tha bubbles must be
enforceable. TACRU through Executive
Order attached document, to each of
the Monsanto proposals which specified
the enforceable emission limits foe each
of the emission points at which
alte itative controls ire to be
Implemented. Since this, document will
be a partof the S lPr evis ion. the
alternative emission controls are
enforceable
The third criterion deals with the
emissions being permanent To limit the
SOC. emluion . from the storage tanks.
MonsantO will be required to store only
the SOCs in these . k Once this
proposal Is approved, the dedication of
these tanks to specific SOC ’s at each
plant will become a part of the SIP.
The.Fourih criterion for approvabilhly
• Is that all reductions must be
quantifiable. EPA has determined that
the emission, involved in each of the
bubbles are quantifiable In th, creation
of emission reduction credits.
Summarizing, both Monsanto Bubbles
meet the criteria set forth in the Apr07.
1982 Federal Regimer that Incorporates
the Bubble Policy Into a comprehensive
Ezf .isslons Trading Pdllcy. Therefore.
EPA I . fully approving the two
Monsanto Bubbles. as discussed above
for incorporation into the Texas SIP.
Since these revisions InCluded In this
approval notice are considered general
revisions having little effect on air
quality and generating minimal public
interest. EPA Is today approving these
revisions without prior propolal.
The public should be advised that this
action will be effective 00 days from the
date of this Federal Register notice
(August 23. 1882). However. if notice is
received within 30 days that someone
wishes to submit adverse or critical’
comments, this action will be withdrawn
and two subsequent notices will be
published before the effective date. One
notice will withdraw the rinal action
and another will begin a new
rulemaking by announcing a proposal of
the action and establishing a comment
ta ’ri tiI.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
tio5 hl, I hereby certify that the att ichrtl
niIi wiil nut have a significant ct: onhic
iuq.ecl 00 0 substantial nuniber ol &m.ill
,u a1itIrS !Iuwe it inipoSCS no riew
t, ,i iiüt I t 5. ‘
tIntli ’;Sci :tujn r}(bfl1 ) iii ifi. Art,
p . 1It.11rn 14 1f ii4lrt4tI,I ft? IrW ul ihi’
action must be flied In the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by (00 day. from today). This
action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce Its requiremeni
(See 307(b 2).)
Th. Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this nile from the
requirement, of Section 3 of Exearti vs
Order 1 g1.
Nats.—lncorpomttá by reference of the
SIP f.i Teass was approved by the Director
of the F.derai Registaf on 3uIy 1.ISSI. This
of fl 11 J pilntfrb 1 Is Issued wider the
authority of Section itO of the Clean Air Act.
as amiodsd . 42 U.S.C 7410.
IJstdSchJsctslu1SCFRPart
Air pollution controL Ozone Sulfur
oxides, Nitrogen dioxide. Lead.
Particulate matter. Carbon me ’ oid’
Hns
D.t.é Jem 1 5. 1952.
AsN G .
A
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULOAT1ON OF
IMPLEMENTATIOE PLANS
Part S2uf Chapter i.lllle 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations ii amended
.sfo owm
Subpart $5—Tune
In 52. 0, (c) is amended by adding
subparagrtphs (34) and (35) as follows:
52.2270 Sdsnthlcation of plan.
• . . • S
(cJ ’
(34) RevIsion to the Texas SIP for
Monsanto Chemical Intermediates
Company Bubble In Texas City. Texas
were submitted by the Governor on
January 8. 1982. (Board Order No. 81—13).
(35) Revision. to the Texas SIP for the
Monsanto Chemical Intermediates
Company Bubble in Chocolate Bayou.
Texas were submitted by the Governor
on january 0, 1982. (Board No. 81-14).
jrI Duc SZ-1M2 Fih4 s -I . tis .is
$4.UHO COO( SKO-4O
40 CFR Part 52
l D-FRL 21534)
Requirements for Preparation.
Adoption, and Submittal of State
implementatiOn Plans; New SIP
Processing Procedures To Sa ’ e Time
and Resources
AG EN CY En V itoh iiirii i. t I il t ion
ACTION: l,iFi’ i tu.shiiiii ,it titi
r nv . The purpose of this notic, is
to inform the public of EPA efforts to
shorten and streamline the State’
lmplemeutstion Plan (SIP) review
process. Specific new SIP processing
procedures, dIscu ed In an earlier
Federal Register notice (September 4.
1961.46 FR 44475). are described. as are
the r suhsof anEPAstudy of their
effectiveness.
eas wnem a,omeAnow cou r
John Calcagni. ClsieL Plans Anal sis
Section. Control Programs Operations
Branch. P.W-iS. Envhvnmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle
Park. North Carolina. 27711. (919) 541-
98 Ff5 0 505.t
sueei iranv uomea noie Over the
past several years. numerous concerns
have been raised both within EPA and
the air pollution control community In
general regarding the time and
complexities involved in processing SIP
revisions. On luly V.. 1901. as. a result of
these concerns. EPA Initiated a national
experimental SIP processing p ogram
designed to improve and enhance the
SIP process. The program aimed at
shortening the lime necessary to
complete rulemsklng actions. avoiding
unnecessary EPA review. providing the
State with EPAs formal comments on a
more timely, bail ; and educing the
uncertainty States and industry felt
regarding EPAs position on specific
issues.
At least ‘40 percent of alt SIP revisions
processed between July 22. 1981. and
• January 5,1952. were processed using
one of three processing techniques. To
determine the effectiveness of the
techniques. EPA conducted a study
comparing the existing system of
processing SIPs to these new
procedure.. The results of the study
showed the new processes not only
saved significant amounts of time. but
• generated an overwhelmingly posiuive
response within EPA and without. As a
result. EPA is instituting these
procedures on a permanent basis.
The following are descriptions of
these processrng techniques and the
results of EPA ’s study to detrrniine thrir
• effectiveness.
Parallel Processing
h the past. SIP revisions were
uk t4npi!d between the States and EI’:\
throi, th ind(.pcfldent rulemakint
prt.u:I!sses. First, the State would
LIe lop and dup I a regu I I
tuUowin ds .idtiiinistrativt tituc
it i .uuIil Iii , suihniiiis iI It ilIt.\ Ii
Ftttical LhI;ttt tv Lfttt .i 1i1rtt ’ it ii
‘Ihi’. ‘ .,.iuhhhi.il!t1I.iitI .!
fu ,‘ ‘ . . Iht .‘ I t i ‘t’’ ,.
-------
27074 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 121 I Wednesday. june 23. 1982 I Rules and Regulations
State and EPA. The ’tota l review process
was lengthy and there were many
opportunities for false starts.
miscommunlcatlon. and.’
misunderstanding aver the approval of a
SIP rev*sion. even though the State may
have spent a consIderable amount of
time developing and adopting the
regulation. In some cases. If significant
changes were required by EPA. the State’
would have to repeat Its rulemaking
process.
Parallel processing was first
Implemented in April 1981 in EPA
Region L In July 1981. the program was
expanded to include all EPA Regions.
Using the parallel processing procedure.
the EPA Regional Office works closely
with the Slate as It develops a major
regulation-and procee’ii through the
State rulemaking process. Whenever
possible. the State and EPA propose the
regulation at the same time. announce’
concurrent comment periods. and joIntiy
review the comments. The EPA Regional
omce will ansWt with all other
appropriate EPA offices as the
regulation is being developed and during
the State and Federal rulemaking
process to ensure that all Issues are
identified before the Etate adopts the
regulation. -
If the State or EPA receives no
comments that would necessitate
significant changes to the regulation. It
will be adopted by the State and
submitted to EPA. The State-adopted
regulation will then be processed by
EPA as a final rulemaking. lf.signlflcant
changes must be made to the proposed
regulation due to comments during the
public comment period. EPA would have
to reprupose the regulation.
EPA rulemaking to incorporate a State
regulation in a SIP may also be initiated
when a rule has been proposed by the
Sti tè but not yet adopted. This will
allow the total Federal/State processing
time to be reduced in cases where State
ru’emaking has progressed too far to
allow the ideal parallel processing
procedure.
To test the effectiveness of the
parailcl processing technique. EPA had
to first find out the average time it took
,to process a SIP using previously
established procedures. A random
selection of 137 typical SIP revisions
processed between 1978 and October
1981 were analyzed. Using existing
proi .edurl!s. it took an average 01425
c ilendir days from the time the SIP
revision, was submitted to F.PA by the
St.i’r u’ttil it w 1 is published as a final
ruk nnk jog in the Fe. eral Register.
A SIP revision pim.t ss .’d h.lw. .n
‘April 1981 and January 1982, usIng the
parallel processing technique. took an
average of 128 calendar days from the
time It was submitted to EPA until the
final rulemaking wu pnhll,hed In the
Federal Register. Thus, the processing
time was reduced by 287 days .
In conclusion, parallel processing Is
not appropriate for all SW revisions. But
when Issues are clearly understood and
the expected State action Is well
deflned, employing such an approach
can save in excess of 00 percent of the
normal processing dme
lnorfla’.Flaal R l Lt.
The immediate final rulemaking SW
processing approach was first bud in
June1981 In EPA Peglon IV. là July1981.
the program was expanded to hidude
all Regions.
Previously established procedures’
req ulred that all SIP revisions be
proposed for public co.nment before
gaing to final rulemaking. The comment
period could be 30 or 00 days depending
on the anticipated public Interest in the
revisIon. Because of the straightforward
nature of some actions. or the
narrowness of their scope, many SW
revisions get few, If any, comments from
the public during the commant period.
Therefore. aspen of EPAs new SIP
processing program, a SIP revision that
is judged by EPA lobe noncontroversial
and where no adverse public comments
are anticipated, will be published as a
final rulemaking without first going
through a proposed rulemaking phase.
The public will be advised that no
comments are anticipated and that.
unless notice Is received withIn 30 days
that someone wishes to submit adverse
or critical comments, the rulemaking.
will be effective 80 days from the date
the notice is published. If notice Is
received that someone wishel to submit
adverse or critical comments, the final
• rulema .h notice will be withdrawn
and a proposed rulemaking notice will
be published. The proposed rulemaking
notice will establish a comzn nt period.
As of January 5. 1082. 90 SIP revisions
had been processed using the immediate
final rulemaking approach. Less than -
five percent of these were withdrawn
because notice was received that
someone wished to submit adverse or
critical comments. To determine the
effectiveness of this technique; the 90
SIP revisions that were processed using
it were compared to 81 SIP revisions
processed between 1978 ar.d October
itnll using previously established
prottilur .s. The at SIP revisions usod, in
li. r .mp rison did not reurive
co nts during their proposed
nilentaking and thàefore It was
assumed that most of them could have
been processed using the Immediate
final rulemaking approach. The average
pmctsslng time for the SIP revisions
using existing processing procedures
was 419 calendar days. Using the
immediate final rulafnakhtg approach. is
took an average of 181 cal.nIar days.
Thus, then, was an average savings of
258 days to process a SIP revision using
this technique.
Oth o r
EPA has also Implemented a number
of ahnlnktrathr, measures to
streamlin, internal Agency review. One.
of these meuiges, which was first
Implemented as an experimental
processing technique in EPA Region V in
April1981 and expanded In July 1981 to
Include all Regions. eliminates
duplicative reviews by EPA
Headquarters offices of SW revisions
that do not ehange significantly during
their proposed rulemaking This
technique saved an average of 149
calendar days in processing time.
-Because use of these procedures has
been found to save considerable time as
well as resources, EPA Inti’nds. to use
them whenever possible to more
efficiently process SiP revisions. Parallel
processing will be.used for major SIP
reviSions that are likely to require
coordination and cooperation between
the State and EPA to identify and
resolve issues and to make policy
detrrminations In a more expedient
manner. immediate final rulemaking will
be used to process SIP revisions that are
noncontroversial and are not likely to
elicit public comments. F!nally. EPA
Headquarters has elImInated-its review
of final rulemaking notices for.SIP
revisions that dâ not change
significantly during their proposed
rulemaking. EPA guideline documents
for processing SIP revisions will be
updated to reflect these changes.
List of Subjects iii 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control. Ozone. Sulfur
oxides. Nitrogen dioxide. Lead.
Purticulate matter. Carbon monoxide,
I lydrocarbons.
Dated: June 11. 1982.
KsthI.en M. B.n.tt.
A s,. Iunl AJ,r.i,,i’ir tor f jr 4/r .. .
FI(I,/IflhlOfl.
II N IS., i l.. .. I -, . ’ ::—N.’ .. ,
OIUINO COOt N 5O- O -M
-------
2138
Feder iL R tsterf_Vol. 54. No. 1 I .Thursd iyHuniiary I . i 3 ) I Pr pused Rules
‘ uthor ty: S. c3. 1-4 . 48 St;it.
id d: 7 U S.C. flOI-874.
ct dn 959.229 is added t ad as
1.5 Expenses and rats .
Ex sesof$379.675by South
Texas ion Committee authorized
and an si ent rate V .O5 c per 50
pound c tauter or eq Lent quantity
of regula onions is ablished for the
fiscal ending J 31. 1989.
Unexpen fund, be carried over
uares
D.iedjan 13.
wil . I.
Ae cta 0 .Fn,it and
Ve efab4. Div
1V Dec. es- 1—1s-* ..ml
UA Y
31cm •1•• __
EiiwSon Comments on
opoffd Mt...
__ Offic
‘reuury. -.
ioie A no of proposed
e t
oticela given that
the entoftheT uryls
exte the comment od on the
Advanc otace of Propos
.tlema g Relating to Id ification
R qui ents Required to ase
Sank CubleVsCh
Trave $ Otecks and Mon
pubils IntheFederalR
r23 . 1985(53FR51
T Department has del
that time is needed for
to w and comment on th
0* mment.i nOW will be
thro February 15. men.
Comments should bi
ad sed to Amy G. RudniCk.
Offi of Financial Enforcemer
Dep effi at the Treasury. W
15 1 ennsylvaniaAvenue. N’
inglon. DC ZOzrn
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
40 CFR Part $1
I FRL-342$—2l
State Imp lementation Ptan
Completeness RevIew
*GV1CY Envin,timental Protection
Agency (EPA).
*ci to.c Notice of Proposed Rtilemaking .
SUMM*ev This notice describes the
procedure for asseurng whether a State
implementation plan (SIP) submittal Is
adequate to th89er the Clean Air Act
requirement that EPA review and take
action the submittaL The notice
describes, among other things. the
aftmia for determining the.
‘completenees” of the submittaL EPA Is
concerned that aucertainty and
5Hedel17 WthgS s
fr ftsts the deveiopi ent ci en opflmu-
State/Federal partnership, cause
confusion for sources regarding
applicable regulations, and generally
dampen initiative in Stet. regulatory
pruçams . Prompted by this concern,
EPA Is i n stituting a wide range of SIP
processing reforms as described
elsewhere in this Federal Register. The
___ proposed rulemaking described below Is
one of these reforms.
EPA previous SIP processing
procedues provided no mechanism to
reject or otherwise eI1mln te essentIally
unreview.ble SIP submittals (i.e.. those
missing information necessary to make
a reasonable decision as to their.
proceduraL and environmental
adequacy). Heretofore. SIP submittals
that lack ed required basic information
Orders. such as evidence of legal authority c c of
‘or on properly conducted public hearings. or
e technical support information sufficient
iced to describe a proposed change. generally
bi went through lull notice and comment
Pu ICE , rulemaking (proposed and final) before
roposa being rejected. Today’s proposal
pted provides a procedure and screening
critera to enable States to prepare
adequate SiP submittals. and to enable
rector. EPA reviewers.Io promptly screen SIP
submittals. identify those that are
m incomplete, and return them to the State
fur corrective action without having to
go through rulemaking.
EPA believes that this change. -
together with those described elsewhere
in this rederal Register. should enable
SIP submitta!s to be prepared and
proccssed more efficiently and, overall
should improve the quality of SiP
su Imitta li.
OATC All comments should be
submitted to EPA at the address shown
tieluw by March 6. 1989.
Ic
r.
unset
led: J inw ry 3. 1 t5L
itote R. Martodie.
wiant Secmtary l&IfofEflt7k?flfl.
)uc. l -1 4 Filed I-i8-a9 &45 a
G C0O( 4$io .fl .$
a ORE5SES: Interested parties may
submit written comments in dupIic ite to
l ’ub ic Ouckct No. A —M—j at: C!ntr l
Docket Section (A—130). South
Conference Center. Room 4. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
• Attention: Docket No. A-88-l8. 4tfl M.
Street. SW.. Washington. DC 20460.
Materurls relevant to this rulemaking.
have been placed in Docket No, A—88—18
by EPA and are available for inspection
at the above address between 8:00 a.m.
and 3:30 p.m.. Monday through Friday.
The EPA may charge a reasonable fee
for copying.
con uem O MAnCSI CONrac
Mr. james Weigoki. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards ( Ml )-
11), U.S Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina V7U Ta1,pliina (p19) 511.-
enpPt en Y P0miAflOI
The 1970 Clean Afr Act (CAAL
establishEd the dir qàlity managexnát
pi oceüas a basic philosophy for dir
pollution cqntrel in this omn y. Under
this system. EPA estabII. m. air quality
• goals (National Amhf t Afr Quality
• Standards—NAAQS) for co on
pollutants. Thàe are now standards for
po!lutants: ozone , carbon monoxide.
sulfur dioxide. nitrogen dioxide,
particulate matter (P%L and Ies&
States then develop’control programs to
attain and maintain these NAAQS.
These programs are defined by State
Implementation Plans (SiPs) which are
approved formally by EPA and are
legaliy enforceable by the Agency.
Under section 110(a)(2). a SW must
demonstrate attainmeal describe a
control strategy. contain legally
enforceable regulations. indude an
emiss ton inventory and procedures for
new source review, outline a program
for monitoring, and show adequate
resources. In addition. there can be.
many other requirements specific to the
pollutant being considered. Under
section 110(a)(3). revisions to a SIP must
not interfere with the SIPS ability to
meet these requirements. The
consequences of State failure to get SIP
approval may be serious: they include
Federal promulgation of control
regulations and economic sanctions.
Affirmative action is required by EPA
on essentially all aspects of every SIP
and SIP revision. Since EPA’s final
decision comes after a rc u1ation
already is adopted end implemented at
the State level excessive delay in the
review process often is a ma or source
of (rictit ln in EPA ’s reletions with Sta le
ru*mas INcO SMAT10N CONI
een A. Scott. Attorney Ad’
e of the Assistant General
rccmcut). (2.02) 566—9947.
Wui
Kal
9 1!
lEt
1•’ • ’
4-14.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 54. 4o.l2 I Thuiiday, January 19. 1989 1 Pt oposed Rules
2139
and local agencies. SIP processing at
EPA ai a schedule goal of 5/24(2 for
flnal action. That is. ha Regions
nominally have 5 month. to review
submntal. in both the ptcposal and
promulgation phtses Headquarters
tiominaUy has 2 months in each phase.
However. SiP actions often take,
considerably longer than the total 14
months allocated to publish • final
decision.
The Ien thy d.ci .ton procas. ha.
resulted vs atroo itics*a from sources
both Ins Ide and outside the EPA. La
response , the Deputy Mmfthstrstor
in M v I9C a . enloe leveL
task p p to’...,. the prub’r”
InbesIa*InthS 1OO $I4Od to
re Dmmamd ao The k pwp
It S , NW- SOd Hft d
— ‘os D+4•
WI! S — fully and er dssalbet
__ n”nodc. In ts4a u 7 A.I
completeness review of all SIP
6ublflltta l s.
Completeness Review
until todays proposed regulation is
made final.
As part of this action, the
Administrator is proposing to add these
criteria fat determining the
completeness of State lubauttaLs tO
CFP. Part 51 uAppendix V. In addition.
EPA propose, to modify 5L103(a) such
that State submissions that do not meet
the criteria are not considered official
plan submissions for purpo.ó, of
meeting the requirements of Psrt Si. in
order to be onneldered u a complete SW
submission in an offiv4 .ui inhijijigiCU for
Part 51. a.th plan Inst meet the alterla
desortb.d below and In Appendix V.
The basic criteria are adaptable far use
In perallel procinlng of Stats
itkmaby E PA.’
EPA iaerestl this completeness
• ZIIl aUC IN 4 !th ea thOI4t 7 OI
Section 3 oI1he& een Afr Ad whlth
then4 ia to
prw bss rsg nIa onaaaare
• asosesety.to ey out h i. bmciloea
under the Ad. EPAIe Int5tpe Ung the.
terms “plan” In wlIoit 1*aXI) and (2)
and “revision ” in 8P iIim 11t aX3J to be
oa ly4io.sp la nsa n dm vt s ioca that
contain d of the components usomu y
tn.flaw E PAtos review
.adtaki r1lmion plancrrevlsion
mid ,’ sectIon 110 (en wbms
applicable, Part C l. EPA believes that
Con 5 u would not have intended to
require EPA to revieW end tab. action
an SW mibmit(als that were simply not
revlewable because they were lacking
important components. Therefore, the
AdminIstr tar concludes that Section
11O(aj reqdlres him to act only on
cOmplete State submittals.
The aiterta for determining whether a
submittal by the State is complete have
been separated Into two caIegones tal
Administrative information and (bI
technical support information.
Mniinlatretlve information includes the
documentatIon necessary to
demonstrate that the basic
administratIve procedures have been
adhered to by the State during the
adoption process. Technical support
infor mation indudes the documentation
that adequately identifies aft of the
required technical components of the
plan submission..
A’I” ' 1 ’trative Information
The administrative inforinat oo
required by the criteria are those bes c
‘PsrqLkc.urn ii rde .nb, .4
plu e..cs . c i s p poeeL St i. r . .Me — .4
yei been f ,fly eâoped by th, S .&e .e .
c pe *iI, the (me l re .ew
In order to free EPA resources that
would otherwise be consumed in
processing incomplete and inherently
unapprovable SiPs. EPA hal created a
- completeness review process. Under this
process. EPA will review a SiP foe
completeness when it is initially
submitted to dotaunina If .11 the
necessary components have been
induded to allow the agency to properly
review and act on the substance of the
__________ ____ - SWrsvision.l ’bls will be iqi&lásaeen
that will euiss rsyiow.bfIlIyd $
_____ ___ SIP submittaL net Its ultimata
_____ appiovebility. EPA will than p .mpUy
___ __ l foem the nb lttivg State whither the
______ ________ e 5 y will ptuo.ad to iwiwsei the SW
____ re---” '- ’ • - • 1 nidr1fft bsmod Ifisdbyths
_____ ___ Stats becAuse It is iple !
_____ ••Thrn st s... l beneets toil early
as mess detemlnatiol of on letenesi Thst,
a prO .,dWS and Stats Is oimed promptly as to lbs
f 4ng • “ n plate ”SW p.á.gs. ____
thereby pcue dthg Sm with guidance viewabflit of the submittaLa uant
on preparing adequate SIP revisions mid •. a of oert .iutyIn the SIP pee s.
EPA with a dandy dafhi ,id mr ia .iia and, SW submlttala that are
to beep . uendaUy evlewabIs . th.d for wocesslng are xeáirnsd
re v i mosiao e*oftheru lewprocess . tatheSt atatobeCaITeCtsdSMthSrthaII
— th *gh th . revtsw proosesOnly to
This Is important because If a State be disepp v d because of a Iar of
submits a SIP ChIflg 5 wi opedy Information. Third. uflzevlewable SIP.
stated emission limIt& legal authOrity or ta. . early so
complime . edhedides. or whlth ____
contains other obvious defidendes, that reso es at the Federal lesel are
can enter the full EPA review system. allocated to processing only SIPs thet
Such a SiP either will be eveltually • are adequate far review. Finally. the
disapproved, or languish while the completeness criteria! provide the States
Is required (perhaps w th ,4ater) with guldelines on how to prepare
supply essential data. Heretofore 1 EPA ’s t tbh SIPs. It I. expected that once
procedures did not provid, the agencies involved (State and locaL
comprehensive way prompt rejection for EPA) become accustomed to the
incompleteness. Independently, teness review process. the
bqwever. some Regional Offices by,. Of anreviewable submittals will
• tried to deal with this problem, and have uit eh sharply.
developed procedures wherein Sip Screening criteria have been
submittals are judged against a set of d o define the essential
completeness criteria, The pwpo. f elements of Lu acceptable packags. that
these p ocedures has been to keep will avoid obvious inadequacies, and
incomplete packages out of the , that can be applied uruforinly with
extensive review system, thereby saving limited subjective judgernent and
both EPA sad the State valuable review. The criteria were developed by
and resources. Today. EPA is proposing EPA RegionalOffices already using a
to institute anEPA-wide f list of criteria to determine completeness
of SIP packages in an Informal way. On
March 18. Ieee a policy for determining
____ completeness of SIP submittal. was
_____ issued by Gerald A. Emison. Director.
___ Office of Air. Quality Planning and
Standard. (OAQPS ). to the Regional
Offices (a copy has been placed in the
docket as item 11—8—4). The policy
4ncludcs basic criteria for determining
completeness, and sample letters for
accepting and rejecting 5(1, submittals.
This policy will be oUowed by EPA
‘Nob thee iodine 1i ah(2) at the Cm. Mr Ad
r.qWren that •ltw M .trator shalL within fa
m.itutu after the date reqeined (or *ub ’ i* i ” of a
ISWI. ippravo. or disapprove sudt (S1PI (or melt
p.irtion lhwueo(. Unde, the Arefley. It.. —., ’
p’3i*isHv wottload. , . lime limit Ia hiie&ly
inic .oio t.Ie to meat (or .11 bet the moat iriehal of
,i:ftona. EPA ma li , u lieu ffi i daedljae doss nob
hy tn SIP rcviiiona. but ,sther only to the uUtial
M l ’. iutwnitti,d after EPA 9romolgates i NAA S.
Ssn e cou r ta hare suneirted EPA. pmiflon: other
courta her e l.ch ,l th I I 4-month niviaw period
I .,, Sit’ nirisian.
A-i 5.
-------
2140
Federni Rcgistcr I Vol. 54. No. 12 / Thursday . January 19. 1989 / Proposed Rules
ocuments that. demonstrate that the
ate has properly followed the
.4ministratzve requirements called for
by the Clean Air Act for the adoption of
State impLementation plans. These
includes Letter from ha Governor or his
designee requesting that ‘A approve
the SW revision, and evidence that the
revision baa been adopted by the State
in final form, ether u part of the Stats
cod. if the revision a s regulation. aria
appropriate s wce specific
docum 1taUo@ In lbs form of. permit.
order. er a consent açemamnt. The Stat.
• also must provide dotian th.t
the necau ary legmi *utherlty GUsts
within the State to adopt sod Implement
the — revtsio must Indud. the
, mjuisits onpise of lbs . & fusi revision
( r ”n. p. ft. or . etc.).
61i*to t the revision to onforcseble
W fl theSSate must
. ludormatlon Imlicathig that the.
progam admImstreths pruceduxea have
been lollowed. thd g evidence
pubH roticesodbeerth ge.s
of the pubik cammenta, and
the Slate’s gespr . to these common”-
Ts iuil’ 1 Soppert
The P’.’P°’ of the %thnlcel . . pport
I nfo rmation is to Identify the State’s
impsctof the r ev i douou the
environment. The Components are
toed to deInacatrats that lbS
appltc ’b&s a L.wcnta , s u those
far sIt lnent sod maintenance of
ambient standards. b ement
consumption, and control technolo v.
s te In conformance with basic statutory
and EPA requirements. In order for E PA
to make a ressonable decision
concerning the adequacy of a proposed
SIP revision. certain Informat1c ate
minimum must be included In each
submittaL Therefore. for purposes of
deter i ining the completeness of a S W
submission the implementation plan
revision must Include an adequate
description of thg
(a) Pollutants Involved:
(bJ Source location and attai ” ”t
status of the ares:
(c i Emisnoris changes:
(dl Demonstration that standards!
Increments are protected
(e) Information used forany modeling
demonstration
(f) Evidence of continuous emissions
controls:
(g) Evidence of emissions limitations
and other restrictions necessary to
ensure emission levels:
(h) Compliance strategies: and.
(i) Technological and economic
lustification for the change where
applicable.
Upon receipt of the plan revision, the
Ri gional Office will objectively examine
the revision fur inclusion of the
administrative and technical support
information. When the revision is
determined complete, the formal review
of the adequacy of the information and
the approvability of the revision will
proceed. In those situations where the
submission does not meet the basic
criteria as discussed above and set forth
in Pail Si. Appendix V. the submIssion
will be returned to the Slate with a letter
indlc ’ting the de ande , fotmd. is
accordance with the 4 .flg p a j In
40 R $U (a). any submission that
does not meet the criteria of Appendix V
willoel be caosldsred an
rihmIa tti tU4 the Act s.
requirements far A ruvlsw and action.
The bss’ requirements ire
___ lnádermob.
aff.ctiv determination d
mpls4r ”a should be made
expeditiously. The P’ile Office:
generally will make a det at1on of
p1jIau aei within 45 days of
rec vthg a SW revision, using the
criteria to make sn ob$cths A j4at 0 iL
• d.tdvionhubeesamadeon
camp ass. the Regional Offlees wlfl
process the SIP revision If the
submission 1. complete, or tU ii the SW
re sisi tmtatheState lfft lalncnini4ita.
A lsttw l l lbesenttotbsStats..
lbs Stats of the oampk”n .
status o(tbs S I Previs ImI. If. SW
submittal Is Incomplete. the deficiencies
will be detailed In the letter to the State.
If a SIP submittal Is complete. the
Regional Office will Include EPA’s
expected prw#i, 1 Itg schedule In the
Iettertoth.State ,
•Mm ,Re nta
The docket Is an organized and
complete SI. of all the information
considered by EPA In the development
of these SW processing changes. The
dodiet isa dynamic file because
material Is added throughout the notice
preparation and comment process. The
docketing system Is Intended to allow
members of the public and Industries
Involved to Identify and locate
documents so that they can effectively
partic pate In the process. Along with
the statement of basis and purpose of
the SIP processing changes and EPA
• responses to significant comments, the,
contents of the.docket. except for
interagency review materials, will serve
as the record in case of judicial review
(ace Clean Air Act. section 307(d )(7j(A).
42 U.S.C. 7607 (d)(7J(Al.
Section 317(a) of the Clean Air Act. 42
U.S.C. 781 7 (a). states that economic
impact assessments are required Inc
revisions to itanch rds or regulation.
-16.
whc the Administrator determines such
revisions to be substantiaL The changes
describcd today do not change the
substantive requirements for preparing
and submitting an adequate SIP
package. No increase in cost as a result
of complying with the changes described
today is expected: moreover, the
monitoring. recordkeepiog, and reporting
requirements have been determined to
be insubstantiaL Because the expected
economic effect of the chaviges Is not
substantiaL no detailed economic
— wa a,t has been pre mnd.
The jnfoumsdon collection
of these cbangsl s te.
cansidmad tobeno diff j i 1 than those
• .r dy q g4 by the Cain Air Act
and EPA o dar.s.Th the public
.U borden Jttegfromtoda s.
ne4les to , ,t eted to be .r1lm11IiUd
from d.tieg re Ji The public
to levissd to .s.d -----”te . ui. JL g
the busden asdi.te orotbm aspect àì
rmation coGs Inde flg..
• s stSoasforreducIngany birdie . to
rmat1aaPaiky au PM U
L,fr . - - ” p a rsi i Agency. 401 U
Street SW . , W. Øer DC I4 t and
to the Office of Information sod
Regulatory Affair., Officeaf
M.nagen and Budget. W Megton.
DC 10 marked ‘Attention: Desk
officer farEPA.” .
Under Executive Order 1 1. EPA is
required to judge’wbethsr inaction is
‘major’ and. therefore subJect to the
requirement of a regulatory impact
inalysis (R14). The Agency has.
determined that the SIP proce’eing
changes announced today would result
in none of the slgnillcant adverse
economic effects set forth In sectIon 1(b)
oftheOrderugraundsfor aflnd lngo(
“major.” The Agency has. therefore.
concluded that this action Is tots
“major” action under Executive Order
12 l.
This rule wu submitted to 0MB for
review consistent with section 307(d) of
the Clean Air Act A copy of the draft
rule as submitted to 0MB. any
documents a mpanyusg the draft. any
written comment received from other
agencies (includIng 0MB). and any
written responses to those comments
have been included in the dockel
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980.
5 U.S.C. 601-612. requires the
identification of potentially adverse
impacts of Federal actions upon small
business entities. The Act requires the
completiOn of a regulatory flexibility
analysis foe every action unless the
Administrator certifies that the action
will not have a significant economic
• impact on a substanhia , lF’ .L ,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. .12 / Thursday. January 19. 1989 / Proposed Rules
21 4j
entities. For reasons described above. I
hereby certify that the finairule will not
have a significant impiict on a
substantial number of smatl’entities.
Date J.inuary 9. 19 9.
tàsM.Thdmas .
Adminislrc(or.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble..40 CFP.. Pait 51 is proposed to
be itmended us follows:
PART 51—{AMENOEDJ
1. The authority citation for Part St
continues to read as follows:
AWboiltiy This leaak is promulgated
uider suthesity of Sections 1O1(bWfl. 1*
100-el. 171—17 5. and 301(s) of the Ce r n. Air
Ad. 42 U.S.C. 7401(bXlJ. 7410. 74z-74a.
1501—75* md 7001(4
2. S.ct l on5tl e l I . propásed tabs
am by revising parspaph (a)
nizod rnadufrAaws:
iltis $tA ’-Jon of p pis Uy
(a) The Stat. makes an omcw plan
mabsn lss lontoEPAwhenth.p lan
confsams to the requfreáents of
AppádizVtothispsrt.ádtb $tat.
delivers five copies otth.p)an to th.
eppropriati Reglonil offlee with. letter
vlng notice of such action. The Stat.
must adopt the plan and the Governor or
his designee must submit It to A as
follows:
• . I • I
51 Is proposed to be amended
by addingAppenclix V to read as
follows:
Appendix V—Criteria Ice Determining
the Complsteneu of Plan Submissions.
:.aPwpas.
This Appendix V sets forth the minimum
en lefts for determining whether a Stat.
implementation pin submitted for
consideration by EPA is an official
submission for putpos. of review under
I 5tu .
U. The EPA shall return to the submitting
official any pian or revision thereof which
fails to meet the enterla see forth in this
Appendix V. or otherwise request c ivUl t
action. identifying the component (s) absent
or insufficient to perform a r.vicw of the
submitted I
1.2. The EPA shall inform the submitting
official when a plan submission meets the
requirements of this Appendix V. such
dcturmination melting in the plan beütg an
official submission for purposes of 1 51.103.
2.0. Crileno
The folluwing shall be included in plan
sutumissions fur review by E PA:
2.1. Administrative Materials
• (ii ) A formal lctter of submittal (rum the
(;overn ur his designee. requesting EPA
approval of the plan or revision therenf
1hru iul r thc plani.
(b} Evidence that the Slate has adopted the
plan in the Slate code or body of mgulalions
or issued the permit. oidcr. consent
&greement herea(ter documcnt} in final form.
That evidence shall include the date of
adoption or final issuance as well is the
effective date of the plan if different from the
adoption/issuance date.
(C) Evidence that the Slate has the
necessary legal stitboilty under State law to
ado . an.. impicinent the plan.
(d) A copy of the ectuat regulation, or
document submitted for approval and
incorporation by reference into the plan.
induding indication of the changes med. to
the existing a . ,.ad plan. where ipplicable.
Tb. submittal shall be a copy of the official
State reguLatlon/do m,nt 9j a& , I.m j
dated by the appropriate Stats official
ttid4e ting that It Is fully enforcssbl. by the
S lats. The effective date of the regulstlon/
doewnnl shall. wbwut possiNe . be
Indicated Its the doctor ” ltaslL
(a) Evld that the Stats follewad .11 c i
the rooderal roqelr oI the Stats’s
laws and côaiUt*dcs In ‘I.cth g and
compls the sdopdon/Is.rew-n of the plan.
thit public Od we. Pen of
the enpoud ehang, with
procedures app . d by ‘A. tad dlng the
d i i. of publication of seth uod
(s) Cmtiflcsdos that pebllcbserht s) wee
• held In accordance with the ormatioa
prOvided in the public notice and thi SteWs
law. a nd cc udtut4 . If epptL .bio.. .
the State’s response theretti.
2.2. T.dtni ’ ’ Support
(a) Ideetificatlo. of .0 reguLated pollutants
aff.ct.dbyth.pI a n. . . -
(b) Idetitflcatiorn of the location, of
aff.ctedm r a including the ElSA
attslnmant/nonattslnment deu*gnitlos of the
locations and the status of the attainment
plan for the affected areas(s).
(c) QUUIIIIC*IIOn of the changes In plan
allowable emissions from the affected
estimates of changes In our.at
ict”l omissions from affected se es or.
• where appoprlata. quantification of changes
ma actual a iisuona from affected soarcos
through c.lculationa of the differences.
between certain baseline levels sad
allowable emissions anticipated as a result of
then.
(d) Tb. States demonstratIon that the
National Ambient Al, Quality Standards.
prevention of sigiuficaat deterioration
inorements. reasonable further progress
demonstration, and visibility, are protected if
the plan is approved sod implemented.
(el Modeling information required to
support the proposed revision. induding input
data, output data, models used. Justification
of model selections. ambient monitoring data
used. meteorological data used, justification
for use of offsit. date (where used ). modes of
models used, assumptions, and other
information relevant to the determination of
adequacy of the modeling analysis.
(1) Evidence, where necessary. that
emission limitations are based on continuous
em saion reduction technolr.qy.
( ) Evidence that the plan contains
emission IimitatIuns. work practice stand.irds
end re ,rdkeeping/reporting requirements.
where necessary. to ensure emission l vcls.
Lh) Compliance/enfo,cement stmulcgiqs
including how compliance will be detc!mined
n practice.
(i) Special economic and technological
luMirications required by any applicable K
policies.
2.3. Exceptions
2.3.1. The EPA. (or the purposes of
axpeditlng the review of the plan, has
adopteda procedure referred to as “parallel
processing.” Parallel puuo.sümg allows a
State to submit the plan prior to actual
adoption by the State and provides an
opportunity for the Stat, to consider EPA
comments prior to submission of a final plan
for final review and action , Under the ,.
ic”ns’anc the plan submitted will not be
ibis tomeetall aftbsreq* mu sausntsof
parsgrsph 2.1 (all rsMlIL ants of piragraph
2.2 W ILl epply). Ms resuLt, th. following
excaptiou . apply te clam submitted
(a) lbs letter rs. 5 .hud by psrsgrapb 2.1(a)
shell a . 1 ..m t A,.,oa. of
the psop id pta by sAsl p -fng
2.1(b) the State
eh .flssb a.di a4th flmalsdopdcaor
the plan .
lln o fperqAphL1(d)thepls r mshaIl
• lada uaa,pyoftheprupoised/èift
regulation ordo ” ‘ ’t
(d Tb, a. .i ,—’ts of pesepuphe 2.1(e)-
2 .1 b)thsfl aota p p ly lsp l a ms ub e sfttad for
— — . . •. .
2.3.2. The o ,doon granted In paragraph
2.3.1 ShIll apply only te GA’. determination
of proposed action and .0 riqulroments of
psr*graph2.lshallbemetprictto
pub&aihuz o1 A’S flasi determination
plan appruvsbthty.
(FR Doe. 00—l l FlIed 1-15-* &45 a m)
ssis coos sees see
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Federal Insurance Administration
44 CFR PartS?
(Oodt.t P lo. FEMA-6048)
Proposed Rood Elevation
D.terni lnat lons
*aeecv Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
*cno.c Promised rule.
SUWIARY ’ . Technical information or
comments are solicited on the proposed
base (100-year) flood elevations arid
proposed base flood elevation
modifications listed below for selected
locations in the nation. These base (100-
year) flood elevations are the basis (or
thefloodplain management measures
that the community is required to either
adopt or show evidence of berng already
in effect in order to qualify or rv’m,l
qualified for parlicipation in ihi’
A-i 7.
-------
5824 Federal Register I VoL 55, No.33/ Friday. February is. 19901 t u1es and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC11ON
40 CER P, t 51
IFRL-37 02- 5l
Stats hnptefnsntatlon Plan
Com Rsvtew
*av.cv Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
*cnose Final rulemaking
IUNNMY This notice describsi EPA ’.
final action on the procedure (a
assessing whether a State
Lmpl .”.ntátlan plan (SIP) submittal Is
adequate to th er the Clean Air Act
(Act) requirement that EPA review sad
take action an the submittaL The notice
dualbe.. among other thbig , the
_crlteiIa for determMlng the
“completan.,.” of the submittaL The
EPA Is concerned that uncertainly and
excessive delays In reviewing SIP’.
frustrate the development of an optimum
State/Federal partaershIp cause
confusion for sources regarding
applicable regulations, and generally
dampen Initiative In Slate regulatory
programs. Today’s ul w a dng provides
* procedure and screening criteria to
enable States to prepare adequate S W
submittal.. and to enable EPA reviewers
to promptly screen S W submittals, and
return Incomplete submittal. to the State
for corrective action whenadequat.
Information Is not provided with the.
submittaL without having to go through
fOrmal r lemafr4qg - The EPA believes
that this procedure should enable S W
submittal. to be prepared and processed
more efficlendy and will Improve the
queifty of SIPsubmittals. This notice
also responds to colnm.nta received on
the procedural changes the Agency
made to its SlPrevlewprocewAfl of
these reforms were discussed In tw
Federal Register notices of January 19,
1989 (54 FR2138 and 54 FR 2214).
O*TI This action becomes effective
March 19,1990.
Material. relevant to this
ruleaukfng have been placed In Docket
No. A-88-18 by EPA and are available
for Inspection between 8 0e.m. end
3:30 p.m., Monday throu Friday, at the
following address: Csntral Docket
Section (A -iSO), M m Public Docket No.
A-eS-Is. South Conference Center
Room 4. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,
DC 460. The EPA may charge a
reasonable fee for copying.
oe Fuwriem ewoau*now CONTACT
Denise Gerth. Office of AIr Quality
l anniag. and Standards (MD-45). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
ResearchTriangle Park, NC 27711.
Telephone (9191541-5550 or fF153.’
SUP,LZMINtAeY IP OeMA?lOsc
Back •
The 970 Act established the air
quality management process as a basic
philosophy for air pollution control in
this country. Under this system. EPA
establishes air quality goals (aatlnaaI
• ambient sir quality standards—NAAQSJ
far common pollutants. Ther, are now
standards for six poUutants fwt4.
carbon moiu d . authw divide ,
nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter
(PMIO), and lead. States than develop
and submit to EPA control prc im. to
attila and maintain thesi NAAQS. 1
EPA must then act on the State’s SIP
submlttala. Ths individual Slat. plans
which ate approved formally by EPA
becom. the ffii ial SIP. which Is legally
enforceable by the Agency. Under
section 110(a) of the Act, a SIP must.
demonstrate atfa nment of the relevant.
NAAQS. desalbe $ pollution contrOl.
sfrateV, contain legally enforceable
regulations. Include an emission
Inventory and procedures for new
source review, outline a program far
monitoring. lad show adequate Slate
lmplerne”tatfon resources. In addltioO ,
there can be many other requirements
specific to the pollutant being
considered. Under section 110(a)(3) ,
*evlelons to a SIP must not intarfa .
w lththeab llityoftheS lPtomeetthese
requirements. See. e.g., Train v. MR
421 U.S. 00(1975). The coflsequences of
State failure to get SIP approval may be
serious: they Include Federal
promulgation of substitute control
regulations and federally Imposed
economic sanctions.
Reason fur SiP Processing R dm.
The EPA’s previous procedures for
review of each revision to the SIP
Tn ted review of all actions by both
the ap prlate Regional Office and
Headquarters. Thu duplicative review
process resulted In significant
delays and a considerable
• cklog o SIP actions In Headquarters
requlrIn review. The EPA Initiated the
SIP p,00asaIng reform measures because
the SIP review process had beoorns time
consuming afld resource Intensive. The
• uncertainty and .v .vtvs delays that
occarred In the SIP proc.. . have
becOme continuing sources of friction.
between EPA and the State and local
agencies. Prompted by this concern, the
Deputy Administrator called for an
assessment by senior officials fnmflur
with the SIP processing procedures at
EPA. A task force was formed to
Identify problems and recommend.
solutions.
The problems that the task force
Identified centered on excessive concern
by EPA for the potential precedent-
setting value of individual SIP revisions.
manifested by excessive delay in
reaching decisions on many SIP actions
and In uncertainty on the part of sources
and State/local agencies as to the
outcome of the SIP review process . To
• remedr the probleme Wenlifled the task
forc ,mad.thefo llowtng
Provide a mecMn lam foreañy
rejection of Incomplete submittal, by
the Regional Offices.
2. DOvelop a policy that allows the
Regions to approve nonsubstantial
• actions by letter notice.
3.Inueaae the use of direct finsi
rulemaking
4 Delegate authority for final action on
SIP submittals to the Regional
Administrators for selected actions
ellmlaatfag Headquarters review.
5. RequIre more strict adherence to
formal procedures.
S. Grandfather the basis for decisions
from new EPA policies and rules
whenever posaibi . ..
Iapivve — and
com IcsUon.
8. Institute an tmprovedmanagement
system.
In respons. to thi recomjnei tlations
of the task force, a work group
composed of Regional Office and
Headquarters staff was formed to
develop programs to Implement the
recommendations of the task force. The
EPA Initiated the Implementation of the
recommenditions th b tWO
mechanisms. First a series of directives
were Issued U Internal policy
memorandums. In addition, on January
19.1989, EPA published two notices In
the Federal Register (54 FR 2214 and 54
FR 2138) descrIbing changes to EPA ’s
SIP review procedure.. Th. changes that
were Implemented foóused on tailoring
EPA’s review to the significance of the
action and adhering to established
procedures for processing SIP actions
withinEPA.
In addition to revamping EPA review
procedures, the task force recommended
that EPAdevelop amPhanlam for
rejecting Iacn nplet. SIP submittals.
Previously, unrevlewab(e SIP actions
(those that lacked basiclnformatlon
such as evidence of legal authority)
• went through full notice and comment
rulemaking before being rejected. The
EPA developed a set of completeness
criteria to provide a procedure and
• screening criteria to enable State5 to
.53..
A-i 8A
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 33 I Friday, February 16, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
5 5
submit reviewable SIP•revisions and to
allow EPA to reject unreviewable
submlttala. The EPA believe, that
implementatioa of the SIP processing
reform measures and promulgation of
regulatory completeness criteria will
ensure that the SIP’. are processed In a
more timely fashion and that the level of
uncertainty regarding the status of SiP
submittals should decrease, among other
benefits.
SIP Raferm Initiatives
I. Pro uwJRefoinis
• Akeyelemsnt lnlmprov lng’the
review of SIP revisions submitted by thá
States Is Improving EPA’. Internal
review procedure.. A major component
of the changes Is delegation of the final
approval authority for certain actions to
the Regional Office.. The proceduri .
established (see 54 FR 2214 for a
detailed explanation) either eliminated
or significantly reduced the amoutitof
Headquarter. review on generally
routine or Inconsequential SIP actions.
As a result of Implementing the reform
measures. the publication of EPA
actions during the eight-month period
from anuaiy 19,1989 to September IL
1989 was substantially Increased over
the same period during the previous two
years (see Table I below).
TABLE 1.—NUMBER OF SIP ACTIONS
Pueu
d
•
YaW
tIISItl-1119187_
t,iaiee-aiiaies._
1/t9/194/19/SL_
139
153
130
0
0
1OO
135
153
JO
To date, few problems have been
Identified with actions either not
reviewed or minimally reviewed by
Headquarters.
3. Completeness Review
Under the completeness criteria, EPA
will review a SIP for conipletena . when
ft Is Initially submitted to determine If
all the necessary components have been
Induded to allow EPA to p operIy
review and act on The substanon of a
submittal. This will be a quick screen to
determine the revfewablilty, rather than
the approvablilty, of the SIP submittal.
OnMarch le 19 88.apolicyfor
determining completeness was Issued
by Gerald A. Emisou. Director. Office of
Air Quality Planning md Standards, to
the Regional Offices. A copy of this
document has been placedin the docket
(*11—8-4) which Includes sample letters
for accepting and rejecting SIP
submittal.. The rulemaking. as
published today, replaces that palicy
memorandum.
3. Completeness Criteria
The crtena for determining whether a
submittal Is complete have been
separated into two categories: (1)
Adminlsfratlve information and (2)
technical information. The
a’ mIni’tretive Information required are
those documents that derno ’Iiste that
the State has followed the
aImfnlitT.live requirements set oat by
the Act for adojtion of State rules for
Incoiporatlo Into the SIP. The technical
Information required by the crfterf a Is
intended to Identify the envlzvnaental
impact of the revision.
When * sub in lttalisdete rm lnedtob
complete, EPA lll Inform the Stats by
letter of Its d termlnation and the
proposed processing adiedule. The A
will then begin the formal review for
appEovabllity. If a submittal Is
determined to be Incomplete, the
submittal will be returned to the State
with a letterllst lng the deflc lenclee.The
Regional Office will notify the State of
the completeness determination,
generally wfthin 45 days of receipt of the
submittal. The EPA will not conduct
further rilnaking on lmcoinplete
snbnilttals until the Stats provides any.
missing material needed to facilitate
EPA review.
Rae tmN to Cosumsutu
On January19, $89, EPA published
th. completeness review proposed
nilerni’klng (54 FR 2138) and also a
notice of Internal procedural ch’nges (54
FR 2214). The purpose of the proposed
rulemAkff g was to describe the
completeness review criteria and to
solicit public comments on the criteria.
The notice of procedural hangee
described the changes that were being
implemented in the way SIP revision
requests were processed at EPA. The
notice Of Internal procedural changes
was effective Immediately, hOwever,
EPA Invited the public to com!nnt on
the change.. The public was given 45
days to connect on both the proposed
nh and notice of procedUral changes
(until March 8, 1989). Two conirnenters
requested that EPA extend th. comment
period on both actions by 30 days.
Although EPA did not officially extend
• the comment period, both commenten
were contacted and informed that any
additional comments they submitted to
EPA by April 8, 1989 would be
considered when the final rule was
published. Both commenters submitted
additional comments and they were
considered during the preparation of this
document A total of 20 comnienters
submitted comments on the SIP reform
Federal Register notices. Comments
were received From private Ir4us ‘y..
State and local air pollution control
agencies, the Utility Air Regulafory
Group. and a Chamber of Commerce.
Since numerous comments were
received froñi the commenteri. a
complete response to all significant
comments. entitled “Summary of
Comments and Responses on the
January 19, 1989 SIP Reform Federal
Register Notice .,’ has been placed In
the Docket *A-88-18. However, several
major comm ts that were submitted to
EPA are discussed below.
L Authority to Delegate
Coin rent’ Onh comrneuter argued
that EPA lacks authority to delegate
final responsibility for action do SIP
ábmlttali to the Regional
Mmin4*tr.tors because such action
constitutes rulemaking.
Responw The Atlmlniafrator has
delegated responsibIlity for final action
on certain categories of SW revisions to.
the RegionaL t.dmlpl.traton under the
authority of sectIon 301(a), which
provides that the ftdmlnhatrator may
delegate any of his responsibIlities
under the Act “except.the makIng of
regulations.” As the commeater
correctly points out EPA orIginally
concluded In th. early 1970’s that final
action on S W submittals constituted the
makfrtg of regulations within the.
meaning of section 301(a ). However. as
explained Inthe notice of proposed
nale.k ng (NPR). the Agency
subsequently concluded, after further
review In the context of this rulemaking.
that .uch action did not constitute the
“ making of regulations” within the
meaning of section 301(a ). and thus was
not subject to that section’s bar on
delegation. The coinmenter argues that
the final action on a SIP is rulemaking
within the meaning of the
AdminIstrative Procedures Act (APA).
and It Is thus necessarily the making of
regulations within the meaning of.
section 301(a). TheEPA now concludes.
however, that these two categories ass
not Identical. As noted In the NPR. EPA
has acquiesced In the line of judicial
decisions holding that final action on
SIP subrnlttals is rulemaking within the
meaning of the APA, and Is subject to .11
of the APA’s procedural requirements.
The fact that the Mm1nlatrator may be
conducting proceedings that may be
characterized procedurally as
rulemaking does not imply that in all
cases he Is “making regulalions. Th.
EPA believes that the Admirusttst ;s
making regulations within the mes Eull
of section 301(a) only when he
promulgates Federal regulations. Thus
A- 19
-------
Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 33 / Friday. Februar r16. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
any atloaal regulations, including
P ’ersJ implementation —
prigetad by the MThIn StCr unde ’
sectIon 110(4 would constitute the
m’ldng of regulations subject to the.
statutory bar on delegation. In confrut,
EPA believes that when It takel final
action under section 11 0 ( 5) øà SW
revlalonssubmltted by the State. the
Agency 1. not w .Lrb 1 regulations but Is
merely appinving or
regulations previously mad . sI the Stat.
level ndsubwlttodtoEPAfoe
incorporation into the —.
• 1 1 )wad -
3. Authority to R.Au’n ‘ r’on iJ W
undertheMt
Comment Two MIt ,i
questioned EPA ’. authority under the
Act to refuse to fortherprocesa SIP
• submittals that It considers incomplats.’
Response: Tht Clean Air Act doss not
defin, the terms planR In sectIon 11 0 (a)
(1) and (2) and s 1ev lslon* In section
110(sfl3). As desaibed In the NP , EPA
• Is interpreting the words plan” and.
• NrevfsIDnR to refer only to those *te
• submittali that contain .11 of the
components necessary to allow EPA to
adequately review and take sctlon on
such plans or revisions nude ’ section
110 (and Part D where applicable).
• Sued upon ths s uctme and pwposeu
of the Act us whole, EPA concludsa’
that Co .i could not have hitended
the A cy to expend re& twcu
r vtew1ng and t Idng action through full
scale , uj,wiiiii 4 g on SIP submlttals that
were simply not rsvlewabl. beia .ss
they were t ck1ng essential elements.
linda this Interpretation of the words
‘pIan ” and “revtsion ” sectIons 110(s)
(1 ).$2 (3 )on l yrsquIrsEPAtoact
on complete SIP lubmittals. The Agency
Is thus free to r tmn incomplete
submittal. to the States for completion’
prior to ferther processing. P üther,
section 301 of the Act authorIzes the
Administrator to prom lpte such
reguladoni as are n.s ..ry to carry out.
his functions under the Act HavIng
determined thit the Act requires EPA to
act only on complete submittala and
cqnalderthg the need to reduce the
overwh,tiv Mg SIP iuh” ta1 backlog
and to Inform Sintesin advanceof
which submittal. EPA would reg. rd as
complete, EPA bellS ,., that ft Is
necessary forth. Agency to promulgate
regulations defining mttsrIa for a
complete submittal.
3. A Mitionxi! injbrmotioa requirements
• Ci. i,’ent Several commenters felt
that th compIat. es. c iterla impose
iL 4ji J lthrmatiou collection
ie ii wnnt,cn the State and local
ag noe . and additional time sod
resoeross would be needed to compile
and package these materials.
Response: Tb. EPA does not believe
that my of the requirements outlined In
the Completeness alterla are new.
However, as noted In the January 19 .
1989 Federal Register notice, many
States have not been submitting this
information a d might yea the..
req it ts as new. In many cuss In
lb. pss EPA expended a ubetintlal
amo of zesew’w.a st espdng to
obtain lb. relevant 1u atlou boA the
Stain, which resultid in uoeee*ng
delay. not only in lb. sebisot cdoe, but
In other ictlo that could have been
pru u.L The requLuiante : - the
basic information , n.o’ nry for
detirmlnbrg whether.. SW submittal I.
reviewable, When this InI. ation was
notsubnilttadtoEPAlnthspsst , thS1P
submittsls went th wgh the entire’
review jno us only to be &sa ad
ouths later because they lacked some
essential element whose absence was
obvious from the start Although some of
the Information that EPA is requesting
under lb. completeness aiteTis maybe
I nthepublid o .hi,theSta t eshavethe
rSsponsibthty under the Act to submit It
to EPA as put of thefroffldal submittal
I nosderfcrEPAtoiu llyenbratathe
submittal. Often In the pest PAwu
• able to acqLwthese data on its own to
facllitite SIP pTooui’ g . but this
approach was . dr...nialy time and
rescorce intensive and c 4butad to
lb. e3dsthlg SIP b dl$ sitaadoa.
fl.hDesjbrM?khuy
Crmaa Nuruerous m te were
received stating that EPA should specify
th.dma liwh lcbttw lllmikea
cantplet,nets d.tsrmlnsdou. A
oo .aimsntur stated that If A does not
notify lbs State In the specified time,
EPAshouldber.qursdtoedonthe
Rnse:,The EPA has established a
time frame for making completeness
det inadona , Generally. • Regional
Offic, will inak a. oo”plee”eu
ditarmination In 45 day. In some
instancs, a complstMl.n determination
may take kivige ’ than 45 days. For
example , when a State submit . en’ ’
atta1 t plan, EPA may take longer
than 45 days to d.t& 1 L S Nitvlphtenv .
b.csuseof the large amount of
Information that . iwuipenies such a
plan. Where EPA believes that It will be
unable to complete the review withIn 45
days, EPAwill notify the State of that
fact In other cases . such as when a
State submitsa recodificetlon of a
regulation , EPA may make a
completeness determination In
significantly less than 45 days. The EPA
has developed an oversight program and
a management system to ensure the
Integrity of the SIP reform measures. A
part of the ovuàight program will be to
review the time frames In which the
‘Regional Offices make completeness
determInatIons. If deviations from the
suggested processing procedures occur.
EPA Ha.dquartars will work with the
specific Regional Office to resolve the’
delay. The EPA calmot inIt to take
full action on any S W -‘ tal as to
which the Agency falls to make a
coitpleten.ss determination within 45
daysfo rth.e1m rniontbatEPA
may nqt beabi. to adequately review
such
4 ” ’o”pl.ts . In such oases EPA would
then have to proceed to’d appsoval,
hued an tbalnadsquaqo(th.
subnilplon , which Is the very situation,
EPA Is trying to avoid In promulgating
the completeness alteris.
& Pow ’ .Month Time &ome
Comment Some commsnter,
ntt 1 t 1n,d that, cont ary to EPA’S
statements in the January 19,1989
proposal, EPA must act on SIP revision.
within the 4-month period applicable to
initial SIP’s submitted in response to a
new or revised natl ”nal ambient lit
quality standard.
Response: EPA disagrees that the 4-
month 4 A14ii . applicable to Initial
SiPs tmdm sectlme 110(e) (1) and (2) of
the Act also applies to SIP revisions”
submitted under . ,c iá 110( 5X3). The
EPA I currently p s. dng Its views on
that subject to the U.S. Suprertie Court In
Genernl Motors Cot pardon v. U.S., No.
.369 , and refer, the reader to the brief
fliedon behalf of the Agency In that.
case.
The Inapplicability of the 4-month
period to SW revisions, however, does
not leave EPA free under the law to
delay action on SIP revision submittal..
Indefinitely, to suit the convenience of
the Agency. Rather, EPA Ii subject to
the general APA z.quli snt that
agenda conclude matters “within a
realcuable time” and to potential.
judicial orders under lbs APA to compel
agency action “unreasonably delayed
‘‘ “5U.S.C..ectlou555(b),5 U.S.C
section 700(1).
As desalbed in the January ii iso.
notl . several ysars bifors the recent
SIP procev.ing reforms took elliot, the
— Issuad imamal guidelines
setting a 14-month timetable for
decisions on most proposed SIP
revisions. The EPA. Office of Air
Quality Plaimu g ‘and StandardL
Guidance on Processing SIP Revisions
(and 111(d) Plans) 111—1 through 111—5
(1985). This schedule was based on a
A-19A
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, Nà.33 I Friday, February 16,. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
5827
“5/2—5/2” system under which, at both
the proposed and finalutugee of SIP
Meinaking the EPA Regional Office
would take up to 5 months to review and
process State submissions and public
comments and prepare a draft Federal
Register notice for submittal to EPA
Headquarters, and Headquarters would
then take up to 2 months to review 1
comment on. and revise the Regional
Office submittal. As explained In the
J nuary 19, 1980 notIce, forrelatively
noncontroversial S W submittals, EPA
used only a single “direct-final”
rule ldg stage, which gsnamlly
el1m1n ted ths proposal phas, of the
process , thereby reducing the 14-month
period byons .halL
Duulng the nld-1980s, EPA
experienced a severe crush of SW
revision submittal. Notwithstanding
this crush, the Agency was able to
process more than 1800 SIP-related
actions from 1983 until the end of 1988,
an average of almost 350 per year. But
the heavy burdin of reviewing so many
submlttals took Its toll by lengthening
the time for SIP reviews In many cases
to well beyond the 14-month timetable.
This In turn convinced EPA to Institute
the reforms InItiated January 19, 1989,
and discussed In today’s ruli,
One effect of those reforms Is to
revise the Agency. views (and hence Its
pie-existing guidance) on what
presumptively constitutes a “reasonable
lime” for EPA action on SW-revision
submittale. While the reformg affect how
such time for EPA action would be
“reasonable”, however, they do not
reduce the quality of Substantive review
that is necessary before the often
detailed, technically complex subanittals
may be approved into the applicable’
plAn. This substantive review Is
necessarily extensive. particularly since
the passage of the 19 7 Amendments”
added a host of new plan requirements
applicable to SIP revisions for areas that
are designated “noflattalnmenr fore
particular pollutant
When a State submits a revision, the
Regional Office first must make certain
that the plan c ntalns all the necessary
elements required by section 110(i)(2)
and parts C or D of the Act, EPA’s
regulations under 40 CFR pert 51. and
the extensive Agency Interpretive
guidance further elaborating upon the
statutory and regulalory requirements, If
the submIttal is missing certain elements
or contains unacceptable ambiguities
the Regioiial Office must decide whether
•to simply disapprove It or. where the
4 dende , are less problematic and the
State I. cooperative. ask the State to
make the ne ssiy corre .tIons and
sabdilt it spin.
EPA then must Judge whether the
revision may be approved. These
judgments are often highly technical In
nature. Involving questions such as
whether increased air pollution resulting
from the revision will prevent or
interfere with an area’s effort to attain
the NAAQS or achieve reasonable
further progress (RFP) towards
attainment, seA 42 U.S C sections
741 a)(1) and 7502(b)(3) whcthm th
revision ensures that the affected source
or sources will employ reasonably
available control technology (RACT),
see 42 U.S.C ieclioà 7598(b) (2) and (3)
and whether the myriad of provIsions
relating to permits for new and modified
majorstatlonary sources have been
followed, see 42 U.S.C sections
7502(b)(8) and 7503. in determining
whethar these requirements have been
met, the Agencyoften must determine
whether complex air quality modeling
guidelines have been completely
followed, and the results of that
modeling applied correctly. EPA’s
technical support document analyzing
questions such as these may necessarily
be scores of pages lông. This technical
support Is necessary because EPA’s
action on SIP revisions Is often.
challenged by affected partie. The
Regional Office must also formulate a
public docket of of all materials relating
to the Swrevlsion . and must draft a
Federal Register notice proposing to
approve ordisapprove the revision.
After public comments are submitted.
the Agency must respond to all
significant comments and provide a
clear statement of basis and purpose for
Its action In the preamble to the final’
rules. 5 U.S.C. section 553(c).
For matters of national Importance,
the Regional Office must consult with
other Regions and Headquarters to try
to Assure national consistency. In
addition staff In the air programs
compliance office determine whether the
rules are enforceable as vrftten, and
Agency lawyers determine whether the
requirements of the.Adininlstatlve
Procedures Act and the Clean Air Act
have been met. .
As explained below, ihe period of
time EPA would now consider’
“reasonable” for acting on SIP revisions-
varies according to the Internal and
public process EPA will follow under the
reforms for each type of revisIon. Under
the reforms, EPA has divided SIP
subrnlttals into 3 groups, listed in the
Janukry 19.1989 notice as Table I, Table
U, and Table Ill submittal.. Table UI
submittals are those that, though of
potentially great importance for -
individual pollution sources, wili not,
have a great impact on the
Implementation of the national air
quality management program. Under the
delegation of authority from the
Administrator to the Regional
Administrators, the Regional
Administrators may take final action on
Table 111 submIttal, without further
action by EPA Headquarters. including
the Administretor. As a result, the 4
mqnths of Headquarters review
previously applicable to those
submittals Is ,Umlnated..The Regional
Offices can perform the tasks desalbed
above and complete action on those
• submlttals ln5monthsateachofthez
• phases of rulemakIng ’.-proposal and
final—for a total of 10 months. The
portion of the submittals under Table UI
that are entirely noncontroversIaL and
hence can be processed u “direct-
flnth ” wW generally require only one-
half that time, or 5 months. Beyond that.
some Table UI submlttals will be So
Inconsequential that public notlce.of
EPA’s action on them would lerve no
useful purpose. The EPA will invoke the
APA sectIon 553(b) “good cause”
exemption for those submittal.. and
under the delegation discussed in the
January 19, 1989 notice, act on them
through a “letter notice” procedure at
the Regional Office level alone. Since
such actions should require little review
or other work, they should presumably
take approximately 3 months.
The types of submittals listed InTabir
llofthej.nulry l l la89notice
generally need only cursory
Headquarter. review because they have
only a marginally greater Impact on the
Implementation of the national air
quality mRnagement program than do
Table III SIP revisions. In some cases.
the guidance applicable to these
submittals is relatively new and. thus. it
Is prudent for Headquarters at least to
monitor the Regional Officedecision
process. Although the Regional
Administrators havi authority to act
alone on these SIP’s, HeAdquarters
generally takes 30 days from the date a
Table U SIP revision package is received
from the Regional Office to send
comments to the Regional Office. The
processing for such actions generally
should occur as follows:
(1) giOxial Office review of actions
and preparation of Federal Register
notlce—4 months.
(2] Headquarters opportunity for
comment—I month.
(3) CompletIon of Regional Office
review and acilon—1 month.
This process totals 6 months at each
stage’of the rulemaking. or a total of 12
month. For those Table I actions that
are noncontroversial and, hence. eUgihl
for “dlrect.flnal” rulemaking. the
A-20
-------
5B28
Federal Re lsterJ Vol. 55, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, iggO I Rules and Regulations
aw4icsble period would be. total of 6
moeith
Actions !fled In Table I (those
actions with broad nalfrtnai
significance) will continue to receive the
full review of both the Regional Offices
and Hudquarters. Although the
reduction of the Headquarters burden
resulting from the SW prooe slng
reforms should allow Headquarters to
devote more time to Table! scthme .
those sctinna ate th. most compli ted
and have potentially the peetset impost
on EPA air quality manags t
propams. The Agency will r11Il . a to
strive to complete such . rt1c within
the 1/2-6/t schedule . The D A review
of these submittals may. however, need
to be extended In scme uwwsil
beyond the 14-month period because of
their comple,dty and lmpàrtaaoe. For
example , SIP revision submittal. that
raise IUues of pest (fawi*I huport nc .
or of first Impression may be reviewed
by E PA ’. other Regional Offices , In
addition to requiting more .‘$“lvs
review and analysts by EPA
Headquarters. Other SIP revisions axe
based upon complex air quality
modeling . which may raise a host of
technical questions c i the revisions may
be “ elaxations” that could result In
Inonased etnluons of 1t pollutants,
which would require EPA to sautislxe
even more closely whether the plan
would still meet all the requirements of
the Act. Par these and other reasons ,
EPA expects that Agency review of
acute S W submittals will require more
than 14 months.
The time frames desalbed above are.
aummarluad In the table below . These
periods wfflaot begin to ton entil the
subwlttal by the Stat. I. “a sp 1 ete”. as
hat t som i sI-fi dIntodaie
regulation. The periods for EPA ac’ i
Usted lnt h etablsw lllno lapplyitaflto
lubmittals that an initially h ipl,Ie
and rein ln Inoomplits.
Beyond that, the frames for
action on Table II (require some
nath,” 1 review ) and Table Ill
(regimiafly Important/moderate national
significance) submittal. Ind no time
for review by the Office of Minag .nt
and Budget under acudve Orders
12291 and 12612. The 0MB has panted a
temporary exemption from review under
those Orders for Table U and Table Ill
actions. Th. temporary ‘ eiupU0fl
expires on, December 31. 1 9O. Should
0MB not extend the exemption
perm*nently. the attached time frames
for action n those types of subm lttala
will need to be revised to Incorporate
• the additional review.
Finally, the time frames discussed
here are suggested as presumptively
reasonable periods for EPA action on
SIP submlttals. Tb. Agency believes
that the.. vbndules are acbiev.bleki
most aIthe aOtlona idátifted. The
p1 00 a. 11 b 1 time far each urtI’n.
o&onsarily will depend on the
compleidty of the setlom . For . “ p1
any submittal that does not meet EPA
policy or regulations will require mc s
attention, in some cases , It Is mars
apyn r latàfo rEPA toworkw lth the
Stats to corvect deOdenci. rather than
formiJly dIsap wv . a State submittaL
Moreover , the results of lntsr..gency
review of SIPsubmlttals. within the
Execudve Branch. are unpredictable.
While EPA will endeavor to respond to
concerns raised by other agencies
within the schedules desalbed bate. In
some cases an adequate response will
require an extension of those schedule..
PRE$UMP1NI Panoos n EPA fluOI4 ON SiP 8usurrats
.
II
.-
:
T
•
•
‘
•
s iu s
e e
P’ pWI
T I
T N I/QawI
il s .
.-
Tab W /
G.n
gj micien,
l
C
5 ..m....._......
la ’-
a su m. . ............. .—...—
14 *. .‘ ‘..
12 . . _iw .
I
•
I , ,
.
I ,...Il”
S L.1
I IU —
•
.
.
S
I mcil1... —.
5
.
.
.
8 ..._.
10 a..mi..
.me.
.
Smm is...... .......... ..—
.
.•
-
T Ms/Lesv.
Nmct
.
.
s’w
.
.
.
.
&FinalitjondlffestcPlitdlngof
ncoaipietenesa
Comm.n&r Several coosm ters
expressed an em about the finality
andeilectofafi’dlngof
Lncompl.t. u n Three ters
questioned whether a finding of
lncompl&an.s, would be ruviewable
final action imdor secffo ’ 3W1b). Two
‘commanters felt that a procedure should
be estaht1 d for resolving disputes
over the completeness of. submittal
and for appealing EPA’s determination
of Incompleteness.
Respuna A dstatmlnatk’a by EPA
that u SW submittal Is Incomplete would
constitute final Agency action sub#ect to
judicial reviewunder section 3t (b).
$edtfon 307(b)authortzes courts to
review ‘any other final action of the
AdmIn1s ator under this Act ( htclui4h g
any d’’ 1 or disapproval by the
Administrator under Title I) , ” A fln g
of lncm”pleteneu would be a final
action an the Incomplete submittaL
because unless the State aupplementsd
the submittal EPA would tak, no farther
action an the proposed SIP revision . The
EPA does not believe that It Is nàWary
to provide a me ’ 4 ’” 1 for dispute
resolution a appeal of completeness
determinations at this time. The EPA
has proposed the completaneti aiterla
to establish clear requirements for SIP
submittals and to speed SIP processing.
An appeal process would only make
completeness determinations more
cumbersome and time consnimng. A
State or member of the public may
always seek Judicial review of a
determination of Incompl.ten’u If the
State does not wish to supplement a
submittal as requested by EPA. Should
EPA discern at scme’future dais a
significant problem with completeness
determinations mad . at the regional
leveL It might reconsider the need for an
appeals pro .s . at that time.
7. R.quiram.n Jbr Responding to
Public Comments
Comment Commentats questioned
whether the compLeteness aiteria were
requmug the States to respond to every
public comment
Response: The completeness iteria
does not Impose any substantive
requirements for submission of plans or
A-20A
-------
. der l Register 1 Vol. 55. No. . 33 / Friday, February 26. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
an revisions onthe St tee. Itis
EPA ’s intintlon to require the States to
respond to each comment that they
receive on a rule at their public
hearings. However, to the extent that a
State responds to public co m enta. the
responses should be submitted to EPA
with the plan/plan revision. Generally.
if an action generates substantial public
Interest, the State would addreu the
comments before . do tfng the
regulation. Where c me”ta are
siguificant Sb es must adequately
respond to theta to avoid szbliziry
&ModalingR.qub nte
asenL Siwnd oonimutdera stated
that modelIng Is presently aoi reqoired.
with every SWrivlslon end should ant
be required for SIP revisions that reduce
emissions or strengthen existing rules. fr
the c fl iupt&s’ opinion, to require
modeling with each SIPrevislon Is
uimecsssary• sad would place a bu,de
on Stats and local agencies. One
comn’entev stated that modeling coats
end relo i aa can outweigh the benefits
In same cases. Cammeitere Indicated
that modeling would net be useful far
volatile organic compowtd (YOC) and
nitrogen oxide (NOx ridel to determine.
hupacts of onone levels. Another
ccmznientar stated In some Instances
( small area source VOC substllutlons), a
demonStration of one to one (or better)
emissions aidits can obviate fcon.l
moda llng
Response: The EPA agrees that there
are some limited circumstances where it
Is clear that th, national ambient air
quality standards will be.protected and
that ambient concentrations will
Improve, or at least not degrade, at all
points and times as. result of theSIP
change sad a randeling demonstration
may not be necessary. In those cues,
EPA would regard the modeling as not
the Completeness Criteria tree section
2.2(e)I. EPA may ate taterdat. lane a
Federal Register notice discussing the
Instances In which modeling would be..
a Submiumon of Mar*ed Up Copy of
Rege
Coaam ’.nt ’ SevereJ iui .e.i stated
that requiring submission of * marked.
up copy c ia regn1at on cuun mred to the
approved SIP Is Inappropriate. Because
ofthebacklogof$ ,at re, I,
• maytakaptofourye a,z ’sflnal.
pNb r I .l . Ii .* ud . cotatnenters felt
that it is . p, u ate for . State to
a marked.upcopy: cia regulatiOn
cm j dio their previously effectlve/
The EPA should be
required to keep track of pending
submittal,, not the State.
Response: Because of the SIP backlog
at EPA. EPAagrees thatit i snot
practical for the Stats to mab it rule..
indicating the changes compared to the
Latest approved SIP. The EPA will
accept rules which Indicate thachanges.
made by the adopting agency compared
to the last version submitted to EPA for
incluslonin the SIP. However, when the
backlog has been removed, EPA will
then. expect that the r&.d varalonol.
th. rule will ln 4t ,4 hgi 1 p apared
to the approved SiPrule. EPAhas
clarified the Intent of the analsul. at
Z.&I(cJ to require draft rules submitted
for parallel processing to also Indicate
heog.s from the A approved
—one.
i Letter Noilca Pt uzU
Comment’ EPA received a number of
comments an the new SIP processing.
• procedure referred to as letter ncttce .
One c uiwenter suggested that the
Agency consider wider use of the
procedure for actions. expected to
generate little public Interest. In
contrast, another commenter urged EPA
to abandon the new approach since the
commentur felt that It was endear when
letter notice versus direct final
processing should be used. Finally. can
coznmenter Indicated that the agency
should provide prompt and complete
notice of l1 fetter notice ‘1Inoi La the
Federal Register. This same cntnme,it
also questioned the time EPA would
take tO review letter notice SIPs.
Rasponse EPA Instituted the letter
notice procedure to facilitate rapid
processing of Ectlons expected to
generate no public interest. As noted In
• the NPR. under this new procedure EPA
is providing no opportunity for public
comment reII m, . the exception
from the notice and vnn nt
requirements of the Administrative.
Procedures Act (APA) for Insta nces
where public participation would be
unnecessary or contrary to the public
Interest. Thus, EPA will consider using
the procedure In all cases that are
e*pected to generate no public interest.
but cannot expand the procedure to
covet those actions that will generate
little Interest, bat may generate some
commenL Suck et 1 cpns wilt be
processed under the imect final
procedure. which Is designed for actI
that, although of santa public Interest.
are not expected to generute any
adverse public comiaenL Although the
Agency cannot detail precisely those
types of actions that will be processed
under each procedure. these guidelines
on expected pi blic input will aid
Regional Offices In determining which
procedure Is appropriate for a gwen
action. Letter notice will generally be
used for more procedural de&’
amendnt nta , while direct final will be
used for routine, noncontroversial
substantive changes.
EPA does Intend to provide prompt
notice of all letter notice actions in the
Federal R at.u . The Regional Offices
have recently been instructed to publish
notice of all latter notice actions In the
Federal Register ivery eemouths .
Incorporation by i ncs of any
d .nges In ths r gul”ary anpaga oft
SIP Into the Cod. of Ydsral Regulations
wilib. done at this this. EPA notes that
under the APA (5 U.SC Section 5S2 .))
actions not p . ’) 11.h.d in the F.danl
Raer may not be .fsctlvs as to any
individual who does not have actual
- notice of them . Thus. although a.
Indicated In the NPR the effective date
of letter notice actions will be the date
of the latter to the State and any directly
affected hidividnals uto those
receiving such letters, th. effective date
of such scHool as to the general pubLic
will be the dateof thesubsequent
summary publication notice In the
Federal Register. Finally EPA can not
estimate at this time the length of time it
will take the agency to process actions
under the new letter notice procedure.
EPA anticipates that processing times
will be significantly sburt 1 than under
traditional SIP proGesslug procedures.
andcouldbsss short sasereral months .
Regional Office experience with the
procedure should facilitate even faster
proc thg In lb. A tw • .
The EPA has thoroughly evaluated all
comments submitted with regard to the
notice of Internal procedural changes
and the notice of proposed rulemaking.
Some Interpretations of the meaning of
certain aspei ts of thes, notices are
appropriate (see ir m.iuryof
Cotnerents and Responses on the
January IS, 1 .989 SiP Refuns Federal
Register Notices” and dlaa sslon of
significant cnm t nZs presented above).
HoWever, EPA Ii not persuaded by any
of the arguments presented to change
either the proposed regulatory changes
to4OCFRparISl crtheinternal
procedural cbaqgej Therefore , by this
notice. EPA Is promulgating the
previously proposed changes to 40 R
part 51 whIch require that U
submissions of revisions to the SIP meet
the criteria of 40 CFR part 51. Appendix
V. The failure of such iubmittala to mcet
these requirements will result in a
determination that such a submission is
not a revision to the official plan in the
A-2 1
-------
3O
Federal Regiater I VoL 55. No. 33 I Friday, Febi iary 18. 1990 / Rules and Regulatloni
c ’ntext of the Act and will not be
further reviewed by EP&
With specific regard to the Internal
procedures, EPA, a. a part of the overall
oversight program, will continue to
evaluate the efficacy of the procedures
• to meet the goal of expedited processing
of revisions to the SW. The EPA will
adopt changes to the procedures u
approprlats, with public notice to be
provided In the Federal Register where
then may be lRc.nt public Interest
R L—
The dochet teen u - ’-4
complete 01. of all ths• ation
considered by EPA In the d.vslopin.nt
of these SW pru qlng dan •l’ .
dcchat Is a dynamic 01 . because
material Is added throughout the notice
preparation and oommault process . Th
members of the public and Indosthee
involved to Identify and locate
documents so that they can effectively
participate In th. process .
Tb. information collection
requirements of these changes art
considered to be no different than those
currw ntlyrequ l nudbytheAct ind
established EPA procedurea Thu . the
public reporting bwden resulting from
today. notice Is estimated to be
nnith iige4 from existing requirements.
The pubilcia M t sdtoae ndcomma ,t*s
regarding the burde. estimate or other
aspect of Information oflv4 4 q’
d
following: ( . . information Policy
Branch, PM-2 , U.S Environmental
Protectloá. Agency, 401 M Street SW..
Wuhlngtou, DC 40 sad to the Office
of iformatlon and Ragulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget ,
W ,kit gton. DC )501 , marked
“Attendon Desk Officer for EPA.W
Under Executive Order 1 1 , EPA 1.
required to fudge whether an action Ii
Nmaf or and therefore subfect to the
requirement of a regulatory Impact
analysis (RIA). The Agency has
determined that the SIP proorning
changes made final today would result
in none of the sfgnIfl’ ”t adverse
economic effects set fC th In section 1(b)
of theOrder u p s for a ftn& g
that an cffan I. ‘ aJor.” The Agency
has, therefoie amclud.d that this action
Is not a “ afon *cti ’ endur Executive
Order 1 i. This rule was submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget
COMB) for review d ” Executive
Order 1 1.
Acopy of the draftrule is submifted
to the 0MB. any documents
accompanying th. draft, any written
comments received from other agencies
(l c1uding 0MB). and any written
responses to theis comments have been
Included In the dodiet
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of igOO ,
4 U.S.C 6U1-812. requires the
Identification of potentially adverse
Impacts of Federal actionS upon small
business efititles. The Act requires the
completion of. regulatory flexibility
analysis for . Vnry action unless the
AdministratOr certifies that the action
will not have a i g,dfic.i t j pLcJm _
Impact on a substantial nambsr.of small
entities. For the rea.ona dSseribed
above ,Ib. rsbycent lfythattheftñalrule
wUl aothavsas flca ntImpsc’ona
substantial nnmh of . “—llsnfitf-
Und section 3l Mi) of the Act,
petitions for Jndtd.l review of’the.
portion of this dtic ” oZgatlng lbs
‘ co npl.tSna, , attwia must be filed in
the United State. Court of Appeals for
the Distnictof Colmdla Circuit by (00
days from date of pnhlfrtion). That
action may not be challenged later In
proceOdings to enforce its requirements
(see section 3 (bJ(2)).
Dat. February 14 1950.
Wuliom . Ruifly,
Ud of SidiJictain 40 R Part 51
Admlnlsfratf vi practice and
proosdurs : air pollution controb
reporting and necordkeeplng
requirement..
For the reasons set out In the
preamble , 40 Q R part 5111 . ““ded as
40 R part Oils amended ufollows:
PART 5I—(AMENOEDI
1. The authority citation for part 51
continues to read u follows:
. A .1l 4IT . This rv1a n Ll tg I. promalgatad
uadorsuthorftyofSr th ni lO1(b)(1), 120,
10045. 171—lfl . and 301(a) of the Qua Air
Act. 42 U.S.C 7401(bXlJ . 7410.7430-74*
• 75o1 .-7mu, aed 7 501(a ).
Sóctio 51.103 Is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as
55t103 0tL— etS,IkalL.Ji1Ny
(a) 1 State makes an official plan
s4” s o”to EPA only when th.
submlnP’a conforms to the
requirements of Appendix V to this put
end the State delivers five copies of the
plants the apprupriate Regional Office,
with letter giving notice of such action.
The State must adopt the plan and the
Governor or his desiguee must’submlt It
to EPA as foUows:
• . . ..• •
3. Part 51 Is amended by adding
Appendix V to read as follows:
A p llx V. -C&ada for Dstu the
This Apysttdlx V sets forth the “ “ um
alIens for determining whether a State
Implementation — submitted for
consideration by EPA Is an official
submlw’es for p.uy of nivbsw seder
ii. The EPA shall istum to lbs ishmittias
official any plea or revinon thomof which
Appendix V. rn othuwta. Un
sr hisutiIJInS the s s) #‘—
ä i n euffl’e.’.rL.ams t swo lths
I L The EPA shall Mf ea the sub..JIU4
ffi t.l when spies su11 _ . LuI masts the
ruquII 01 thIs Appwr 41 ’ V: such
tauJ atlos “ ..-“- ‘ that the rubmIs is
ss fflcial pwpoa.s of section
sujos.
• The fcllowl shsfl be Inciuded In plan
. u l&.1om for raniaw by EPA
LI. AdmthIstnstl e Materials
(s)A formal letter of submittal from the
Governor his Aai1g ,. . requesting EPA
a ,,. 0 1tbs p iaeo rrevtslonIhars 0 1
(hereafter tbe plan”). -
(hi Evidence that the State has adopted the
plan In the State code or body of ve5uiaticos:
or lined the permit. order, o”tu ”
igresment ( haisfiur u .. iM111 In final
form. That shall include the date of
ad oncrBuSl’ as well as the
.cths date 01 tin plan. If different from the
adoptloc/Iseusna. dat..
(c)E, ldeme thatth. Slats has the
t luIherltyenderSlata law to
— sad Imp the plan.
(d) A copy 01 the acted nigulatiom. or
doi n mt subiittsd for a vil and
Iucorporatlon.by reference Into the plan.
Induding Indication of the changes made to
lb. r 1i’ 4 ’i si ’ . d plan. whets applicable.
The submittal shall be a copy of the offidal
State regulation / documa”4 sigued. stamped.
dated by the 1 , .rU)tIato Slats oISclaI
• indicating that It Is fully enforceable by the
Stat.. The effective dat. of the negeladoel
document shalt. 1 .ibauUer be
lndktsd in lbs do ” ' ’ ’4 itseIf.
(I) Evl.”'” , that the Slats followed all of
the pro ....dwsl requirensuta of th Stews
laws sad constitution In c ” 11ns sad
completing the adoptlon/lssu 01 the plan.
(I) Evidence that public colic. wes r.nof
the ua A citing. ocualiless with
__________ , the
daticlpu h i lcet losc luuthnol l c ..
Cs) Cerdllcatlou that public ha t. ds )
wars held in wfth the L..L..stlon
provided in lbs public cotic. omi
laws and ccsstitutlou, If app4ka .
( h )r l dOrofpub1Ic-- and
the Stat.’. respana. thereto.
2.2. TechnIcal Support.
(a) Identification of ill regul.. tad pdll Unta
affected by the plan.
(b) Identification of the Icc . bum 01
iff.ct.d a 1 , .ucae Including lb. EPA
attatomsnt/nonattiliwient d p-ire — of the
A-2 1A
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 33 / Friday, February 16. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
5831
locations and the status of the ittainment
plan for the affected areas(s).
(cJ Quantification of the changes In plan
allowable emiuioca from the affected
eouzces estimate. of change. in current
ectual emissions from affected sources or.
where appropriate, quantification of changes
In actual emissions from affected sources
through calculations of the differences
between certain baseline levels and
allowable emissions anticipated as a relult of
the revision.
(d) The States demonstration that the
nationilamblst air quality standards.
pravantfon of significant deterioration
inoremsats . reasonable further w Uas
deiaomstritie.. and visibility, as appikabIs,
are protected If the plan Is app.d and
implemented.
(a) Modeling information required to
support the p cpcsed revision. induding Input
data, output data, models used. justification
of model selections, ambient monitoring data
used. meteorological data used. justification
for ue of offsita dais (where use4 modes of
models usad.auumptions, and other
information relevant to the determination of
adequacy of the modeling analysis.
(f) Evideóce. where necessary, that
emission limitations are based on continuous
emission reduction technology.
(g) Evidence that the plan contains
emission limitations, work practice standards
and recordkeep lrig/reportlng requirements.
where necessary. to ensure emission levels.
(h) ComplIance/enforcement strategies.
IncLuding how compliance will be determined
In practice.
(I) Special economic and tEchnological
luztlflcatlona required by any epplicabl. ‘A
policies.
2 . 3.—Ce.
2.3.1. The for the purposes of
expedit hig the review of the plan. has
adopted a procedure refined toes “parallel
processing.” Parallel proosylng allows a
Stat. to submit the plan prior to ‘ c ual
adoption by th. State and provides an
opportunity for the Stat. to cc tM. , A
comments price to submission of a final plan
for final review and action. Under the..
circumstances. the plan submitted will not be
able to meet all of the requirements of
paragraph 2.1 (all requirements of paragraph
2.2 will applyj. As a mull, the following
exceptions apply to plans submitted,
explicitly for parellel.processtnç
(a) The letter required by paragraph 2.1(a)
shall request that EPA propose approval of
the proposed plan by parallel processing.
(b) In lieu of paragraph 2.1(b) the State
shall submit a schedule for final adoption or
issuance of the pian.
(c) In lIeu of paragraph 2.1(d) the plan shall
Include a copy of the proposed/draft
regulation or document. Lnclvdlflg Indication
of the proposed changes to be toads to the
• existing appo,ad plan, when, applicable.
(d) The requlesresota of paragraphs 2.1(e)-
2 .1(h) shall not apply to plans submitted far
parallel pru .sslng .
2.3.2. lire exceptions grunted In paragraph
2.3.1 shall apply only to EPA ’s determination
of proposed action and all requirements of
paragraph 2.1 shall be metpn lor to
publication of EPA’s final determination of
plan ayyv*bllfty ,
(FR Don. 50-Sees Filed 2-15-5t 912 smj
s’iimoccce.e
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle.Park. North Carolina 27711
March 22, 1991
&vl
3L(
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Processing of Pending Revisions to Federally-approved
State Implementation Plans,.4S1!’sy
.,:
John Calcagni, Direct
Air Quality Management v sion (I p-1
Director, Air, PestjàTdes, and
Management Division, Regions I, IV, VI
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air. Management Division,
Regions III and IX
Director, Air and Radiation Divisi?n,
Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, X
In a memorandum dated December 5, 1990, I requested that you
temporarily suspend the processing of State—submitted requests
f or modification of the federally-approved SIP actions. In that
memorandum, I indicated SIP processing could resume after
January 15, 1991. As I indicated, the purpose of this hiatus was
to provide a short period of time in. which the Regional Offices
and Headquarters could define the basic requirements and changes
imposed by the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (Act). The
purpose of this memorandum is to reinstitute processing of SIP’,
revisions under certain conditions.
A major ‘impact of the Amendments on the preparation of
notices for all SIP revisions submitted by the
rional Office prior to November 15, 1990 is the
1 1 notices must address. the impact of the 1990
rovability of such State submissions.. The
i ‘ i will vary from having no impact’to
reqtirL )f actions that previously may have been
apprc —- = notices ‘taking action on a SIP
revision Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA.) prior to November 15, 1990 must contain & statement
indicating that EPA has rev ewed the submittal in accordance’ with
the 1990 Amendments. I have attached general boilerplate
lax uage that should: appear in each notice taking action on any
State: subsission received prior to November’ 15, l 90 (Attachment
1):.
‘ L
-------
2.
With regard to the potential impact of the 1990 Amendments
on the processing of specific SIP revisions, the Office of
General Counsel and my staff have prepared guidance describing
circumstances where the 1990 Amendments affect the approvability
of SIP r.visions (Attachment 2) This guidance is to be used in
reviewing and processing all SIP revisions whether or not the
revision was submitted prior to the enactment of the 1990
Amendments. Th. attached guidance is not intended to address all
of ‘the issues that surround SIP approvability. under th. 1990
Amendments and will certainly require, further expansion to
address individual circumstances.. If you find that the attached
does not address a particular case, we will be glad to assist in
determining how the Agency ‘should make a final decision.
It is important to notice that the attached paper addresses
six main types of SIP revision requests. Many of these
situations will result in a determination that the SIP submission
does not meet. th. requirements of the amended Act. The basic
reason is a esavings clause’ that is part of the 1990 Amendments.
The ‘savings clause’ restricts States from relaxing any existing
SIP requirement without achieving equivalent emission reductions.
In addition, the 1990 Amendments require that all areas prior to
being redesignated to attainment have an approved maintenance
plan. As a result, you have been asked to notify the affected
States by the• ‘RA letter” that pending requests for redesignatioh
to attainment may not be “complete” within context ‘of the 1990
Amendments. Since these requests may not be complete, we do not
believe we are required to process the request. While the
maintenance requirement is not stated in the Agency’s current
criteria, we believe the Amendments make such a requirement
effective upon enactment. We should urge those States with
pending redesignation requests without a maintenance
demonstration to withdraw them from consideration unless there
are extenuating circumstances that are agreed to by Headquarters.
With regard. to bubbles, the’ final Emissions Trading Policy
Statement remains generally in effect. There may, however, be
certain circumstances where current bubble requirements should be
modified or reinterpreted’ in light of the changed circuasta ces
brought abQ4t by the Amendments • We will . be forming a work group
within the n*t month with Regional Office participation to
address t p issue. If you have a pressing need to. process an
emission t ing action w1 ere there are questions regarding
approvabiiLt j you must discuss this action with Headquarters
before proceeding. ‘ ‘.
It is imperative that we examine the impact of the 1990
k Its closely as we do not ‘wish to inadvertently approve or
di.app e actions and have these issues addressed in judicial
rev1 ior to en opportunity to develop appropriate Agency
poiicy S of our actions’ likely will’ result in d .: :tpprovals
of revisions, that may previously have been appro . . i • It is
-------
3
important that we understand and communicate to the States that
where the Act is clear, it overrides the “grandfathering policy
(54 FR 2219, January 19, 1989) because of thestatutory changes
that no longer permit us to approve the ‘original submission. If,
however, where the Act is vague or for other reasonS you believe
that a case is to be made for grandfathering a particular action,
this must be fully coordinated with the appropriate Headquarters
office prior to processing the revision.
The R.gional Offices have the primary responsibility for’
ensuring that each Federal Register notice is rsviewed for
conformance with the provisions of the 1990 Amendments and for
inserting the appropriate language with regard to EPA’S review of
th. applicability of the 1990 Amendments. This will require that
each Regional Office examine all Table 3 SIP actions, make the
changes as indicated in the attachment, and incorporate the
appropriate language indicating EPA review. I would encourage
you to be cautious on any approval and. suggest your staff
coordinate with the specific Headquarters program staff or
attorney prior to a final decision to approve these types of
actions. I would also remind you that where the issues may be
more complicated than described here, you may reclassify a Table,.
3 action to either Table 2 or Table 1.
It will be the primary responsibility of each Regional
Office to review all unpublished Table 2 actions. For Table 2
actions that were held in Headquarters pending this memorandum, I
am initiating a new review cycle. Due to the number of actions
involved and in order to provide sufficient time for Headquarters
reviewers to re—examine these actions, I am establishing a
Headquarters review completion date 45 days from the date of this
memorandum. for these actions. Headquarters reviewers will, as
appropriate, provide comments to the Regional Office. Please be
aware that all actions submitted prior to November 15, 1990 must
have the appropriate boilerplate language added prior to
signature by the Regional Administrator. This comment will be
appended to the review comments on all Table 2 SIP actions. All
Table 2 actions which have previously completed the 30-day
Headquarters. revi.w must be reviewed by the Regional Office for
consis’ :enc with. the attached guidance and must have the
‘iat ilerplate added prior to signature by the Regional
ust’ I t--i you, if there is any doubt regarding
2 actions that will not again receive
ew, to contact the Headquarters program and
to publication of any such action.
With regard to Table. 1 actions that have not yet been
published, while we will not physically return these notices to
the Reqi al Office, I am requesting that you review each action
for applicability under the 1990 Amendments. Where. the action
takem t existing notice is still appropriate, my staff will
work wi the Regional Office staffs to insert the attached
-------
4
boilerplate lang uage. In ao e cases, Table 1 notices will be
returned to th Regional Office for redrafting on the basis that
the Agency action is no longer appropriate. My staff will work
with you to sake the changes and proceed as quickly as possible
to publication of Tabl• 1 notices
Questions regarding the approvability of a specific action
or additional areas of policy that are not addressed in the
attachment should be directed to the appropriate program branch
within AQMD in coordination with the program attorney in the
Office of General Counsel.
If you ha e any questions regarding the above process or if
we can otherwise assist in expediting the process of determining
the approvability of any action based upon the 1990 Amendments,
pleas. óontact either Johnnie Pearson, (FTS) 629—5691, Pam
Johnson, (FTS) 6295270, (AQMD), orJan Tierney, (FTS) 382—7709
(OGC), for assistance.
Attachments
cc: Regional Air PrOgram Branch Chiefs
Regional Counsel, Regions I X
Ron Campbell, OAQPS
Denise DeVo, OAQPS
Gene Dursan, Offic. of the Administrator
Alan Eckert, OGC
Greg Foote, OGC
Barry Korb, OPPE
Rich Ossais,OGC
John Rasnic, SSCD
John Seitz, OAQPS
Mike Shapiro, OAR
Lydia Wegman, OAQPS
Larry Weinstock, OAR
A (D Branch Chiefs
-------
Attachment 1
Approval Boilerplate
The Agency has reviewed this request for riviáion of the
federally-approved State implementation plan for conformance with
the provisions of the 1990 Amendments enacted on November 15
1990. The Agency has determined that this action conforms with
those requirements irrespective of the fact that the suba.ittal
preceded the date of enactment.
Disapproval Boilerplate
The Agency has reviewed this request for revision of the
federally-approved State implementation plan for conformance with
the provisions of the 1990 Amendments enacted on November 15,
1990. The Agency has determined that this action doss not
conform with the statute as amended and must be disapproved. The
Agency has examined the issue of whether this action should be
reviewed only under the provisions of the law as it existed on
the date of submittal to the Agency (i.e., prior to
November 15, 1990) and has determined that the Agency must apply
the new law to this revision.
-------
Attachaent 2
The Effect of the Clean Air Act Amendaentsof 1990
on Pending SIP Revision Requests
-------
The Effect of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
on Pending SIP Revision Requests -
me enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 raises
the question of how these new provisions will affect SIP revision
requests currently pending before EPA. While the Amendments
extend the date for attaining the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS), they place restrictions on• relaxing any
existing or planned compliance requirements. The EPA receives
several common types of SIP revision requests: relaxations from
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), alternative RACT,
extensions of the compliance date, bubbles (relaxations from RACT
that are offset byat least equivalent reductions elsewhere), and
strengthenings of the SIP that do not meet all of the applicable
requirements of the Act.
This paper examines the effect of vüioua provisions in the
kmendments on the types of SIP revision requests listed above, as
well as redesignation requests. In general, the Amendments place
more stringent requirements on nonattainment areas that are
seeking to alter requirements under a SIP. It will be necessary
f or these changes to be addressed in any action EPA takes on
these requests. In most instances, EPA may be required only to
address the changes and interpret why they support a conclusion
the Region has already reached. We anticipate that in Some
instances, the Amendments may require EPA to disapprove an action
EPA originally considered approving. In either case, however, it
will be necessary for the Region involved to articulate in the
ye4ara Reqis er notices the effect of the Amendments as
explained in the guidance Set forth below.
BACKGROUND
The Amendments provide from 3 to 20 years for nonattainment
areas to meet the NAAQS, depending on the pollutant and the
classification of the area. Although the attainment deadlines
may be extended, thi! is not meant.as a means of relieving
nonattainment areas of the burden of reducing emissions as
expeditiously as practicable. Rather, the attainment deadlines
were extended because some of the deadlines under the 1977 Act
had passed,. and many areas still had not attained. Therefore,
the attainment deadline extensions are provided as more realistic
dates for attainment based on future reductions beyond what has
already oc red. Weakening existing SIP’S is inconsistent with
that goa1.I i$ discussed below, several provisions of the
AmendmentS’ i icate that nonattainment areas still must comply
with certain requirements of the prs amended Act.
First, the provision specifically addressing SIP revisions
orohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would
Interfere with any requirement concerning attainment, reasonable
further progress (RIP), or any other requirement of the Act.
(1110(1)]. As with the pre-ainended Act, attainment of the ozone
WAAQS must be reached as expeditiously as practicable (see
-------
§172(a)(2)(A) 1181(a)(1)]. Therefore, any SIP revision hat
postpones the attainment date previously approved as part of the
SIP without demonstr ting that the attaiflment date is
impracticable must be rejected.
Beyond that, ‘under the pre’ -aaended Act, all nonattainnent
area sip’s were required to provide for the implementation of
RACT as expeditiously as practicable (S172(b)(3) (incorporating
the definition of RIP in §171 which refers tO the requirement in
§172(a) for attainment as expeditiously’ as practicable)]. The
general nonattainment provisions of the Amendments apply the same
requirement (although in somewhat different form) (S172(c)(1)
( ‘implementation of reasonably available control measures (RACX)
as expeditiously as practicable including’ . .•. reasonably
available control technology • • • N)], For ozone nonattainnent
areas, the Amendments expressly provide that these. areas correct
or add RACT that was required under the pre-amended Act
( 182(a)(2)(A)]. This requirement indicates that the Amendments
were not intended to override previous RACT requirements, but
rather to ensure they remain in place.• Way RACT requirements
under the Amendments, are intended to supplement RACT requirements
that should already be in the SIP.
• Beyond the RACT requirements, the savings clause (4193)’
specifically. states that changes to the SIP that result in fewer
emissions reductions may not be approved unless ‘equivalent’
emission reductions are met elsewhere:
No control requirement in effect, ‘or required to be
adopted by an order, settlement agreement, or plan in
effect’ before the date of the enactment of the Clean
Air Act Amer :‘ nts of 1990 in any area which is a
nonattainmer rea for any air pollutant may be
modified aft.:.: such enactment in any manner unless the
modification insures equivalent or. greater emission.
reductions of such air pollutant.
The savings clause indicates that the Amendments are meant as a
means not ,of by-passing previous requirements, but rather of
ensuring equivalent or greater reductions in emissions.
We, ar. inclined to construe the ten ‘ equivalent reductions U
to mean tha : the emission reductions must occur during the same
time peniO ifl which it would have been reasonable for the source
to comply the SIP. In the ‘case where EPA agrees that it was
not rsasoMT 1” for the source to meet the existing SIP
requiremeflti(including the complianc, date), equivalent
reductions’ are required for the prospective term of the
relaxation (i.e., the remaining time following EPA action on the
revision that the relaxation will be in effect). Where EPA baa
d.terMn that it was reasonable for the, source to meat the SIP
requirements,, the equivalent reductions must occur during the
2
-------
same time period that the source was originally required to meet
the limit.
In either case, the equivalent offsetting emission
reductions must be surplus, enforceable, peraánèflt, and.
quantifiable as defined in EPA’S Emissions Trading Policy
Statement (ETPS) (5 ] FR 43850, December 4, 1986) to bevalid. As
mentioned under item 4, EPA is forming a work group to address
how the Amendments affect the ETPS. In the interim, however, the
criteria in the ETPS should be used to evaluate the acceptability
of offsetting emission reductions,
In addition, the reductions must come from sources in the
same nonattainment area as the source(s) seeking the modification
to the control requirement. Other criteria aay.apply for other
pollutants (e.g., modeling to ensure continued attainment and
maintenance). We also interpret the savings clause to apply only.
to nonattainment areas within a State, not the entire State, and
to apply only to such pollutants for which the area is designated
ñonattainaent.
The following discussion attempts to apply these
requirements to specific types of common SIP revisions. The
discussion sets forth several independent factors to be
considered in analyzing these revisions. Much of it, however,
could logically apply to analogous types of SIP revisions for
other pollutants.
1. Relaxation from PACT
A request to relax PACT requirements seeks to relieve a
source from complying with what EPA has determined to be PACT and
which is already contained in the SIP. In this context, we are
referring to a permanent release from existing PACT requirements
already in the SIP b application of something less than PACT and
without equivalent offsetting emission reductions. (MOTE: if
this had included equivalent offsetting reductions, it might be
considered a bubble (discussed in 4 below)., which EPA
historically has said may meet the statutory requirement.]
--Under §110(1), EPA cannot approve revisions that interfere with
meeting the RACT requirements of §172(c)(1) and §182(a)(2)(A).
Since thi i uld be a relaxation to a level that is not as
stringent ,U .R&CT, it interferes with the ability of the SIP to
meet the f requirements. Specifically for nonattainment areas
subject.toth. ozone aubpaz t, §182(a)(2)(A) requires these areas
to correct or add PACT requirements so as to comply with
pre-amended *172(b). In light of this specific requirement to
upgrade PACT to, at a minimum, that required under the pre-
amended Act, it would be inconsistent to allow any weakening from
that level. of PACT. This would be one ground for disapproval of
a PACT relaxation.
3
-------
This paragraph only applies if the source in question was
required to ‘eat RACT under the Act immediately prior to.
enactment of the 1990 Amendments. For instance, areas that did
nat receivs post-1982 attainment date extensions and that did not
receive a post—1982 SIP call were only required to adopt. PACT
rules for major (greater than 100 tons per year) sources in the
Group I and II Control. Techniques Guidelines (CTG) categories.
Any smaller source in such an area would not have been required
to meet RACT and, therefore, would not be covered by this
paragraph. The savings provision discussed below would still
apply.
--‘Second, under the savings clause, an equivalent reduction must
be made. in order for the SIP revision to be acceptable. The
reductions, in this case, must. occur during the same time period
as required by the SIP. Failure to provide for such reductions
would be an additional independent ground for disapproval.
2. Alternative RACT
Alternatjve RACT involves a different type of control from
what EPA and the State previously ‘determined to be PACT and which
is already contained in the SIP. A source or State will argue
that the previously-selected PACT is not PACT; rather, they
suggest, and EPA agrees, that a different type of control. is the
Utruel PACT. Here we are discussing alternative PACT that, does
not achieve an amount of reductions equivalent to what would be
achieved by the previously-selected PACT which is already in the
SIP.
--Under the savings clause, any alternative PACT that is less
stringent than the PACT set by EPA must be supported by emission
reductions elsewhere, to achieve emission reductions at least
equivaler t overall in the. nonattainaent area • The EPA is
prohibited from approving an aI rnative PACT that decreases
emission reductions, unless equL alent reductions are ade
elsewhere within the same nonattainment area. Thus, the absence
of such equivalent reductions requires disapproval.
As discussed in the UBaokground, u where EPA has agreed with the
State’s alternative PACT evaluation, the emission reductions must
be obtained for th duration of the relaxation. For alternative
PACT this will generally require a permanent reduction from the
time of ap]v I of the revision. ,
3. Compl S Date Extensions
Compliance date extensions are similar to relaxations from
PACT. They are distinguishable in that they provide for thern
implementation of PACT, but extend the compliance date that EPA’
prmvia isIy approved, as being as expeditious as practicable. Th.
eztensi y not cause the nonattainment area’ to miss ,its
.4
-------
attainment date, but additional net emissions will occur during
some period of time before the attainment date.
--Under llO(l), SIP revisions cannot interfere, with attainment,
reasonable further progress (RFP), or any other requirement of
the Act. Compliance date extensions (to dates other than what
was as expeditiously as practicable) interfere with the
requirement that PACT be implemented ‘as expeditiously as
practicable” (S172(c)(lfl. This is on• ground for disapproving
such extensions.
-—Beyond that, for, ozone nonattainment areas, if PACT that was
required under EPA’s guidance interpreting * 172(b)(3) of the
pre-amended Act is not in place, it must be corrected or added
(%182(a)(2)(Afl ’. The EPA’s guidance on PACT under pre—amended
*l72(b)(3) called for implementation of PACT as expeditiously as
practicable. Wher. a SIP meets that guidance, this provision
prevents a relaxation from the guidance. Thus, under *110(1),
any coapliancs date exteflsion to a date later than what wa8 as
expeditious as practicable interferes with the requirement to
correct PACT per EPA’s pre-enactment guidance. This is a
supplemental ground for disapproval (related to the first
ground). ,.
-—In addition, under the savings clause (*193) equivalent
offsetting emission reductions must be obtained. Where EPA has
determined that the original SIP compliance date was reasonable,
the emission reductions must occur during the same time period as
required by the original SIP compliance date. Where EPA
determines that the SIP schedule was unreasonable, the reductions.
must be achieved for the remainder of the extension period,
starting from the date of EPA’s’ approval. (Where the new
compliance date has already passed by the time EPA acts on the
revision, no reductions are required for the period before or
after EPA’s action on the extension.) The EPA must disapprove
the revision if it does not provide for the required emission
reductions.
4.’ Bubbles .
A bubble involves an increase in emissions (above
traditio $ R ’ levels) that is compensated by a decrease in
eiission. t mother point in the nonattainment area, with
equivalent ã better ambient air results. -
--We havó determined tha the final ETPS remains generally intact
and meets the “equivalent reduction’ test sat out in §193 of the
amended Act and the PACT requirements of the amended’ Act • We
have not yet prepared boilerplate langua9e articulating the
rati ia1e. There may be, however, certain situations where
c r t 1e. requirements should be modified or reinterpreted
in 1i t of changed circumstances brought about by the 1990
5
-------
aendaents. K. will be forming a work group within the next
month with Regional Office participation to address these issues.
Meanwhile, Regions should consult closely with Headquarters when
processing i bl. actions, particularly where these actions
involve (1) approvals in attainment or unclassified areas slated
for rede.igrtatlon as nonattainment, (2) approvals in
nonattainmént areas where the bubble involves more than one CI’G
source category (or both CTG and non-’CTG sources), (3) approvals
involving nitrogen oxides (NOx) bubbles in areas that are.
designated ‘attainment for NOx but nonattaina.nt for ozone, (4)
disapprovals in nonattainment areas lacking an approved
attainment demonstration where those disapprovals item only from
the failure to meet th. special “progress requirements’
applicabl, to bubbles in those areas, and (‘5) any case where it
is unclear whether an area is a nonattainment area needing but
lacking an approved demonstration (unless the requirements of the
ri s for such an area are met).
3. Strengthenings of the SIP.
In many instances, a State’s submission of a SIP or SIP
revision will include a provision that does not comport with one
or more applicable requirements of the Act. Some subaittals,
however, will serve to improve air quality by providing progress -
toward attainment, RIP, and/or RACT t . . Prior to the adoption of
the 1990 Amendments, EPA followed a policy of approving certain
SIP provisions for their strengthening effect even though the
provisions did not meet all of the requirements of Part D. We
have termed such an action to be a ‘limited approval.” A limited
approval, however, is not a complete action on the SIP submittal.
To complete the action, EPA must, at the same time it grants a
limited approval (or at some time thereafter, as discussed
below), issue a lia ted disapproval whereby the Agency
disapproves the SIP revision request for failing to meet one or
more requirements of the Act. .
This procedure has been endorsed, at least implicitly, by,
one circuit court ( State of Michigan v. Thomas , 805 ?.2d 176 (.6th
Cir. 1986) (EPA may properly approve a rule for ‘maintenance of
air quality’ while disapproving it under Part Dfl; but se
Abramowitz v UI S. EPA , 832 F.2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding
that where a State has made a ‘required submittal and the due date
for the s Uittal has now, passed, EPA may not approve part of the
submittal . its strengthening effect if it takes no action on
whether t Z$ubsitta1 meets other applicable requirements of the
These cases may be distinguished from those under
categories 1, 2, and 3 beCause they involve a strengthening. of
what is already included in the SIP. In the other three
categories, the SIP, revision request proposes an alternative that
weak the’ existing SIP ‘requirements .
6
-------
Act; but not addressing whether EPA may simultaneously approve
part of a SIP for its strengthening effect and disapprove it for
failure to comply with those requirementS). We have determined
that the amended Act neither alters EPA’s prior interpretation of
the law nor overrules the State of Michigan v Thomas or
Abramowitz v. U.S EPA decisions. Rather, the Amendments expand
the language concerning approval of all or part of a SIP without
addresBing the issue of whether EPA may approve provisions that
strengthen the SIP but do not meet all of tb. requirements of
P&rtD.
Par i pprgya i Section 110(k) quid.. the Agency’s action
on plan submissions. Once EPA determines that a plan submission
is complete, the Agency must approve or disapprove the submission
within 12 months (sll0(k)(2)1. Section l10(k ’)(3) expressly
provides for the circumstance where the entir, submittal meets
-all applicable requirements of the Act, or. a separable portion of
the submittal meets, all applicable requirements. In such
circumstances, EPA must approv• those portion. that meet all the
applicable requirements of the Act and disapprove those that do
not’.
r Limited Approva1 Section 110(k)(3), however, leaves a gap;
a submittal may contain provisions which are not separable, but
at meet the requirements of the Act. Under the general
authority of §301 (a) to adopt regulations necessary. to implement
the Act, and in furtherance of the goals of the Act to protect
and enhanc&’ the quality of the air fjlOl(b)(1)3, we interpret
§llO(k)(3) also to allow TM liaited approvalu of SIP provisions
that have a strengthening effect, but that do not meet all
requirements of the Act’.
Time Limit for EPA Action : EPA’S use of limited approval
must correspond with the Act’s new provisions that place time
a We do not read this to override the Bethlehem Steel Corp.
v Gorsuch , 742 F.2d 1028 (7th Cir. 1984), and Indiana & Michigan
Elec. Co. , 733 F.2d 489 (7th Cir. 1984)’, decisions, which
overturn.4 PStial approvals where the approved parts were
integra1Iy hiated to the remainder (e.g., an emissions limit and
an. averagifl(p.riod, or an emissions limit and a test method).
For situations such as this, however, a. limited approval may be
appropriate. . . .
The Reqions should consult with Háadquerters on a
case-by—case basis a. to whether ps p pgi4cy 1iatte , EPA should
grant s a limited approval to a SIP submittal.
7
-------
limits on EPA’S approval or disapproval of SIP submittals 4 .
Hence, when granting limited approval EPA should act within 12
months of askin 9 a completeness determination. The EPA may giv, a
limited approvai to SIP submittals (for their. strengthening
effect) at one point in time and delay a formal finding that the
submittal does not meet all of the applicable requirements. The
Agency’8 failure to make that formal finding (and thereby take
final action) prior to expiration of the 12-month period, could
subject EPA to a lawsuit to compel such an action’.
Currently, many SIP reviSion requests that do not meet all
of the requirements of the amendSd Act are pending before the
Regions. Most of the SIP submittals’ required under the amended
Act are not yet due. Where ‘the submittal is made before it is
due, EPA may grant a limited approval to the whole submittal. As
an alternative, EPA may approve certain provisions that meit
prospective requirements of the Act. and request the State :0
voluntarily withdraw the other portions that are insufficiant to
meet future requirements. In either case, the State is not
relieved from submitting an entire approvable plan by the
statutorily—required submittal date.
Activating sanctions : The timing of the submittal will
affect the consequences of limited approval. If a State files the
submittal’ after it was due, and EPA approves it for. its
strengthening effect, the additional finding that the submittal
does not sest all applicable requirements would amount to a
disapproval under §l79(a)(2). The disapproval, therefore, would
Under §llO(k)(2), once EPA determines that a submi’tal
is complete, it must complete action on the submittal witI t 12
months. Until EPA promulgates the completeness criteria aired
pursuant to §llO(k)(l)( .A) ’ (by August 15, 1991], the remai ... g
timing deadlines in S1lO(k) do not come into effect. Unti that
tim., EPA action on SIP revision requests is guided by the
“reasonable time” prinäipl. of the Administrative Procedures Act.
Beyond that, during this interim period, the Regions should
continue to !ake completeness determinations under the existing
criteria promulgated February 16, 1990, 55 FR 5824,.
‘ rft tho.e States within the Ninth Circuit (Alaska,
Hawaii, W*Shiñgton, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada California,
and Ariza p :’ the failur. to take final action on the SIP.
revision r ç *i. t within the 12-month review period may have
stronger implications. Uflder the Abramowitzv. U.S. EPA ruling, a
court may invalidate EPA’s limited approval, on all aspects of
the submittal, if final action is not taken during the applicable
12-month period. (Arguably, Abramowitzv. U.S. EPA requires that
all action be taken simultaneously so that the limited approval
must be accompanied by a formal finding that the submittal does
not meet all of the Act’s requirements.)
8
-------
trigger the sanctions provisions. Under §110(m), EPA would have
discretion to apply sanctions immediately upon making such a
finding (although EPA Would have to have given notice of, and an
opportunity to Comment on, its, intention to.do.so)... Under §179,
as to provisions required by Part D or in rsponse to a’ SIP call,
disapproval . starts the 18-month countdown to th. mandatory
application of sanctions.
If a State makes (and EPA acts on) a submittal prior to the
time that it ii due, the sanctions process will not yet apply.
In such a circumstance, EPA would be approving the submittal for
iti strengthening effect for at least the time before which the
State must comply with new requirements in the Act. The
sanctions clock would not start running because sanctions for
disapproval only apply if the disapproval involves elements
currently due under the Act (see §179(a)(2)].
Conditional Approval : Finally, under any circumstances in
which a Region is considering limited approval, th. R.gion should
also consider whether a conditional approval, as defined by new
§11O(k)(4), would be a practical option. Th EPA may
conditionally approve a plan upon a commitment of the State’ to
adopt .the necessary specific enforceable measures by a date not
more than 1 year from the date of approval. The EPA’s finding
that the State failed to meet the commitment within that year
would automatically convert the conditional approval into a
disapproval. Obtaining such a commitment and granting a
conditional approval would benefit the Agency by providing a
concrete path toward curing the deficiency. Moreover a
conditional approval would benefit the State by alleviating the
possibility of sanctions for that 1-year period.
6. Redesignation to Attainment
Under §107(d)(3), every area that is currently designated
nonattainment will need to meet several requirements before it
will be eligible for redesignation to attainment. Among these is
the requirement of §107(d)(3)(E)(iv) that the State submit a plan
demonstrating maintenance• of the relevant standard in accordance
with new §17SA. (That section requires, among other things, that
maintenance plans include certain contingency measures.) Beyond
that, each area that is subject to requirements of Part D will
need to reesiv• approval of a plan meeting those requirements
The Act does not explicitly require that the commitment
be set forth in the SIP. We are still considering whether States
may pursue another form of written commitment (e.g., a letter or
a áuppleaental SIP submission) to take advantage of the
conditional approval approach. :.
9
-------
before it ii eligible for redesignation to attainment
(*l07(d)(3)(3)(ii), Cv)]’.
Most areas of the country that are subject to a pending
r.designation request have not addressed (let alone let) the
maintenance plan prerequisite for redesignation to attainment.
For that reason, we asked that you notify the affected States by
the “RA Letter” that their pending requests are not “complete”
within the meaning of §107(d)(3)(D),.and that for that reason EPA
does not believe it is required to process them at this time.
Headquarters will be developing guidance regarding maintenance
plan requirements under the• new Act to assist States in making
the necessary changes to plans that are not deemed complete.
Once a State submits a complete maintenance plan, its request for
redesignation is renewed.
We understand that some States have submitted redesignation
requests which include maintenance plans or have extenuating
circumstances. The Regional Office should consult with
Headquarters regarding the adequacy of the maintenance plan, or
if there are any extenuating circumstances, in order to determine
whether it meets the criteria of §175k of the Act. In cases
where these criteria are met, as well am the other criteria of
S107(d)(3), processing of the request can continue.
‘ For se le, ozone nonattainment areas with a design value
of at least .121 ppm will need to meet all of the requirements
for marginal areas before they are eligible for redesignation.
Also, areas that qualify as ‘transitional” under §185k are
relieved only from the requirements of the ozone subpart. They
a st still meet. whatever requirements of the general subpart 1 of
Part D that EPA decides still apply (e.g., the RACT requirement
of f172(C}(a)j and the maintenance requirements of §175k.
10
-------
*ooesSUm This nonce u also
providing the phone number for the
loca lion of the public meeting scheduled
on May 22. 1991 t 1199 N. FdirfaX
Street. Alexandria. VA in the VCflt that
anyone needs to call for more ipecific
directions. This phone nwnbei’ In (703)
683-8522. The address fos the )une ii
and )une 12 meeting will o r at the
sau te location.
F0 P IQnM*T10W C0NTAC
For information pertaining
establishment of the negotiation
cocnmittee and associated
adirnni.trative matters. contact Chris
Kirtz. Director. Regulatory Negotiation
Protect. Regulatory Management
Division. US EPA (P?4-223Y). 401 hi
Street SW.. Washington. DC 38460.
telephone (202) 382—7565. For
rmation pertaIning to the NO rula
and agioczaled issues. contact Zofla
Kosim. ANR-445. EPA. And Rain
Division. 401 hi Street SW.. Washington.
20460 or by phone. (202)475-4460.
Dateth May 15. 1991.
Peal Lspdsy.
Director. Regukror,’Mono ementDivisiwz.
(FR Dec. gi-iUi5 Filed 5- -Q1; 8.45 euti
40 FR Pert 5 *
(F 95$-3 1
Stats ptementation Pian
— cri
wscr Environmental Pr tacdon
Agency.
o Pr king.
$UMUARY The Qean Air Act (Act)
Amendment, of 1990(1990
Amendments) require the Admliil trttes ’
of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to promulgate minh,ium criteria
that any plan submission must meet in
order to be considered a complete State
implementation plan (SZP submission.
The Act requires that such criteria be
promulgated by August 15. 1991. ThIs
rulemaking notice proposes to satisfy
the statutory. requirements by making
minor changes to the SW completeness
criteria that were published by the EPA
• as a final rule on February 1. 1900(55
FR 5824).
oanm All comments should be
submitted to EPA at the address shown
below by )une 24, 1991. Because of the
short statutory deadline for
promulgating the completeness criteria.
the Agency does not believe that It can
extend the 30-day public comment
period.
A000U1e8 interested parties may
eubmit written comments in duplicate to
P’ubtiC Docket No. k—91—ti at: Cenual
Docket Section (A—130J, South
Conference Center. room 4. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Attention: Docket No. A-9i—u. 401 hi
Street SW.. Washington. DC 20460.
Materials relevant to this rulemaking
have been placed in Docket No. A-al—Il
by EPA and are available for Inspection
and copying at the above address
between Bern. and 3:30 p.m.. Monday
through Friday. The EPA may charge a
reasonable fee foe copying.
Additionally, the public Is advised
that Public Docket No. A—88-18 Is the
docket that was established for the
completeness criteria that were
promulgated by A on February l B.
1990(55 FR 5624). The background
materials that were placed In that
docket may be of Interest to the reader.
FO RT1* IWC N*Y 0N COIITACT
Denise Garth. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standard. (MD-15). U.S.
En*ohmental Protection Agency,
Research TrianglePark, NC 27711.
telephone 919) 541-5550 or (FF5) 838-.
5558
VJPPU flA Y iVedA7t0
Cnmp&s Criteria Under SIP
Prior to passage of the 1990
Amendments. EPA adopted
completeness criteria under section
301(a) of the Act on Its own Initiative as
part of an overall effort to reform SIP
processing within the Agency. On
February 16.1990(55 FR 5824), EPA
promulgated ce pLetiewss review
criteria for SIP stibmittals. The
complete.... criteria described the
procedures for assessing whether a SIP
submittal was adequate to trigger the
Act requirement tht EPA review and
take . cthm on the submittaL The
completeness criteria were one of the
SIP reform measures that were
annotmeed on January 19.1980(54 FR
14) by EPA In the Notice of Procedmml
Changes. The reader is referred to these
notices for detailed Information on
EPA ’s SW processing reform Initiatives.
Affirmative action is required by EPA
on essentially all aspects of every SIP
and SIP revision. The EPA ’s final
decision on a SW submission comes
after adoption at the State level and
submittal of the SIP to EPA. The EPA.
previousSIP processing procedures
provided no mechanism to reject or
otherwise eliminate essentially
unreviewable SIP subuifttats (La.. those
missing Information necessary to make
a reasonable decision as to their
procederel sad environmental
adequecy) without going through
rulemaking to dlsaprove the submittaL
Therefore. SIP gt bmittals that lacked.
requfred basic information such as
evidence of legal authortty. properly
conducted public hearings, or tecbmcal
support Information often went through
full notice and comment nilemaking
before being rejected. This process
resulted L u uncertainty u to the review
status, caused excessive delays in
reviewing SW .. frustrated the
development of an optimnm St .ste/
Federal partnership, caused confusion
for somues regarding applicable
regulations, and generally dampened
initiatives In State regulatory pregrarns.
The completeness criteria that are In
appendix V of part 51 provides
procedure end screening criteria which
enable States to prepar. adequate S W.
submittal. and enable EPA reviewers to
promptly screen SIP submittals. identify
those that are ln ,miplate. end return
them to the State for corrective action
without having to go through
ndemsiul ’tg . The criteria have been in
placa sInce February 181900 and have
been effective In screening Inr ompkte
SW submiftals.
The criteria datarinlntng wbet.her a
• submittal b the State Is complete have
bean separated Into two cafegorten
A’ ”nI .trative information end
technical support Wormatico.
Administrative Information indudes the
do ni,ientaUon necessary to
demonstrate that the basic
• a 4 mlnl.Iraths procedures have been
adhered to by the State during th. rule
adoption I cesL Te ’ 4 ” ” 1 support
information techedes the documentation
that adequately Identifies all of the
required tedin1 nd omaponents of the
plan submissions. For detailed
information on the completáess
criteria, the reader Is tefcr red to the
• propoaed rule that was published on
January 19. 1989(54 FR 2135).
8.n ts of C - J tsu’ a CrDsr4
The comple’ en”n criteria that were
promulgated on February 16,1990 have
brought about several benefits to both
EPA and the State and local agendas in
the air quality anagewent process.
First. States are informed promptly u to
the reviewebllity of their submittal..
thereby reducing the uncert lnty on the
States part, and fewer requèsta by EPA
for information from the States during
the EPA review process are received.
Second. SIP submlttgls that are
Inadequate for processing are returned
to the Statel to be corrected rather than
going through the SW review process
only to be disapproved. which requires
the States to relnitlats the process.
Third. unreviewable SIP revisions are
removed from the process early so thai
-------
d( Federai le. t
dnccated to processing only SIP
subnUttal 5 that are adequate for review.
Finally, the completeness criteria
provide the States with guidelines an
how to prepare reviewable SIFi.
thereby improving the overall quality of
State submittals. The completeness
criteria that EPA promulgated on
February 16.1990 for making
completeness determinations have been
an effectiv e tool for ensuring the quality
of State submittala and reducing the
effort expended in reviewing proposed
SIP actions that are inherently not
approvable.
Statutory Requirements of Clean Air Act
The 1990 Amendment. established
section 110(k)(1) which requires EPA to
establish completeness criteria for State
plan submissions. Following are the
specific requirements that the
Amendments set forth in requiring
completeneu criteria.
I. Completeness of Plan Submissions
The 1,990 Amendments established
section i10(k )(t) which require. EPA to
develop and promulgate completeness
criteria not later than August iS. 1991.
The completeness criteria are to be the
minimum criteria that any plan
submiuton must meet before the
Administrator Is required to take
rulemaking action on such submission.
The criteria are to be limited to the
information necessary to enable the
Aminta (or to determine whether the
plan subm ls n complies with the
provisloisi of the
2. Completeness Furding
The Act requiresthat within 60 days
of the M’n4n”lmtot ’. receipt of. plan
or plan evislon. bet no later than 6
months after the date by which. State
Li required to submit the plan or plan
revision, the Mi Inlittrator shall
determin, whether the completeness
criteria have been met. If the
Administrator has not made.
completeness determination by6
months after receipt of the submission.
that , ubinlaa’on shall on that data be.
considered to have met the , ,itniatnm
criteria (section 11O(kXlliBfl.
The 1990 4I ” nls Impose an
addltloaal responsibility upon EPA to.
make a completeness determination.
Where a plan submission is required to
be submitted by the Stats. the
Administrator Is to make a
oomple finding within e months
whether or not the Slate has made such
a submission. A finding that the State
has failed to uu t a complete revision
may have o* egects. A determination
that a SiP . ebmizshthi Is Incomplete
h
the i99Q Amendrne .ts (s€e section
1 9(a)(lfl
3. Effect of Pi. dirtg
When a determination has been made
that a submittal is complete. the
Administrator is required to act on the
submittal under section 110(k). When
the Administrator detetmines that a
plan submission (or part thereofi does
not meet the completeness criteria, the
State shall be treated as not having
made the submission.
De 1 ’ for ActiOn an Plan
Submissions
When it has been determined by the
Administrator (or when a determination
is made by default) that a State has
submitted • plan or plan revision that
meets the minimum completeness
criteria, the Act requires the
AdminIstrator to approve, partially
approve. or disapprove the submission
within 12 months.
The EPA had previously established
an internal 14-month time frame for
processing plan submissions. The
Congress. In amendingthe Act
indicated a desire for a different
processing schedule. The public Is
advised that EPA new Intends to act on
all SIP submissions withIn 12 months
after a completeness determination is
made (or. submission is deemed
complete by operation of law). The
processing times for different categories
of SIP actions. however. are expected to
vary within that 12-month range. Note
that the 12-month time frame does not
start until alter the completeness
determination Is made. When EPA was
attempting to meet Its Internally
imposed 14-month schedule for
processing plan submIssIons, the
completeness review wu Included in
that 14-month dine frame. Since the 12-
month time Frame specified In the Act
for EPA to take final rulemaking sctioa
on a submittal does not Include the 60-
day time frame for making a
compss determination. thi time
EPA actually takes to process . plan
submission, In most cases. will not
change from that taken before passage
of the 1990 Amendments.
A. promulgated on February 16.1996.
the ex1 Hng completeneal criteria
applied to redesignatlon requests as
well as SIP revisions. The 1990
Amendments. however. provide
separate authority for EPA action on
redestgnations under section
l07(dX3kD). Redeslgnatlons are not
sub3ectto section 110(k). and EPA là not
obligtted to pcomulg te completeness
J r .e
deterrrunations on redesignations. In
addition. section 107(dl(3)(D 1 provides
EPA with an18-month period in which
to act on redesignation requests. running
(mm the date of receipt of; complete
request Section 107(d) uses the term
“complete’ .reqUe5t. but does not specify
how EPA is to determine completeness
in that context.
The EPA has determined that.
pursuant to its general rulemaking
authority of sectIon 301(a) of the Act.
and as necessary to implement the
requirements of section 107(d)(3)(D). It is
appropriate to continue applying tfte
completeness criteria to redesignatlon
requests. Although not mandated by
section 107(d)(3)(D). EPA will use the
criteria to determine when a State has
made a complete redesignation request
to trigger the requirements df that
section.
Section i07(d)(3)(EJ of the amended
Act sets Out the standard for app rovable
redesignailon requests. The EPA has
reviewed the completeness criteria in
light of these standards an4 concludes
that the existing criteria will serve the
purposes pf this section wIth one inaior
addition. This addition. concerning
maintenance plans. is described below
In the section on changes to the criteria.
Changes to PreseUt Completeness
Criteria
The 1990 Amendments require EPA to
promulgate completeness criteria by
August13, 1991. The first step EPA took
was to review the existing completeness
criteria to determins If these criteria mat
the requirements of section i10(kXl) of
the Act The EPA has, therefore.
reviewed the February 16.1990 criteria
against the requirements In the Act as.
ame ’ . The EPA believes that the
existing criteria. with minor
modIfications described below, satisfy
the requirements of the 1990
Amendments at this time. As EPA gains
experience with S W processing under
the am. ’ded Act. EPA may revisit the
completeness criteria to determine if
any i ddlUona1 changes are warranted.
Given the 9.monthstatutory deadline For
promulgation àf mtnhnum completeness
criteria. EPA believes it Is appropriate at
the present tim. to adopt the existing
criteria with minor changes. The
FOllOWing isa disons a of the changes
EPA proposes to make to the February
16.1990 completeness criteria Into ( R
part SI. appendix V. In order to meet the
requirements In section ilO(kX1)of the
amended Act.
-------
I z .::’ ur .‘ (c.’c : j z
C,rnp . :eness Determination
The February 16. 1990 Federal
Register notice prornulgatir.g the
completeness criteria indicated EPAs
intent to make a completeness
determiri. tion within 43 days of receipt
of a submission. The 1990 Amendments.
however, require the Administrator to
make a completeness determination on
a plan submission Within 60 days of
EPA’, receipt of a plan or plan revision.
but no laterthan 6 months after the date
by which the State was required to
submit the plan or revision. The
Amendments further indicate that
should the Administiator fail to make a
completeness determination within 6
months of receipt of a plan’submlulos.
the submission will automatically be
deemed complete by operation of law on
that date. Consequently, 40 ( R part 51,
appendix V. paragraph 1.2. is being
revised to include both the 60-day and 6-
month time frames.
2. Paragraph 2.2.. Technical Support.
appendLv V
Section 175A of the Act is a new
section which requires each State that
submits, request under section 107W)
of the Act. for redesfgtiatlon of an ares
from nónattalnment to attalnm.nt for
any primary national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS), to also submit a
maintenance plan demonstrating
maintenance of the relevant NAAQS for
at least 10 years after red signatlon.
Although section 11O(k)(1).
Completeness of Plan Submlulons, does
not address malntonan’ e plans los’
section 107(d) redesignations. EPA
believe, that section 107(d)(3) (D) and
(E) provide the Agency authority to
prescribe that a redgnidon request
will not be considered complete (and
hence will not trigger required EPA
action) if it does not include, among
other things, a maintenance plan
meeting the requirements of section
175A. Coasequently. appendix V of the
completeness initerla Is being revised by
adding language to paragraph 2. d)
indicating that State, are required to
submit a maintenance plan when a
request for redesignetion to attainment
of the primary NA.AQS Is submitted for
approval to EPA.
Legal Authority
The EPA Is proposing to promulgate
these completeness atteria as they
apply to plan submissions under the
authority of section 110(k)(IXA), which
spedflcally require. EPA to promulgate
such criteria. Additionally. EPA is
pr p ,s n to romui3ate L e
completeness criteria as they apply t
secticn 107 redesignation requests under
sect:cns 1071d)(3) and 301(a) of the Act.
The EPA originally had promulgated
the existing completeness criteria on
February 16. 1990 under the general
authority of section 301(a)(1) of the pie-
amended Act. That. section authorized
the Administrator to promulgate such
regulations as are necessary to carry out
his functions under the Act. The EPA
concluded that It was necessary to
promulgate completeness criteria to
enable the Agency to cany out its
responsibilities to process SIP
submissions in a timely fashion.
The 1990 Areendmenta Indude
specific authority In section 110(kJ(1)
that mandates EPA to promulgate
minimum criteria for determln(ng
completeness of plan submissions. The
EPA believes that the action being
proposed today, when published as a
final rule. will satisfy the requirement of.
section ii0(k)(1) of the Amendments.
Conclusion.
The EPA is proposing the,.
amendments to the completeness
criteria that were published on February
1& la9 oe srequfredbysection
ii0(k)(IRA) of the Act. The EPA
believes that the completeness critEria
that were published on February tO,
1990. wIth some minor changes that are
described above meet the requirements
of the Act The EPA intends to continue
to review the basic provisions of the Act
and. If appropriate, will amend these
minimum criteria. Because of the myriad
of Act requirements Imposed on EPA
and the States, upon detailed analyse.
of the Act. EPA may publish a
subsequent rule(s) outlining additional
completeness requirements.
Mmii$actrstive Requirements
The docket lain organized and
complete file of all the information
considered by EPA In the development
of these complete te s criteria. The
docket Is a dynamic file because
materia) Is added throughout the notice
preparation and comment process. The
docketing system Is intended to allow
members of the public and industries
involved to Identify and locate
documents so that they can effectively
participéte In the process. The public
docket numbm for this rulemaking
action is A-al-IL Additionally, the
docket for the complet.itøes criteria that
EPA promulgated on February 16,1990
(55 FR 5824) may also be of interest to
!:-.e that ocket nLrnber .
18.
Section 317(a) of the Clean Air Act. 42
u.s.c. 7617(a). states that economic
i act .issessments are required for
revisior.s to standards or regulatior.s
when the Administrator determines such
revisions to be substantiaL The changes
described today do not thange’tha
substantive requirements for preparing
and submitting an adequate SIP
package. The completeness lterla
merely Itemize those components of a
SIP submittal that must be Included to
enable EPA to determine that a
submittal meets The requirements
imposed by various other provisions in
the Act No increase In cost as a result
of complying with the change described
today Is expected moreover, the
monitoring, recordkeeping. sad repotting
requirements have been determined to
be insubstantiaL Became the expected
economic effect of the changes Is not
substantial, no detailed ecoflomic
Impact asle .ment has been prepared.
Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12291.
EPA is requred to judge whether in
action Is “major” and, therefore, subject
to the requirement of a regulatory
impact analysis (RIA), The Agency has
determined that the 4 .lng. , to the SIP
completeness criteria being announced
today would result In none of the
signIflr nt adverse ecunoutic effects set
forth lnsectioni(b)oftbeE .O.a .
grounds fore finding of “mafor. The
Agency has. therefore, concluded that
this action is not a “major” action under
E.G. 12291. This rule wu submitted to
the Office of Mangement and Budget
(0MB) for review under E.O. 1. L A
copy of the draft rule sar .h ,nltt.d to
0MB. any doc mdmts accompanying the
draft, any written comment received
from other agencies (Including 0MB),
and any written responses to those
comments have been hnd” '4.d in the
docket
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1960.
5 U.S C. 8Ol-61& requires the
identification of potentially adverse
impacts of Federal actions upon small
business entities, The Act reM.Jz s the
completion of a regulatory fle,dbthty
analysis for every action unless the
M ’nlnfatrator certifies that the action
will not have a significant ecnnomf C
impact on a.substanflit nninher of small
entitles. For the reasons described
above relating to the impact of this rule,
I hereby certify that the final nil. will
not hay, a lgniflt .iit Impact on a
substantial number of small m ddes.
-------
cet ral t( :ster vj. :0. r - ..iJI ‘ Prup .jsed ?.iles
t of Subj ct3 in 40 CFR Past 51
Admifl istratve practice and
ccedure air pollution control;
reporth’l and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: May 21. 1991.
Wlfliam L Rsilly.
AdmirnS CWt.
TItle 40 Code of Federal Regulations.
part Si. Is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 51 is
revised toread as follows:
PART 51—CAMENOEDI
Authodty 42 U.&C. 7401(bXl). 7410.
7407td). 7470-7479. 7501—7506. and 7 901(a ).
unleu otherwise coted.
2. Part 51. appendix V. is amended by
revising paragraphs 1.2 and 2.2(d) to
read ü follows:
Appendix V. CaforDeiermthing
the Completeness of Plan Submissions
• • • . • -
1.2 The ‘A shall Inform the
submitting official whether or note plan
submission meets the requirements of
this appendix V wIthin 60 days of E PA ’.
receipt of the submittal, but no later
than a months after the date by whidi
the State was required to submit the
plan or revision. Ifs completeness
determination Ii not made by a months
from receipt of a submittal, the sUbnnttal
shall be deemed complete by operation.
of law on the date a monthifrom
receipt A determination of
completeness tinder this paragraph
means that the submission Is a official
submission for purposes of section
51.103.
• , •• • •
2.2 • * (d)The State’s
demonstration that the national ambient
air quality standards, prevention of
significant deterioratloü Increments.
reasonable further progress
demonstration, and visibthty u
applicable. are protected if the plan is
approved and implemented. For all
requests to redesignate an area to
attainment for a national primary
ambient air quality standard, under
section 107 of the Clean Air Act, a
revision must be submitted to provide
for the maintenance of the national air
quality standards for at least 10 years as
required by section 175A of the Clean
Air Act.
• S S S •
(FR Doc. 91-12510 FIled 5-Z3-01 &45 amj
coos isis a u
OEP TM 4TOF DEFENSE
bepartment at tt . Mr Force
48 CFR Chapter 53
Air Force Federal AcqiMltiofl
ReguIatio Su plemsnt Clausal .
Contractor Toxicological Testing —
Mrcraft dde
AGENC Department of the Air Force.
DoD.
aciiosc Proposed rule.
$UVMA Y The Air Force is considering
the use oft clause to require
Toxicological testing of certain
contractor employees after an aircraft
accident. The dause will require
Toxicological testing of any contractor
employees that operated,controLled or
performed maintenance on an Air Force
aircraft that is Involved In a serious
accident This testing Is needed to
determine if any of the contractor
employees were Impaired by use of a
controlled substance. This requirement
will also apply to subcontractor
employees that operate. control or
perform maintenaoce on an Air Force
aircraft under the contract.
oayn Comments are solicited and
must be received by June 24. 1991 to be
considered in the final rule.
AOORES3Ial SAFIAQCP. room 4C314.
The Pentagon. Weehlngton DC 20330-
iooa
FOR RIRThSR IIFORMA11ON COWTACI.
Rick Summerour. SAF/AQCF. The
Pentagon. Washington. DC 20330-1000.
telephone (7031 605—3859.
$UffLIMVITARY mFORMAflOsC
Background
When an accident involving an Air
Force aircraft results In injury or
property damage, a mishap Investigation
is required to determine the cause and
what corrective measures are needed.
These investigations routinely indude
toxicological testing to determine if any
persons that operated. controlled or
performed maintenance on the aircraft
may have been impaired by use oft
controlled substance.
Procedures are in place. for testing Air
Force military and civilian employees.
However, there is no mechanism for
requiring contractor employees to.
likewise submit to the testing. Many
maintenance functions that previously
were done by military personnel are
nowbeing performed under contract.
Therefore, there is a need to extend this
requirement to include contractor
personneL
To ensure that unneeded testing is nnt
done. Air Force procedure, wilt limit
contractor testing to flight crews and
other individuals whose actions may
have been a factor In the accident.
Testing will only be required In
accidents that Involve facilities or
serious injuries or property damage that
Is likely to exceed 8700.000 . The decision
to require testing will reside with the
official responsible for tha investigation.
In order to minlmlY th. cost end
burdens associated with this
requirement. lmplementation.wIll be.
accomplished under each contractor’s
existing Drug-Free Work Force Program.
Requirements for the Drug-Free Work
Force program are in the clause at
DFARS 252 2 . -7500 Drug-Free Work
Force (Sep 1988). .
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The clause will not haves significant
effect on small entities. Virtually all
- aircraft maintenance contracts that
would use this clause will be performed
bylargebusinesses. -
C Papsawork R.tbm ’os Ad
This clause will not require
“collection of Information” as defined In
section 3502. pars (4). of the act.
Therefore. the Paperwork Reduction Act
does not apply.
Ust of Subjects In 4$ CFR Part 53
Government proatretizent
Therefore. It Is proposed to amend
title 48 of the Code of Federal
Regulations chapter 53 by adding parts
5323 and 5352 to read as follows:
PART 5323—ENVIRONMENT.
CONSERVATION, OCCUPATIONAL.
SAFETY AND DRUGFREE -
WORKPlACE
Authodty S U.S.C 301 and FAR 1.301.
St pat 5323.5—Orag-frel Wos cplsce
5323.505 Co..tjnscIOtTOJdCOIOgiC
Tssdn,—*lrcrift AcddeilLL
Contracting officers shall thser the
clause at OFARS ‘ 5’ “ “-7500 Drug-Free
Work Force and the clause at AFFARS
5352.223-9001. Contractor Toxicological
Testiiig -Aircraft Accidents, in
solidtations and contracts in which the
contractor will be responsible for
operation, control or maintenance of
Government alrasft
PART 5352.2—SOLICITATION
PROV ON$ AND CONTRACT
CLAUSES
Authadty 5 U.S.C 301 sad PAR L305.
-------
dJi’ t
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park North Carolina 27711
JUL 91992
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Processing of State Irnplementatióh P4an.’(SIP).
Submittals / // /
FROM: John Ca].cagni, Director ‘-“ —
Air Quality Management D ,ision, OAQ $’(MD—l5)
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation, and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and .Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
This memorandum provides guidance concerning the processing
of SIP submittals. In general, there are three situations that
can occur related to each required submittal: the State may fail
to submit the required plan, the State may make a submittal that
is not complete, or the State may make a complete suk nittal.
Once a State submits a SIP and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has determined that the submittal is complete, EPA
must either approve or disapprove the submittal ,within\a
specified time period. However, if the State fails to make a
required siabaittal or makes a submittal that is determined to be
incompletQe the sanctions and Federal implementation plan (FIP)
provisio f sections 179 and 110(c), respectively, will be
triggere .Th’addition, disapproval of a submittal also triggers
the sanctiàni and FIP provisions. These provisions are discussed
in further detail in this memorandum.
There are, however, three alternatives to full apprâval or
full disapproval of. a complete SIP submittal: partial approval,
limited approval, and conditional approval. Each of these is -
dt us d in wore detail below along with some guidance as to
w* en each might be used. In addition, Attachment 1 to this
-------
2
memorandum contains several examples of how these may be used.
Attachment 2 to this memorandum is a table that summarizes the
requirements discussed below.
partial Aporoval/Disapproval
Section 1lO(k)(3) of the amended Clean Air Act (Act)
addresses the situation in which art entire submittal, or a
separable portion of a submittal, meets all applicable
requirements of the Act. Where the entire submittal meets all
the requirementc Of the Act, EPA will fully approve the entire
submittal. In the case where a separable portion of the
submittal meets all of the applicable requirements, partial
approval may be used to approve that part of the submittal and
disapprove the remainder. It is important that the two parts of
the submittal be separable. By separable, EPA means that the
action it anticipates taking will not result in the approved
rule(s) being more stringent than, the State anticipated. See
Bethlehem Steel Corp. V. Gorsuch , 742 F. 2d 1028 (7th Cir. 1984);.
Indiana and Michigan Elec. Co. v. U.S . E.P.A. , 733 F. 2d 4.9 (7th
Cir. 1984). For example, EPA cannot approve, part of a submittal
that specifies control measures and disapprove’ the part that
specifies the test methods associated with those control
measures. The EPA has frequently taken a. partial approval
approach in the past’ to process groups of rules that are
submitted together. The EPA can approve some of the rules and
disapprove the rest .as long as the rules that are disapproved do
not affect’ those that are approved. The disapproval of. any part
of a required SIP submittal starts the clocks discussed abOve for,
sanctions and FIP’s.
Limited Approval/Disapproval
In sOme cases, a submittal may contain’ certain’ provisions
that meet the applicable requirements of the Act along’ with other
provisions that do not meet the requirements, and the provisions
are not separable. Although’ the submittal may, not meet all of
the applig le requirements, EPA may want to consider ‘whether the
submitta as a whole has a strengthening effect .on the SIP. If
that is thO.case, limited ‘approval may be used to approve a rule
that streflqtehs ‘the existing SIP as representing an improvement
over what’ ‘is ‘currently in the SIP and as meeting some of, the
applicable requirements Of the Act.
The Act does not expressly provide for limited approvals.
- ‘ ther -,’EPA is using. its “gap—filling” authority under section
301(a) 01 the’ Act in conjunction with the section li (k)(3)
approval provision to interpret the Act to provide for this type
of apçroval action.
-------
3
Through a limited approval, EPA would ‘concurrently, or
within a reasonable time thereafter, disapprove the rule, under
the relevant provision(s) of Part D, for not meeting all of the
applicabl.e requirements of the Act. As with the limited approval
action the limited disapproval is a rulemaking action, and it is
subject to notice and comment. Under section 110(k), E A must
take final rulemaking action on SIP submittals within 12 months
• of the date EPA determines the submittal is complete or the
submittal. is automatically deemed to be complete if EPA fails to
make a completeness determination.’ As a general matter, although
the statute,, directs EPA to act within that timeframe, EPA’S
failure to finalize the disapproval portion of the action within
that 12-month timeframe will not affect the validity of any prior
or subsequent limited approval or limited disapproval.’ The
EPA’S failure to take action prior to the expiration of the 12-
month period could, however, subject EPA to a lawsuit to compel
such an action. ‘
A key distinction between the limited approval and a partial
approval is that under a limited approval EPA’s approval action
goes to the entire rule. In other words, although portions of a
rule prevent EPA from finding that the rule meets a certain
requirement of the Act, EPA believes that the rule, as a.whole,
strengthens the SIP. Therefore, EPA approves the entire rule——
even those portions that prohibit full approval. Likewise, when
EPA issues the limited disapproval, the disapproval applies to
the entire rule as failing to meet a specific requirement of the
Act. The rule remains a part of the SIP, however, under the
limited disapproval, because the rule strengthens the SIP. The
disapproval only applies ‘to whether the submittal meets a
‘specific requirement of the Act and does not affect incorporation
of’ the rule into the approved, federally enforceable SIP.
The primary advantage to using the limited appz oval approach
is to make the State submittal federally enforceable, and to
increase the SIP’S potential to achieve additional reductions.
Theref ore, limited approval should not be used to approve any
rule that is unenforceable for all situations--for example, a
rule that, lacks a test method. These rules and any other rules
that do not, have an overall strengthening effect on the SIP
should b disa proved. Limited approval can be used, however,
The March 22, 1991 memorandum from John Calcagni
diScussed the potential impact of Abramowitz V. U.S. E.P.A. , 832,
F. ‘2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1988), ‘on EPA’s decision to split the’
a ro al. and disapproval portions of a limited approval. After
reewaluating that. case, we believe it may have’ a narrower impact
than initially’ described and, therefore, generally would not
impect the timing of limited approval/disapproval actions.
-------
4
where the rule is unenforceable for some limited number of
situations but is enforceable for the majority of situations, if
the rule, as a whole, strengthens the SIP.
The disapproval coinciding with (or following) the limited
approval also starts the sanctions and FIP clocks discussed
above. With the limited approval EPA may or may not have a
commitment from the State to correct the deficiency. The EPA may
choose to use the limited approval approach (instead o
conditional approval) in the case where the State has submitted a
commitment as part of a rule but EPA has reason to believe that
the State will not be able to. meet the commitment (as discussed
below). Where a limited approval/disapproval approach is taken,
the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) should clearly identify
which requirements have not been met and what action would be
required on the part of the State to meet those requirements.
Conditional Approval
Under section llO(k)(4) of the Act EPA may conditionally
approve a plan based on a commitment from the State to adopt
specific enforceable measures within 1 year from the date of,
approval. If the State fails to meet its commitment within the
i-year period, the approval is treated as - a disapproval’. We
expect that conditional approvals will be used only in rare
situations that merit special consideration. We will evaluate
specific types of SIP”submittals (e.g reasonably available
controltechi ology (RACT) catch-ups, particles with an
aerodynalic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10
micrometers (PM-b) SIP’s] to determine whether certain elements
of that type of submittal, or that type of submittal as a whole,
merit conditional apprc ul. For this reason and to ensure
consistency , Regions’ s .ld not use conditional approvals without
• input from Headquarters IS to whether such an approa th is
appropriate. Furthermore, as any statutory deadline approaches,
we ‘may issue guidance regarding the appropriate use o
conditional approval with respect to that specific requirement.
on :a determination has been made ‘that a specific’ type of
submitta3 Cj.’ be considered for conditional approval, Regions
must mak4 de eraination’ of whether an individual State
submitt&táh’uld be condl.tionally approved. The first
consideratiOn should be whether the State has made (or agrees to
make) a commitment to adopt specific enforceable measures within
1 year of EPA approval. The commitment must be made in writing
-------
5
by the party responsible for adopting the specified measures
before the plan is conditionally approved, and the commitment
must be submitte4 by the State. 2 ’
In addition, to the extent that the commitment materially
alters the existing rule (in respects that the public could not
reasonably have ‘anticipated would result from the public review
of the existing rule), or is a commitment to adopt an entire rule
•or set of rules, the commitment must be a SIP revision submittal
by the State. In many cases, the determination of’ whether the
commitment materially alters the underlying rule may be based on
whether a similar issue was raised during the earlier State
proceedings on the submitted rule. In general, each commitment
will need to be examined to determine whether it materially
alters the s ibmitted rule. As with any SIP revision, in order
for EPA to accept the commitment as a SIP revision, the State
must have provided notice and public hearing on the submitted
commitment. However, EPA has the discretion to parallel process
commitments and in limited circumstances may propose conditional
approval of the commitment and allow the State process to proceed
on a parallel track.
As a general matter, the greater the extent to which a
submittal is lacking in important plan elements, the less
appropriate the use of conditional approval may be. It should be
noted, however, that there may be circumstances under which EPA
would accept a SIP revision consisting of a commitment only
(without specifically adopted rules) as a candidate for
conditional approval. In such cases, the commitment should also
be accompanied by a work plan detailing any specific measures to
be adopted, the steps that viii be taken’ to adopt the measures,
and the schedule for adoption of those measures. As stated
earlier, a submittal that consists entirely of a commitment will
be considered a SIP revision that is subject to the State process
for submitting SIP ‘revisions, e.g., notice and a public hearing
Where the submittal contains specifically adopte 1 rules that
need some revisions or corrections to be fully-approvable, the
commitment may not need to be as comprehensive. .me commitment
should, hOwever, be as explicit as possible concerning the
measure5 t,bat. *ill be adopted, the steps that will be taken to
adopt the measures, and the schedule for adoption of those
measures.
2 Although the commitment must identify the ‘measures to
be adopted and contain a schedule for adopting such measures, it
is not’ necessary for the commitment itself to be enforceable in a
State’ court.
-------
.6
Because the conditional approval relies on a Commitment from
the State, EPA would need some .evel of confidence that the State
would be able to meet such a commitment. In making a
determination as to whether a State could reasonably be expected
to meet its commitment, EPA would need to consider a number of
factors such as:
— the amount of technical work neàessary for the measures
to be adopted;
- whether adoption of the measures is expected to be
controversial:
- the average length of. State adoption process;
- how far along in the process the State is; and
the State’s past track record.
It should be noted that these are only. some of the factors that
should be considered. Each Region, in making a. determination
regarding the credibility of the State’s commitment, may have to
look at a n mber of other factors. The Region should clearly
explain, either in the NPR or in a technical support document,
the rationale for these determinations.
In addition to the determination of whether the State’s
commitment is credible, the Region must make a determination as
to whether it is appropriate to conditionally approve a revision
on the merits of that revision. Conditional approval might
typically be used In the same types of situations as the limited
approval. As with the limited app±oval, one of the main
advantages of the conditional approval, approach is to make the
State submittal (where the submittal contains control
requirements and not just a commitment to adopt enforceable
measures) federally enforceable and to increase its potential to
achieve additional reductions. Because the conditionally
approved submittal will become a part of the SIP, t1 e Region
should be certain that the approval of the commitment will not
weaken the existing SIP. The Region may also want tc consider
when the plan (or plan element) that has been submitted was due.
The NPR for a conditional approval should clearly identify
which ree Jreaents are the subject of the commitment and,
therefor bBVb not been met. In addition, both .the NPR and the
State’s itment should clearly identify what action is
required the part of the State. Unlike the limited
approval/disapproval,, the conditional approval does not
immediately start the sanctions and PIP clocks. These clocks
start if and when the: approval is converted to a disapproval.
There are at least two ways that the conditional approval
-------
7
may be converted to a disapproval. 3 First, if the State fails
to adopt and submit the specified measures by the end àf’ 1 year
(from the final conditional approval), or fails to submit
anything at all, EPA will have to issue a finding of disapproval
but will not have to propose the disapproval. That is because in
the original proposed and final conditional approval, EPA will
have provided notice and an. opportunity for comment on the fact
that EPA would directly make the finding of disapproval (by
letter) if the State failed to submit anything.’ Therefore, at
the end of 1 year from the conditional approval, the Regional
Administrator (R A) will, send a letter to the State finding that
it had failed to meet its commitment and that the SIP submittal
is disapproved. The 18—month clock for sanctions and the
2-year clock for a FIP start as of the date of the letter.
Subsequently, a notice to that effect will be published in the
Federal Register , and, appropriate language will be inserted in
the Code of Federal Regulations. Similarly, if EPA receives a
submittal addressing the commitment but determines that the
submittal is incomplete, theRA will send a letter to the State
making such a finding. As with the failure to submit, the
sanctions and FIP clocks will begin as of the date of the finding
letter.
Second, where the State does make a complete submittal by
the end Of the 1-year period, EPA will have to evaluate that
submittal to determine if it maybe approved and take final
action on the submittal within 12 months after the date EPA
determines the submittal is complete. If the submittal does not
adequately address the deficiencies that were the subject of the
conditional approval, and is therefore not approvable, EPA will
have to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking to disapprove
the submittal. The 18-month clock for sanctions and the 2-year
clock for a FIP start as of the date of final disapproval. If
EPA determines that the rule is approvab]e, EPA will propose
approval of the rule. In either instance, whether EPA finally
approves or disapproves the ru, the conditional ‘app oval
remains in effect until EPA takes its final action.
, should be noted that this disapproval can be a
1imited. ’à oval/disapprova1. In some cases, the Regions may
want to iiáè such an approach to retain the enforceability of
control measures. The NPR should indicate if this approach is’
planned.
To provide for this contingency, in the final
c nditiona1 approval, EPA would need to provide, for example, “If
the ta fails to make a submittal or makes only an incomplete
sub.ittai. durinq the time period for submittal of the rule, EPA
wfli issue a letter to the State which converts the conditional’
approval to a disapproval.”
-------
e
it should be noted tI kat EPA will conditionally approve a
certain rule only once. Subsequent submitta].s of the same rule
that attempt to correct the same specifically identified problems
will not be eligible for conditional approval.
Sanctions and FIP Requirements
Actions that Trigger the Sanctions and PIP Requirements
The actions EPA has the authority to take under the
sanctions and FIP provisions of the Act correspond to the
different steps EPA must follow as it reviews and processes SIP
submittals. As discussed previously, the Act in section 179’
requires EPA to impose sanctions based on four types of actions.
(findings’) provided in section 179(a):
(1) a finding that a State has failed to submit a SIP, a.
SIP element,’ r has submitted a SIP or SIP element
that does not satisfy the completeness criteria;
(2) that EPA disapproval of a SIP submission for a
nonattainment area based on its failure to meet one or
more elements required by the Act;
(3) a determination that the State has not made any other
submission, has made an inadequate submission (as
• required by the Act), or that EPA disapproves such a
submission; or . .
(4) a finding that a requirement of an approved plan is not
being implemented.
Section 110(m) grants EPA broad authority tp apply
either sanction listed in section 179(b) “ . . . at any time (or
at any time after) a finding . .“ under section 179(a) with
respect .tOi.. any portion of the State, with certain exceptions.
This me*i 1ndua is intended to address the application of
sanctioflwidet section 179. The section 179 sanctions apply
only to the area for, which a finding has been lade.
Aithpugh subsections (1)-(4) refer to findings,
determinations and disapprovals, for simplicity these four
actions will be referred to as “findings..”
‘. Since EPA does not intend to issue a list of such
elements per se, to. ensure that such findings are consistently
applied, fl dinqs. of failure to submit SIP elements should be
decided an a case by-case basis in conjunction with Headquarters.
The basis for the finding should be clear and well-supported.
-------
9.
Under section 11O(c)(l), EPA is required to promulgate a FIP
based on two types of findings:
(1) a.finding.that a State has failed to make a required
- submittal or that a submittal does not satisfy the
minimum completeness criteria established under section
llO(k)(1)(A), or
(2) the EPA disapproval of a SIP submittal in whole or in
-part.
The Sanctions and FIP Clocks
although EPA may make any of the findings discussed above to
trigger the 179(a) sanctions and 11O(c)(1) PIP requirements,
these findings do not require the immediate imposition of
sanctions or promulgation of a PIP. Instead the Act provides a
“clock” for sanctions and PIP’s. For plan submittals required
under Part D or in. response to a SIP call, section 179(a) allows
for up to 18 months for the State to correct the deficiency that
is the subject of a finding or disapproval before EPA is required
to impose sanctions. Section llO(c)(1) provides for up to
2 years . for the State to correct the deficiency and for EPA to
approve a new submittal before EPA is obligated to promulgate a
FIP.
The Administrator has delegated the authority to make
findings ‘of failure to submit to the RA’s. The findings are made
via letters from the RA’s to State governors or other State
officers to whom authority has been delegated. The letter itself
triggers the sanctions and PIP clocks. For disapprovals, the
Federal Reaister notice in which EPA takes final action triggers
the sanctions and PIP clocks. Findings of ñonimplementation have
traditionally been processed as rulemaking actions .hrough
Headquarters. The sanctions clock will start when EPA makes a
finding of nonimplementation in the Federal Reqister\after
solicitinq.Commeflt on the proposal (the PIP clock is ot
trigge $ b such a finding). Although the findings offailure
to sub tifld si disapproval start both the sanctions and PIP
•clocks, Lt i s required to stop the clocks differs; therefore,
they azidi$àussed separately. Note that in some cases the
sanctions clock may be stopped while EPA remains under an
obligation to promulgate a PIP.
S
Since the deficiency is a failure; to implement. after a State
has sub.itted a plan and EPA has approved it, it is unnecessary
for this finding to trigger a requirement that EPA develop the
required rule (i.e., prepare a PIP) and section 11O(c)(1) does
not require it.
-------
10
nctions Clock
Under section 179(a), in.order to stop the sanctions clock,
the State must correct the “deficiency” prompting the finding.
The EPA must apply one of the two sanctionS available under
section, 179(b) within 18 months after the date of the finding and
both sanctions at 24 months, unless the deficiency has been
correôted. Section 179(a) also requires EPA to apply both
sanctions after 18 months if EPA finds a lack of good faith on
the part-of the State.
Attachment 3 provides seven scenarios illustrating how the
sanctions clock operates, including examples of what constitutes
a deficiency correcti9fl (and hence a stopping of the clock).
In brief, ‘f or purposes of the sanctions clock, findings of
failure to submit plans or complete plans are corrected when EPA
finds the submittal complete’ (although the FtP clock is still
running (see ‘FIP clock discussion)] and disapprovals are
corrected when EPA takes final rulemaking action approving the
plan. In addition, findings of nonimplementation are corrected
when EPA makes a finding in. the Federal Register that the State
is now implementing that provision.
FTP Clock
Under the FIP provisions, either a SIP must be approved or
PIP must promulgated within 2 years of ‘one of the two findings
discussed above. In other words, ‘EPA must approve the. State
submittal in order to stop the FtP clock. Where the sanctions
and FIP clocks were started by EPA disapproval of a plan, the
clocks will run concurrently. In this case, to correct the
deficiency for purposes of the sanctions clock, the State must
make. a submittal which EPA finds approvable. Such a
determination is not made until EPA issues a final approval of
the plan.. Final, approval of a plan is also what i 8 needed to
stop the FTP clock. Attachment 3 provides seven scenarios of how.
the FTP clock operates. . . .
Where EPA made a finding of failure to submit and
subseguently finds t t the State has made a complete submittal
plan or plan. Lement that was the subject of the finding,
the. letter that. make; ‘the finding of completeness will notify the
State that the sanct. . r s clock is stopped as of the date of that
1ett . The Region nould periodically announce any such.
fIndings that represent corrections of failure tà submit in the
Federal Reaister
-------
11
Available Sanctions
For plan submittals required under Part D or in response to
a SIP call, if the State does not correct the specific deficiency
within the 18-month period allowed under seàtion 179(a), EPA must
apply at least one of the two sanctions available under section
179(b)’° as described:
(1) Highway funding Sanctions. The EPA may impose a
prohibition on the approval by the Secretary of
Transportation of certain projects, or the awarding of
certain grants.
(2) Offset sanctions. A ratio of at least 2—to—i will be.
required for emissions reductions within the
nonattainment area to offset emissions from new or
modified major facilities (as required under section
173).
Regions should ‘determine which of the sanctions will be applied
at the 18- and 24-month milestones on a case—by-case basis. As
discussed previously, EPA must apply both sanctions at the
18-month mark if it finds there is a lack of good. faith effort.
Such a determination should be made on.a case-by-case basis in
consultation with Headquarters.. In addition, once one of the
sanctions has been imposed, EPA must impose the second sanctions
if the deficiency has not been corrected within 6 months
(regardless of the State’s efforts). Headquarters will issue a
proposal! of the sanctions and the Regional Office will issue the
final rule imposing sanctions..
Conclusion
General comments on. this memorandum should be directed to
Pam Johnson àf the Regional Operations Branch at (919) 541-5270.
Comments related specifically to ozone or carbon monoxide should.
be directed to Carla Oldham at (919) 541-3347. Comments related
to. particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, or lead sh ould be directed
to Chris .StOneman at (919) 541-0823.
cc: ReqjOfi&l ir Counsels, Regions I-X
Chiif, Air Programs Branch, Regions I—X
Jane Armstrong, OMS (Ann Arbor)
William’ Becker, STAPPA/ALAPCO
Denise Devoe, OAQPS (ANR-443)
In addition’, section 179(a) provides for an ir
pollution grant sanction that applies to grants EPA may award.,
der section 10 ’5 ‘ However, since it ‘is not a sanction provided
under section 1.79Cb)., it is not one of the sanctions ‘EPA must
impose after the 18-month period.
-------
12
Toa He1 s,AQMD (MD-15)
Bill Laxton, TSD(MD—14)
Ed Lillis, AQMD (MD—15)
Rich Ossias, OGC (LE—132A)
Joe Paisie, AQMD (MD-15)
John Rasnic, SSCD (EN—341W)
John Seitz, OAQPS (MD—b)
Paula Van Lare, OMS (ANR-445)
Lydia Wegman, OAQPS (MD-b)
-------
AttaChment i.
Example 1
A State submits a SIP revision containing four rules: (1)
control requirements for bulk gasoline plants, (2) control
requirements for gasoline dispensing facilities (Stage I), (3)
leak detection requirements for gasoline tanks trucks, and• (4)
test methods that apply to these three rules. The EPA review of
the rules shows that al? of the rules except the Stage I rule
meet the applicable requirements of the Act. The Stage I rule
fails to require submerged fill loading for all storage tanks.
This is inconsistent with EPA’s RACT guidance and the State has
failed to propose an alternative that it has demonstrated is RACT
f or the applicable sources.
Partial ApDroval
Under the partial approval option, EPA can approve the rules
for bulk terminals and tank truck leaks, approve the test
methods, and disapprove the Stage I rule. These rules are
separable from the Stage I rule. Disapproval of the Stage I rule
does not affect the stringency of the other three rules.
Therefore, the other three rules may be approved under this
provision. However, the submittal as a whole would only be
partially approved.
Limited Aporoval of Stage I Rule
Under the limited approval approach, EPA could approve the
Stage I rule as being an improvement over what is currently in
the SIP and, at the same time or within a reasonable tjme after
the approval (but no later than 12 months after the submittal is
complete), disapprove the rule because it does not represent
RACT. The sanctions and FIP clocks would start upon the final
disapproval of the rule.
Conditronal Approval
Alternatively, EPA could conditionally approve he Stage I
rule if the State committed ‘to revise the rule, within 1 year of
the conditional approval, to require submerged fill loading. If
the State then failed to make such a revision, EPA would issue a
finding’GO Wertiflg the conditional approval to a disapprOval.
Example 2.
If in example’1 the first three rules (containing control
requirements) are all approvable but the fourth (containing the
test methods) is either deficient or has not, been submitted, then
the sai ittal would have to be handled differently. Because a
test method is critical in determining the stringency of a
contrul requirement and is needed for the requirements, to be
enforceable, these rules cannot be considered separable and,
therefore, partial approval would not be an option. In addition,
because the control requirements will not be enforceable without
a test method, it would. not be appropriate to use either the
limited or conditional approval approach.
-------
Example 3
A state submits a SIP revision that contains four PM—b
rules, two for controlling emissions of fugitive dust and two for
the control of residential wood combustion. The rules represent
reasonable available control measures (RAcM) and include (1)
paving or stabilizing unpaved roads, (2) developing a. traffic
reduction plan for unpaved roads, (3) a mandatory episode
curtailment program for residential w od combustion, and (4)
encouraging changeover to new source performance standards and
wood stoves. The third rule is deficient in that it does not
provide a communication strategy on which the curtailment program
is dependent.
Partial Approval
The EPA may approve the three rules which satisfy RACM but,
disapprove the episode curtailment program as failing to meet the
RACM requirement. These rules are, separable because disapproval
of the curtailment program will not have any effect on the
stringency or enforceability of the remaining rules.
Limited ApDroval . . .
The EPA may approve.the episode curtailment plan as
strengthening the SIP by providing enforceable measures in a SIP
which currently has no, curtailment program. At the same time, or
within a reasonable time after the approval. (but no later than 12
months after the submittal is complete), EPA must disapprove the
rule as not representing RAcM. Final disapproval of the rule
‘would start the sanctions and FIP clocks.
Conditional Aoproval . ‘
The EPA may. cOnditionally approve the rule if th State
submits a commitment to submit a revised rule within 1 year of
the approval. If the State then failed to make such a revision,
- EPA would issue a finding converting the conditional’ approval to
a ‘disapproval.’ ,
-------
Attachment 2
Typs of Approval
SeparabiLtty
.
Commitment
Act
Requirements
SIP
Strengthening
W I
P i-tjel
.
--
rules must be
separable
.
no commitment
necessary
.
-
part to be
approved
must meet
all
applicable
requirements
.
part to be
approved must
strengthen
the SIP
Limited
•
‘
.
.
deficient
portion of
submittal is
not separable
no commitment
necessary
.
does not
have- to meet
all
applicable
requirements
submittal as
a whole must
strengthen
the SIP
.
Conditional
.
•
deficiant
portion of
submittal is
not separable
State must
commit to -
correct within
1 year
does not
have to meet
all
applicable
requirementá
submittal as
a whole must
strengthen
the SIP
-
-------
Attachment 3: Sanctions and PIP Clocks Scenarios
Scenario 1 : The EPA receives a SIP and finds it incomplete
prior to the statutory due date of the SIP.
Although a finding that the State submitted an incomplete
SIP is one of the section 179(a) findings, the sanctions and PIP
clocks will not begin to run until after a submittal is due.
This is because the finding must be based on the failure to
submit a complete required SIP or SIP element and the submittal
is not required until it is due’under the statute. If a SIP
submitted prior to a due date is still incomplete by the due
date, then EPA will notify the State by letter that the plan
remains incomplete and that the 18-month sanctions clock, and ‘the
2-year PIP clock have started.
Scenario 2 : The EPA receives a SIP and finds it incomplete on
or after the statutory due date of the SIP.
If EPA receives a SIP and finds it incomplete pursuant to
section 110(k) on or after the statutory due date of the SIP,
then, as in scenario 1, the State has failed to make a complete,
submittal’ under section 179(a). The EPA will’ ‘notify the State by
letter that the plan is incomplete and that the 18-month
sanctions clock and the 2-year PIP; clock have started.
Scenario . : The EPA receives no submittal at the due date.
If EPA receives no’ submittal from a State to meet a
statutory due date, then it may make a finding of failure to
submit uflder section l79(a)(l), triggering the 18-month sanctions
clock and the 2-year PIP clock.
Scenario 4 : After the due date, EPA receives a SIP for which
it originally, made a finding of failure to submit.
Upon receiving the plan, the sanctions clock will continue
to ‘run during, the completeness review and be stopped .f EPA finds
the plan complete and continue if EPA finds the ‘plan incomplete.
If the 18 onths elapse during the time EPA is doing its
completefl ’ review, EPA will ‘not impose sanctions unless it
determinE4 ’the plan incomplete. If sanctions have been imposed
prior t ;, ‘State’s submittal, ‘the sanctions will remain in
place unt’t’tEPA determines the submittal complete.
The PIP clock continues to run while EPA makes its
compieteness determination. ‘ ‘ ,
5( fl Yjo 5: The EPk originally makes finding of ,failure to
submit, then receives a siP, finds it complete,
but disapproves it in final rulemaking.
Upon a determination that the SIP is complete, the State
corrects the deficiency that prompted the finding of nonsubmittal
and the sanctions clock stops. A new sanctions clock will start’
-------
upon the final SIP disapproval rulemaking. The new sanctions
clock will not stop until EPA has taken final action to approve
the revised SIP submittal.
Even after the submittal is determined to be complete, EPA
remains under obligation to promulgate a PIP. Therefore, the
disapproval of the SIP does not start a new pIp clock.
Scenario 6 : The EPA originally makes a finding of failure to
submit, then receives a SIP, finds it complete,
and approves it in final rulemaking.
Upon a determination that the SIP is complete, the State
corrects the deficiency prompting the finding of nonsubmittal and
the sanctions clock stops. The EPA remains under obligation to
promulgate a YIP until EPA takes final rulemaking action to
approve the SIP.
Scenario 7 : The EPA finds that a State has ‘failed to implement
a SIP or SIP provision.
The EPA will make a finding of nonimplemeñtation in the
Federal Register ‘after soliciting comment on the proposal. The
sanctions clock will start upon EPA taking final action and stop
when EPA makes a finding in the Federal Register after notice—
and-comment rulemaking that the State has corrected the
deficiency that prompted the finding. A finding of
nonimplementation does not start a PIP clock.
-------
4 1 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 165 / Monday. August 28. 1991 / Ru1e and Regulations
ENViRONMENTAl. PROTECTION
&GENCY
to CFR P .1 51
(FRL-391$-41
State Implementation Plan
Completenesi Criteria
AG8NCY Environmental Protection
• Agency.
* iioi Final rulemaking .
suu am The aean Air Act (Att)
Amendm’nts of 1990(1900
Amendments) require the Adniinlstrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to promulgate minimum criterl a
that any plan mibmiulon must meet In
order to be considered a complete State
implementation plan (SIP) submission.
The Act requires that such criteria be
promulgated by August15. 1991. ThIs
rulein Ir 4 mug notice satisfies the statutory
requirements by promulgating an Initial
set of SIP completeness criteria.
0AT90 This action becomes effective
September 25, 1991..
AuORIUS& Materials relevant to this
rulemaking have been placed in Docket
No A-el-li by EPA and are available
rc Inspection and copying at the
blowing address between 8 am. and 12
noon and t30 p.m. and 3:30p.m.,
Monday through FrldaI at EPA Air:
Docket (12—131). room M .l500, Qound
floor Waterside Mall 4tfl M Street,
SW., Wuhlngtàn, DC 460. The EPA
may charge a reasonable fee for
copying.
Additionally. thepublic Is advised
that Public Docket No ’*-86-18 Is the
docket that was estab1i th’ 1 for the.
original completeness cnteria that were
promulgated by EPA on February 16.
1990 (55 FR 5824). The background
materials that were placed In that
• docket may be of lathe reader
FOR PUR1HER NFOI1Is C0NTACT:
Denise Certh. Office salty
Plannlflg and S • . 15). U.S.
Environmental . Agency.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
Telephone (919) 541-5550 ot (Fl ’S) 629—
5550.
SUPPtLMEIITARY U4FORMATION
Proposed Rulemaking
On May 24. 1991 (56 FR 23826), EPA
published the SIP completeness criteria
proposed rulemaking. The reader Is
referred to that document (or detailed
information on the completeness
criteria.
Statutocy Requirements of ( lain Air Ad
The 1990 Amandments established
section llfl(kXl) which requires & to
establish completeness criteria £àj$tate
plan submissions. Following are
specific requirements that the. 1900.
Amendments set forth In requlilug.
completenes criteria.
L Completeness of Plan Submissions
The 1990 Amendments established
section 1l0(kXl ) . which requires EPA to
develop and promulgate completeness
criteria not later than August 15. 1991.
The completeness criteria are to be the
minimum criteria that any plan
submission must meet before the
Aehnini4trator is required to take
nilemaklng action on such submission.
The criteria are to be limited to the
Information necessary to enable the
MminI trator to determine whether the
plan submission càmplies with the
provisions of the Act.
Z Completeness F inding
The Act requires . that within 60 days
of the MininLetrator ’s receipt of a plan
or plan revision, but no later than 6
months after the date by which a State
is required to submit the pLan or plan
revision, the Administrator shall
determine whether the completeness
criteria have been met. If the
Administrator has not made a
• When1thubeendetermined! ythe
A Iin(n1atrator (or when a determination
• Is made by default) that a State has
submitted a plan or plan revision that
meets the minimum completeness
criteria, the Act requires the
Administrator to approve, partially
approve, or disapprove the submission
wi thin 12 months after a completeness
determination is made (or a submission
is deemed complete by operation-of-
law).
Redesignatlons
The completeness criteria
promulgated on February 26.1990.
applied to redesignatlon requests as
well as SIP revisions. Under the 1990
Amendments. however. redesignations
are subject to section 107(d)(3)(Dl rather
than to section 110 (k).The EPA is,
therefore. not required to promulgate
coaipteteaesscrlteria or make
completeness determinations on
redesignatlons.
The EPA has determined, however.
that, pursuant to Its general ruleniakiiig
authority of section 301(a) of the Act
Completeness Criteria Under SW • • completeness determi .ation by 8
Reforms, months after receipt of the submission.
Prior to passage of the 1990 • that submission shall on that date be
Amendments. EPA adopted considered to have met the minimum
completeness criteria under section • criteria (section 110(k )(1)(B)).
301(a) of the Act on it s own initiative A finding that the State has failed to
part of an overall effort to reform r ,p submit a complete revision may have
processing within the Agency. On other effect.. A determination that a SIP
February 16.1990(55 FR 5824). EPA .. .. . submission I. incomplete may trigger the
promulgated completeness review. - . • sanctions provisions of the 1990
criteria for SIP submittal.. The. .. Amendments (ses section 17 a)(1)J.
completeness criteria describetthe -, ... In the propàal. EPA stated its
• . procedures for assessing whetbà S • . ellmIna1y Interpretation that section
submittal was adequate to trl90er the 110(k) also required EPA to make a
Act requirement that EPA review and -. . completeness determination withIn 6
take action on the submittal. The • month. df’the date by which a State was
completeness criteria were one of the .. required to submit a plan revision, even
SIP reform measures that were. • If the State aster submitted the revision.
announced on January 19. 1989(54 FR -. Upon further reflection In light of the
2214) by EPA in the Notice of ii s .: .nm# .nts received . EPA concludes that
Changes. The reader Is referred tO th.M . ft Is not required to m.k . a
notice. for detailed Information on.. completeness determination with
EPA ’s SIP processing reform inIftatlv4s . respect to a plan revision that the State
The completeness altirla that are failed to submit Rather, EPA condudes
appendix V of part 51 provIde procedur, thatsectfon 110(k) applIes only to
and screening criteria which enable • iubmltted plan revisions.
States to prepare adequate S W
submittal. and enable EPA reviewers to.- . EfJbCt Of F!aiding
promptly screen SIP submittala, 1dsn .. When edeterinlostion has bean made
those that are Incomplete. and . that a submittal is complete, 1he
them to the State for correcthaCUcn . • Administrator Is required to adon the.
without having to go through. •.- submittal wsd iJ 110(k). When
rui.vne ldng . • . - the Mnthm .t*ator deLir , .1n that a
____ plan snbmni..lon (or part thereof ) does
not meet the plet macq criteria, the
State shall be treated as not having
made the si ’••,
Dw 1t ’ for tion on Plan
-------
ga j es / VoL 58. f o. 185/ Monday. August 26. 1991 I Bales a Rulationa
and as necessary to impitnuent the
requirement.’ of section W7(d)(3UDL it is
appropriate to continue applying the
completeleU mterk to redeslinaflon
req sesti . Section 1 i3 31 I3J requires
EPA to’act on couipllto redesignatlon
requests within aesths of receipl. but
does not specify how EP&13 to
determine completeness. AIthoug not
mandated by sectlOn lO7tdX3W)1. EPA
will use the cntetia to determine When a
State haa made a cou lete
redesf atton requests to efgger the
requh’.me ts of that se on.
C.. , -tsj c 1-u -
The iI9 Amendmente reqake EPA to
pw..-¼ite GI la1eIIUa lI .tL by
A t.1 SI The &st.step EPA took
was teeselew the e,iinting wIJQPSse
criteria to d t 1 tmLt . (these 4tcifi met
the req efreme o*ao(ie afl0(k)(flof
the Ad. The EPA
reviewed the Pebmary II , 1900atte,le
agatosi reqáemeMs to the Ad se
____ Tb. EPA be eves that the
e,dsth criteria. with uw
ma adaon desatbed L satisfy.
the fequJ.i. w,ents of es
A ‘-S
L ThneF1’nmeforMnk Dga
Completeness Detem,inatfon
The February 16 1990 Federal
compLeta an I M Md EPA.
i $nt to $
deterni1na w witI 43 aye of receipt
of a subni ’ - ‘The 1991 Auian.h ..nts .
ho.. . . . .. . require the Mm4nis abw to
make a completeness erm1nadoo on
a plan wl 60 days of
FPAs receipt d* plan or plan reejeion.
but no later than 6’qtonths afterthe date
by which thà State tha required to
submit the plan or revision. The 1990
Amendments further n h ta that
should the Administrator fail to make a
cozupietenesi deter n *4 ” within S
months of receipt a plan s b ,ni ’*.i& i
the suborlssim w Ri*.toniadcally be
deemed co te 7operat1oo of law on
that date. Coa QR t 51.
appendix V. pars spb 1.2, Is being
revised to Include both the 60-day and 6-.
month time frames.
2 Parogn,,ph 2 .2 . Techniccl &ipport.
Appendix V ..
Section liSA of the Act is a new
section whlth require, that a State
request under section 1O (d) of the Act.
for redesignatlon of an ares from
nonatt inmerd to attalnz t for any
primary neticrai ambient air quality
standard (NAA ). must also lzrhid a
maintenance plan demo r t .
maintenance of the relevant NAAQS (or
at least 10 years after redes*giatiois.
Although section iiO(k)(l). Completeness
of Plan Submissions, does not address
maintenance plen for section lO7 d)
redesignatlons. EPA believes that
section 1O7 dX3 D? and fE) provides the
Agency authority to preecnbe that a
redesignation request will not be
COnsidered axuplete (and hence will not
trigge required EPA action) 1114 does
not indede, ‘among other things, a
maintena plan meeting the
requirements of sec oa liSA.
Consequently, appendix V of the
completeness crileth is being revised by
lding language to paragraph 2.2(dl
indicating that the States are required to
submit a maintenance plan meeting the
requirements of section 175A when a
request for redesignatlon to attainment
of the primary NAAQS is submitted for
apprucalto EPA.
RespanestoC a ts
Two aiii n.,.A . . ..esbmjtted Goa uIP ’1te
to EPA on the May24 proposaL to
response to a - ---- .-a’ on the r1r a of
ina,mplets subintttais to a Stats, EPA 1*
— paragraph 1.1. Specificehly. the
i-hangs wlida bet uponrutwaàf
an incomplete submittal tos Stat., EPA
will Identify absent or h1ffi1!1 4
components of the submission In all
cases. In response to the other
comments. EPA did not deem it
necessaxytofartherrevlsethe
completeness’ criteria. Following Is a
snmmary of the áomme”ts and EPA ’s
responses to them.
1.80-Day. 6-Month Tithe Fnvnes
Comment Two commenters
questioned whether EPA will ma1
completeness determinations within 60
days of receipt of a submission or if EPA
will waitS months after the date the
State was required to submit the plan or
revision. Additionally, the commenters
asked about the timing in which EPA
would make completeness
determinations on SiP revi ions that are
submitted before their due date, and the
timing in which EPA would make
determinations on SIP revisions that are
submitted on their due date. Finally, the
commenters asked if the 6.month time
frame applied If the State did not submit
• a required plan.
Response: It is EPAs intent to
comport with section 1lO(k)(l) of the
amended Act which states that EPA is
required to make completeness
determInations 60 days after receipt of a
plan or plan revision. Section 1lO(kXl)
further states that EPA will make
compLeteness determinations no later
S. than6rnonthsaftcrthedateby whiCha
State is required to submit a plan or
placer’.’ T. : ‘.‘
lan e to mean. e.g.. that if a State
submit.s a required plan or plan
4—S months after the du . date. EPA’.
required to make a completeness
determination by the 3-month date. If —
situatioiiOCaIts Wh raS4ate does oat
submit a required plan or plan reviiioa
until close to 6 months after th. due
date. however. EPA has no other option
but to make a completeness finding as
soon as possible. The EPA anticipates.
however, that such a determination will
not exceed 60 days after receipt of a
submittal. The EPA does not Interpret
this part of the statute as allowing the
Agency to wait to make cothpleteness.
determinations until 6 month* from
receiptofaplanorplanrevWon.
Rath r . If a State submilt a required
plan or plan revision on the due date or
earlier. EPA plans to make a
completeness de inatlon 60 day.
after receipt of the revision. Irrespective
of when the State w .Lwtt a plan or plan
r 1akm with respect to the i u & due
da thepnOtbedeemedtobe
complcte . by operstldn-0 14 1W. untiI
macthe M the receipt d* by EPA.
Finally, as explained aboee o EPA now
coudndes t section 11 0 ( k) doe, not
apply at ii to vWons thata State fails
2 Return of IncomplsAs &ibaritta1s.t
Suite ; :‘:
CornTc ’
questioned whether paragraph .1.1 of the
completeness criteria required EPA to
identify absent or insufficient
components of the plan or revisions
when a submittal was returned to the
State. The coinmenters felt that the
wording in paragraph 1.1 could be
mlsint preted to Imply that EPA would
provide that informAtion only when
corrective action has been requested.
Response: The meaning of the
wording in paragraph 1.1 of the
completeness criteria is that upon retutn
of an incomplete submittal to a State.
EPA will identify the deficiencies in alt
cases. In order to clarify EPA s intent.
the wording in 1.1 is being revised to
read as follows:
The A shall return to the submit tin 5
official any plan or revisiqn thereof w+uch
fails to meet the criteria set forth in this
appendix V. and request corrective ction.
• identifying the componentts) sb.ent or
inscifident to perform a rev ew of the
submitted plan.
3. Relationship of the SIP to the
Operuting Permit
Comment Two’cocnmenteJI state4
the level of detail requited in tht
completeness criteri wou’d undemti
-------
4fl1* Federal Righter / VoL 56 Na. 165 / ?fonday. August 26,1991 / Rules and Regulations
iermit program. and, that EPA should
lirninita u ’muda detail from SIP’s as
oulbls. The comment quáted from
the operating permit pru è&ad mis,
specifically comparing S W
submission, to policy d knnIng
d 1 ments . The felt that
EPA ihould revise the comp1et n.ss
atterfa to remove specific detailed
re re n M! eparegraph 2.Z(b) (c),
(e}, ( - .
that sbzi rmq fre ata.stata
to su it.vid cSth*t the State has
finaLform , Tb. comment wonton to.:
saythafdu .lpermits.r .
— Into the S W . every tn ’
changs to a.parmlt would require a SW
Rejpesa Ths ’A Isle the process
of looking at what àhould be apyuv4
— th.SWProcesa vs. what should
be the operating —.
p ugram.Tha peratingpermft rule that
wpubllshed.oeMay,10,19S1 wise
pxupos$ rule, wlack h.Agency.
uked far pubijo t onthat and
other lis e . ntiltheEPA. how!ve
promulgates a final operating permit.
- the SIP cienpL t ia , alteds will
tend a. the athrla th t States will
ave to meet when submitting pfsns or
plan revisions to EPA fo ap 1 vaL
After the operating permit rule 1s
promulgited, EPA may re-examini the
SIP cornpkfenes . alterta and revise
them U necesury to be consistent with
the permit ride. Finally, the Agenày must
promulgate a final completeness rule
now because the 1990 Amendm.nts
• require EPA to promulgate mlrdmmn
completeness alterla b y, August 13,
1991. .
The language In paragraph 2.1(b) that
requIred the State to include evidence
that the State has Issued a permit refers
to permits not Issued under an approved
permitting program Ilk. thsWl. V
operating permit progr9 ’Appruved
permitting programs i indude title
V operating permit section
165 prevention of s1gnIff ’’ .
deterioration permit programs, section
173 nonattninment new source review
permit programs. and operating permit
prägrams approved as meeting the
• requirements for Federal enforceability
outlined at 54 FR 27285 , 27299 (lune 28,
1989). IndIvidual permlts that a State
wants incorporated into its SW that are
not part of an approved permit program
iust be submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision. Once EPA ha. approved a
permitting program. lndlvldu5l permits
issued under such programs do not have
to be incorporated into the SIP.
4. Contiauo is Emission Reduction
Technology -
Comment One comnienter requested
that EPA clarify the term “cO tinuous
emlulon reduction tethnolo which Is
in paragraph 2.2(fl of the completenee$
aiterta.
Rezionse Generally, a reaufr .
for EPA approval a le mulàdeveloped to
reduce pollution Is that controls required
bythatmebel placethrgu outthe..
cal.Mu year (or relivant control:
period),’e.g.. volatile orgsnio compoincfr
(VOC) reasonably available control’
ted nolo , rides. It is not the purpose ot
this m u l em2lth lg to qualify the
requirements far.contlnuous emission.
reêuctfo.i requfr ents. &ith
requirements are Imposed elsewhere In
th, statute, e.gq seãilon 123 (stittnnuy.
so . rce controls). section 211(m)
(oxygenated fuels). Paragraph Z2(f ) .
therefore, merely requires the State’ .’
submit evidence, where necessary bp’
virtue of separate statutory
requirements as interpreted b EPA, that
emission limits are based on continuous;
emission reduction technology (that the
emission controls or reductiofl pTecdces’
äper te conthreously). :, :.:: :1
£ EPA Poiciis vs. Ragulatiorw
Comment One oomm”ter su ested
that the ward polides referenced In
paragraph 2.20) be replaced with the
word “regulatlás” since the oummenter
felt thatnot aUEPA pollcles are widely
known and applied.
Response: The EPA Regional Offices
! responsible for ensuring that Agency
policies and regulations are distributed
•totháStateendlocala lrpoilut lon
control agencies for their use as they are
developed. The Regional Offices work
closely with their counterparts in the
State and local agencies to ensure that
SIP submlttals are consistent with
Agency policies and regulations.
Consequently, since EPA policies often
clarify regulatory and statutory
requirements. the EPA intends to retain
the language in paragraph 2.2(1). Upon
• reviewing section 2.2(1). however, EPA
has concluded that the section could be
read as requiring, in a regulatory sense.
technical justifications that EPA has
requested only as a matter of policy. The
EPA has, therefore. amended the section
• to require, for purposes of completeness.
that the State either submit the
requested justification or an explanation
of why such justification would not be
appropriate In the specific
circumstances and therefore should not
be required under the policy.
lAutharfty
The EPA Is promulgating these
completenen criteria a. they apply to
plan submls’lcns under the authority of
section 11O(kXl)(A). which specifically
requires EPA to promulgate such,
criteria. Additionally. EPA Is
promulgating the completeness criteria
as they apply to sect lon l07
redesigzaatlon requests under sections
1O7(d)(3) and 301(a) of the Act.
The EPA originally had promulgated
the’ rdstlflg completeness criteria on
February *1990 um4 ” the general
authority of section 301(aXl) of the pre-
ern i’ded Ad. That section authorized
the A Inistrator to promulgate such
regulatione U are necessary to carry out
hil fnn *w nn the Ad. The ‘A.
concluded that It was usces .jy to
p miuIgeta cnmplet.n., , criteria to
nnable the Agency to cemy out Its
rupoil1IbthtIes tO TOOW SW:
submlsslonik a timely f h1 i ’
Th. amended Act Includes ipecific
• authority in section 110(kXl) th t
mandates EPA to p 1 -- g.te “ “ 1 um
for d t .Jnhig comple’ente . of,
plan subinlu The EPA beliâes that
this actfrwi seH.ff.s the requirement of
section iiO(k)(1) of the 1990
Amanih, .nte at this
The EPA Is - .mulgitthg these
un.ndm.nts to the completeness
criteria that were published on February
16,1990 as required by section
110(kXIXA) of the Act. The EPA
believes that the compLiteness criteria
that were published on February 16,
1990, wIth some mln changes that are
described above, meet the requirements
of the Act at this time. The EPA Intends
to continue to review the basic
provisions of the Act and. If appropr ate.
will amelid these minimum criteria.
‘Because of the myriad of Act,
requirements imposed an EPA and the
States. upon detailed analyses of the
Act and develOpment of the title V
operating permit program. EPA may
publish a subsequent rule(s) outlining
additional completeness requirements.
Athn n ”tratlve Requirements
The docket L i an organized and
completi file of all the Information
considered by EPA in the developn ent
of these completeness criteria. The
docket Is a dynamic file because
material is added throughout the notice
preparation and comment process. The
docketing system Is intended to allow
members of the public and industries
involved to identify and locate
documents so that they can effectively
oarticipet. ‘ tb’ “ --‘. ‘ 11 ., pt’bLic
-------
Feders Register / VoL 58, No. 165 I Monday.. August_28. 1991 / Rule and Regulations
4 19•
docket number for this rulemaking
action Is A-el-it Additionally, the
docket for the complVr s . criteria that
EPA promulgated TslirWy miggo
(55 FR 58Z ) nzayalrnbs o Interest to
the reader that do t nm, her Is A-88-
Section 317 (a) of the Act 42 U.S.C.
7817 (a). states that economic Impact
a sc smenti are required for revisions
to standardS or regulations when’ th.
Admlnlilrator determines s revisions
to be substantiaL Th. changes described
today do not i 4 uinge the substantive
requlreeiants for preparing and
submitting an adequate Wpat kag .
The completeness aiterla meraly
herniae those components of a SW
.dbmlttal that must be included to.
enable EPA to determine that a
submlttal’meets the requirements
Imposed by various other previsions In
t a Act. No 1n rease In cost u a result
of complying with the ehang , described
today Is expected: moreover, the
• monitorth recordkeepthg and reporting
requirementg have been determined to
be InsubstantiaL Because the expected
economic effect of the changes Is not’
substantiaL no detailed economic
— assessment has been prepared.
Under Executive Order ) 1 9 ’
EPA I. required to judge whetheran
action La “major” and, therefore, subject
to the requirement of a regulatory
deteimbied that the changes to the SIP
completeness atterf a being announced
todaywouldresult lnnoneof the
significant adverse economic effects set
forth In section 1(b) of the E.O. u
grounds foil finding of “ma}or.” The
Agency has, theiefore, concluded that
this action Is not,a ‘majOI ’ action under
E.O. 12 1. This rule was submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget
(0MB) for review under E.O. lflgl. A
copy of the draft rule as submitted to
0MB, any documents accompanying the
draft, any written comment received
from other agencies (including 0MB),
and any written responses to those
comments have been included In the
docket.
The Regulatory flexibility Act of 1960,
5 U.S.C 801-812, requIres the
ldentlflc*tlon of potentially adverse
Impacts of Federal actions upon muill
business entities. The Act requires the
compLetion of a regulatory flexibility
analysis for every action unless the
Alministrator certifies that the action
will not have a slgr’fficant ec nomlc .
impact on a ubs*antl I number of small
entities. For the reasons described
above relating to the impactof this rule,
I hereby certify that the final rule will
• not have a sIg Ificsnt impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
list of Subjects In 40 R Part 51
• Mmlnlitratlve practice and
procedure: Air pollution controi
Reporting and recordkëeping
requirements.
Datsé August19, 1991.
F. Hanry P . 1 ” ’t
AcilngAdmieJslmfor.
TItle 40 Code of Federal Regulations,’
•p g 51. is ameiiAed as follows:
i. ma authority citation for part 51 Is
traadufoflows:
PAT S1—(AMENOED)
Autbórfty 42 U.S.C. 4O1(b)(1 ) . 7407(d).
7410(kXl). 74704 5,7501—7501 and 7 801(s).
2. Part 51. appendIx V, Is amended by
revising paragraphs 1.1,1.2 . and 2.2(d)
and (I) to read as follows:
Appandix V, Criteria for Determlnir.
the Completenees of Plisi Subinlss
a. . a a
UThEPA eturn to the subad
offidal any plan or revision thereof which
fails to meet the oriteris set forth In this
appendix V. and request corrective action.
Identifying the component(s) sbseni or
nsufflc i snttopud o sm a review of the
sub 1ttqd plan.
U 1 EPA shall Inform the submitting
offldal whether or not a plan SUb ”4IsiOQ
see requirements of this appendix V
Within O4ayi of EPA’s recoipt of the
submittaL bat no later thani mouths after tin
data by whish the Statewu required to
submit the plan or revisIon. Is completeness
deteminidon Is not made byS mouths from.
ecelptola.ubmittaL the submittal shall be
“ . t;1 aen$ete by operation of Law on the
date S “ths from jvoutpt A determination
of “ i ’mphetesess nuder this paragraph means
that the sub.””a Is an 0 ffii I submission
fo pwpoIeso1l5l1
a •• • S
2.2’’ • (d) The State’s da’ u tratlon
that the national sub”' ’ air quality
standards. prevention of slg ’1nt
detedmadon inaeman reasunable hether
p U 5 dam ’uatratloa . and Wbtht7. as..
apphlrahls . are protected If the plan Is
iy u r.rud end lmhjISIimted. Email r.qnest
. to,, 1a r .ste ‘an ares to a” ”’t a
national a’y ambi”' ’ air quality’
Standard. under . eetlon 1W of th. Ad.
revision artist be to pravids
“ “'‘ of the utlocil primary a
afrqua l lty.tmida rdsfcratkaat lOyei
a UdtheAcL
(I) Spatial economic and technological
justIfications requlred by any applicable EPA
polities. or e p1n Ua u why such
justifications are’neceuary.
a •. • • •
(FR Dec. 9l- 399 Fil.d 8-23-01 &45 ..mj
uuem Coos use v
-------
L- ’ , _<_
t\fl’E ST• TE5 E\\ ER’)\’ E\TAL PR )iF:r [ 4j\ \(;Ev\
_________ ‘ .\S1 L\ ;i’ \. t ).C. 2O4F )
LL 22 1992
OFFIC Q
MEXOR.ANDUI4 J* A?.O * OE flO .
SUBJECT: Guidelines for State ImplementationPian (SIP)
Submittals Due November 15, 1992
FROM: Michael H.
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics.
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Ai.r and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires numerous SIP submittal.S by
November 15, 1992. The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss
the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) guidelines for the
State submittals. The major focus of this memorandum is on ozone
and carbon monoxide nonattainment area submittals.
In general, the CAA requires and EPA expects States to
submit fully-adopted and technically and administratively
complete SIP’s and SIP elements by November. 15, .1992. However,
in some limited circumstances that merit special consideration
EPA may accept committal SIP’S. Under section 110(k) (4) of the
CAA, EPA may approve a SIP revision submittal that consists of a
commitment by the State——i.e., a committal SIP-—to adopt specific
enforceable measures within I year of the promulgation of EPA’S
conditional, approval of the commitment. The EPA believes that
such acomxnlttal SIP is acceptable only in limited circumstances.
The EPA’S rationales for accepting.S 1Ch committal SIP’S are
specific to the type of. program area submittal. In most cases
EPA’S rationale for accepting a committal SIP appears in the
“General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990” 57 FR 13498 (April 1.6, 1992))
(,GeneraX Preamble). In other cases , EPA may provide such a
rationale in. subsequent supplements to the General Preamble or
other guidance.
-------
2
For such program areas, as i’dentified in the attached table
EPA will accept a commitment submitted under section llo(k)(4)
which a State would commit to develop and adopt a specific
enforceable SIP element within 1 year of the promulgation of
EPA’s conditional approval of thecommittal SIP. Ifthe
commitment is to adopt an entire rule or set of rules, the
commitment must be a SIP revision submittal- by the State. As
with any SIP revision, in order for EPA to accept the commitment
as a SIP revision, the State must have provided notice and public
hearing on the submittal commitment consistent with sections
110(a) (2) and 110(1) of the CAA ’and 40 ’CFR. S 51.102.’ The
committal SIP must include the basis for the conditional
-approval. If EPA stated a rationale for potentially granting a
conditional- approval in the General Preamble, then the committal
SIP should be based on this same rationale. In other cases,
Headquarters will advise the Regions as to the rationale that
should be used. The committal SIP should’ also include a State
work plan detailing any specific measures to be adopted, the
steps. that will be taken to adopt the measures, and the schedule
for adoption of those measures. However, for inspection and
maintenance (I/M) programs, EPA expects the States to submit a
schethile for implementation of such programs.
If a State’s submission contains all of the items above, EPA
would then consider conditionally approving the State’s ‘committal
SIP through notice and comment rulemaking.. As specified in
section 110(k) (4), the State would be required to submit the
fully-adopted plan within 1 year. of the promulgation of the
éonditional approval of the committal SIP unless EPA establishes
•a more stringent deadline (e g., EPA is proposing in its I/K
regulation that fully-adopted SIP’s covering 1/14 progz!ams-be
submitted to ‘EPA no later than November 15, 199-3, regardless of
when EPA takes action on the 1/14 committal SIP’s).
The attached table lists.the pràgram areas for which a SIP
is due by November 15, 1992, including both the areas for which a
full submittal is expected and the areas for which EPA will
accept a committal SIP, the section of the General Preamble which
more specifically describes the detailed requirements of each.
submittal where applicable, and the staff person to contact for
more information. The EPA expects,’ States to be following the
public hearing requirements contained in sections 110(a) (2) and
110(1) of the CAA’and 40 CFR S 51.102 for all program areas
listed in the attached table prior to submission to EPA on
November 15, 1992, except for emissions inventories. A separate
memorandum addressing the public hearing requirements for
‘To the extent that there is insufficient time to. adequately
complete this process prior to’ the November 15, 1992 deadline,
one option is ‘to parallel process. the commitment, SIP.
-------
3
emissions inventàries will be distributed within the next few
weeks.
If a State fails to make a submittal by the November 15,
1992 dea4lifle, EPA will consider whether a section 179(a) finding
of failure to submit a SIP or element of a SIP is appropriate.
In cases where EPA does make such finding, then the 18-month
clock for purposes of imposing one of the two sanctions provided
for in section 179(b) will begin upon the date that EPA makes a
finding. This action also activates the 24-month period for
Federal implementation planpromulgation. In addition, in the
case of new source review SIP deadlines, EPA will consider other
corrective measures (see, e.g., General Preamble, 57 FR 13555-
56).
I hope that this informatiOn will be helpful to you in
guiding your States in the development of the SIP submittals.
Please share this information with your States and appropriate
local agencies. For further information please contact Sheila
Holman of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (919-
541—0861) or Jane Armstrong of the Office of Mobile Sources (313-
668—4471).
Attachment
cc: Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
3. Armstrong, OMS
W. Becker, STAPPA/ALAPCO
3. Calcagni, AQMD
E. Claussen, OAIAP
0. Devoe, OAQPS
T. Helms, AQMD
S. Hitte, AQMD
W. Laxton, TSD
E. Lillis, AQMD
P. Lorang, OIlS
B. Nicholson, AQMD
B. Nussbaum, OIlS
R. Ossias, OGC
J. Paisie, AQMD
J. RasniC, SSCD
J. Seitz, OAQPS
L. Wegman, OAQPS
D. Wilson, OHS
-------
Major Required State Submittals Due By November 15, ‘19921
Submittal Fuli
‘ Submittal
Expected
committal
SI? under
section
110(k) (4)
Relevant
General
Preamble
Section
Skiff Ceatacs
.
‘
Nonatlainment Areas
‘ ‘ ‘ X IH. ’A.2.a. David Misenhcimcr
‘ ‘ - ‘ ‘ : 919-541-5473
- ‘ ‘
‘ ‘ ‘
‘ X
‘
UI.A.2.c.
Mary Ann Warncr-Sclph
919.541-1192
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
requirements, lower applicability
(or NO 1 in ozone nonatLsinrncnl
‘ ‘
‘
‘
.
in the General Preamble
.
‘
X ,
‘
‘
‘ ‘
‘
‘
.
‘
,
X 4
‘ ‘ ‘
llI.A.2.i
IlI.A.3.i.
l ll.A.4.c.
llIA.5.c.
flI.A.6.c.
1 11.6.
.
.
Bill Lamason
919-541-5374 -
‘
‘
-
‘.
.
‘Conformity SIP requirements arc not covàred in this table. The Act required EPA to promulgate conformity regulations requiring States .0 submit SIPs by 11/15/92,
The EPA has not yes promulgated such regulations. When EPA promulgates the regulations, EPA wilt provide States with adequate lime to adopt and submit SIP rcvisions,
such as 1 year. States are not required to make any submission until EPA promulgates the regulations and establishes a SIP lubmittal daic.
‘States can submit their emissions inventories November 15, 1992 prior to the completion ol the public hearing and adaption, process. The EPA wilt allow St4tc S to
complete the public bearing and adoption process prior to the submittal o(thc rate 01 progress plan (plan (or IS percent reduction in VOC emissions due November 15.
1993). ‘
‘Although this table lists submittals due November 15, 1992, note that NSR SIP’s for PM 10 ire due June 30, 1992.
l’hè EPA may consider (except in cases wherc a section I IO(a)(2)(1) construction ban is in place due to lack 01 an adcquacc NSR program or where an area docs not
have a previously approved NSR programs granting a conditional approval under section I lO(k)(4) it the State submittal contains she following provisions: I) ncw offset
requirements. 2) lower applicability thresholds, 3) new provisions (or NOx and 4) a commitment to develop and submit a rule incorporating other NSR provisions within I
year of thepromulgation of EPA’s approval of the committal SIP.
-------
-
Submittal
•
.
Full
Submittal
Expected
Committal
Si? under
section
iiO(&)(4)
Relevant
General
?reambk
Secilo,,
Staff Contact
.
Submit Basic tIM prOgran’i -
•
X’
Ili.A.2.c.
Gene Tierncy
313-668-4456
Moderate and Above Ozone Nonatlainment Areas (in
addition to all marginal area requirements)
Submit VOC RACT catch-up rules (ezisting CTGs; non-CTG m*jor sources)
-
___________
llI.A.3.I
Appendix E
David Cole
919-541-5565
Submit NO RACT rules 5
.
Doug Crane
919-541-3292
Submit Basic 1/N program
-
-
‘
X’
IiI.A3.h.
Gene Ticrncy
313-668-4456
Submit Stage Ii vapor recovery program
X
.
.
IU.A.3.g.
Steve Shcdd
919-541-5397
Senous and Above Ozone Nänaitainment Areas (in - -
addition to moderate area requirements)
Submit Enhanced I/N program
.
X’
II1A.4.j.
Gene Ticrncy
313-668-4456
‘Areas subject to uvuigs clause.
‘The EPA is proposing in its I/N regulation thai the fully adopted I/N SIPs be submitted to EPA no later than November 15, 1993 regardless of when EPA iakcs
action on the I/M committal SIPs. Additionally, EPA has stated that a schedule for 1IM implementation is needed in the committal SIP in order for EPA to be abic to
conditionally approve the committal SIP.
1 Appcndix E to the General Preamble provides the proper procedure [ or State submittal of rulcs that the Staic believes will bc afkcicd by onc ul the acipatcdpo i-
cnaciincni CTG’s. 57-FR at 18077.
‘Tlic EPA is currenily dcvcloping.a supplcincnt to the General Prcaiiihk on NO, rc uirci,iciii .
-------
Submittal
.
Full.
Submictal
Expected
Con,n,iaal
SI? under
sectiois
110(k) (4)
Relevant
General
Preamble
Section
Stuff Contact
,
-
flcct program
.
X’
.
IlI.A.4.k
.
Jim Bryson
313-74 1-7828
Nonàttainment Areas (in
requirements)
(TCM’i) for reducing VMT
.
•
X
ll1.A.5.d.
Gary Dolec
313-668-4414
reductionprograms (25% vehicle
X
lll.A.5.ç.
Connie Ruth -
3 13741-78 15
(Applies to areas not :
S -
RACT and NSR and emission statements
areas (major sources 50 tons/year
.
$00,000
X’
IlI.A.8.
Carla Oldham
919-541-3347
.
12.7 ppm and Delow V V
V X
•
llI.B. l.a.
•
David Misenhcirncr
919-541-5473
V
V X
m.Bi.c.
Al Mannato -
202-233-9308 V
V .
V V
X’
•
lI I.B.l.b.
Gene Ticrncy V
313-668-4456
Ike (icuc aI Prcasi hlc sgidscaIcd that a State eliiiosing to adopt a sub tsiui or part of the clean-fuel t$cct r grain Ii.,uIJ submit by Novi:nihcr I S I
• sIt oii issing of fully adopted alternative control measures. EPA intcnds •Ui or conditional approval SIP submittab in the funn of ommnitmcnI I., a&h
ucli * c measures by I year. (rum the conditional approval.
-------
Submittal Full COIRnsLUOI Relevant Staff Contact
Submittal SIP wider General
Expected section Preamble
lIO(L)(4) Section
CO Areas with Design Value Above 12.7 ppm (in addition
to the requirements of CO areas 12.7 ppm and below)
Submit conlingcncy mcasurcs (to become effective if VMT forecasts exceeded)
X
IlI.B.2.b.
Gary Dolcc
313-668-4414
Submit Enhanced tIM program
.
X’
lIl.B.2.d.
Gcne Ticrncy
313-668-4456 -
Submit NSR rules
.
X’°
1II.B.2.g.
111G.
Dill L.amason
919-541-5374
Submit optional substitute (or clean-fuel fleet program”
:
X’
.
lIl.B ,3.c
Jim Bryson
313-741-7828
Submit CO attainment demonstration .
-
.
x
.
. .
III.B.2.c.
Kimbcr Smith (SIP PLanning)
919-541-3354
Torn Braverman (Modcling)
919-541-5383
-
Serious CO Areas (in addition to moderate CO area
requirements)
Submit transportation control measures (TCMs) (or reducing VMT
.
X
1lI.8.3.b.
Gary Dolcc
313-668-4414
Submit revision requiring employer trip reduction programs (25% vehicle
occupancy rate reductions)
X
•
11l.A.S.c.
Connie Ruth -
313-741-7815
All States
Small Business Assistance Program
-.
X ’
-
Racquclinc Shelton
919-541-0898
‘The EPA may consider lexcept in cases where a section I 10(sX2XI) construction ban is in place due to lack of an adequate NSR program or where an area docs not
bevc a previously approved NSR programs granting a conditional spprovalirndcr soclion I l0(kX4). -
“Applies only to CO nonattainmcnt areas with 1980 populations of 250,000 or more and dcsign values of 16.0 ppm or highcr, -
‘ 2 S,nalI Busincss Assistance Program Guidclincs thai detail the November 1$. 1992 submittal requirement were issued on 2/5/92. EPA h is i sucd a S 13AP Rcv,cw
CI ,ccklü t.
-------
L ( )
37
UMIED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCI-I TRIANGLE PARK. NC 27711
OFFICE OF
A 1R QUAUTY PLANNING
JUL 121993
MEI1ORANI)UM
SUBJECT: Clarification of Date Certain Requirement for Committal
•State Implementation Plans
FROM: John S. Seitz, Director
Office of Air Quality Pl t1 and )
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, tX, and X
As you are aware, the Clean Air Act (Act) allows EPA to
conditionally approve a SIP revision submittal that consists of a
commitment made by the State. Section 110(k)(4) of the Act
specifically provides that EPA “may approve a plan revision based
on a commitment of the State to adopt specific enforceable
measures by a date certain , but not later than 1. year after the
date of approval of the plan revision.” While the requirement
that a commitment specify a date certain is accurately reflected
in the Title I General Preamble (57 PR 13498, April 16, 1992) and
in the NOx i ppleaent (57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992), it is not
clearly st& in a July 22, 1992 memorandum to you on committal
SIP’s Shapiro or in a July 9, 1992 memorandum from
John Calc Lon processing of SIP submittals under the Act.
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify the guidance
mentioned above and to reiterate the basic requirements of the
Act for committal SIP’s. In order to be deemed approvable,
future subaittals that consist of a commitment must specify a
date certain by which specific enforceable measures will be
adopted. If EPA has established a regulatory adoption date, the
date certain cannot extend beyond that date. In addition, if. the
-------
2
Act or EPA regulations specify an implementation date, the date
certain cannot extend beyond that date. Where no date certain
was specified in committal SIP’s which have already been
submitted, EPA will establish such a date when taking final
approval action on the commitment.,
The use of conditiqnal approval as described above will
allow States the additional time needed (where appropriate) to
fully adopt necessary control measures while ensuring that the
use of this provision does not interfere with other statutory
requirements. Please share this.information with the States
in your Region. If you have any questions, please contact
Pam Johnson at (919) 541—5270.
cc: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
D. Kent Berry, AQMD
Tom Helms, AQMD
Ed Lillis, AQMD
Phil Lorang, OMS, Ann Arbor
Rich Ossiãs, OGC
Joe Paisie, AQMD
Mike Shapiro, OAR
Jerry Stubberfield, AQMD
Lydia Wegman, OD
-------
24054 Federal Register! Vol. 59, Na. 89 I Tuesday, May 10, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
eligible under 521.7045. A veteran who
formerly was eligible to receive
educational assistance w Aer 38 U.S.C
ch. 32, and becomes eligible for
educational esaltance under 38 tLS.C
ch. 30 u described In S 21.7045(bX2),
may receive anInaeese In basic
educational assistance allowance
(kicker). The Increase will be
determined as follow..
(1) The basis of the Increase will be
that portion of the amount of money—
(I) Which remains In the VEAP fund
after the veteran has been paid .11
assistance due him or her under 38
U.S.C ch.32snd refunded all of his or
her contributions to the ‘lEAP fund,
and—
(Ii) Which represents the Secretary of
Defense’s additional contribution. (or
the veteran as stated in S 21.5132(bX3)
of this pait
(2) Pars student pursuing a program
of education by residence training—
(1) VA will determine the monthly
rate of the Increase by dividing the
amount of money described in
paragraph (e)(1) of this section by the
number of months of entitlement to
educational assistance under 3$ U.S.C.
chapter 30 whIch the veteran has at the
time his .ligiblllty for benefits under 38
USC. chapter 30 is first established;
(ii) VA will use the month1 r rate of
the Increase determined In paragraph
(e)(2)(i) of this section If the veteran is
punulnghlaorherprogram Ml time;
(lii) VA will multiply the monthly
rate determined by paragraph (eX2XII of
this section by .75 For a student
pursuing his or her program three-
quarter time;
• (Iv) VA will multiply the monthly rate
determined by paragraph (eXIXI) of this
section by .5 for. studantpursulng his:
or her program half lime; and
(v) VA.wlfl multiply the monthly rate
determined by paragraph (eX2Kl) of this
.ectionby.25fcrau his
or her program lea Ime.
ravet
determined b
section by .3.
(4)Foravi aprogrem
of apprenticeship a. ker on-Job
training VAwlil multiply the monthly
rate determined by paragraph (eX2XI) of
this section
UI By .75 for a veteran In the first six
mantbs of pursuit of tr*lnlng ,
01) By. .55 fOr a veteran In the second
ix r d of pursuit of training, and
ØflDy.351er.veteraninthe
r.unalithig months of pursuit of training.
(AuthorIty 38 U.S.C 30 1 5(e ))
IFR Doc. 04-11079 Filed 3-*-U ; 1:43 amJ
0001 WS4 $
ENViRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
tAD#RL -48$3.4)
Sat. hnpl.m.ntatlon Plan Processing
Reform
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTiON: Procedural change .
SMMARY: This document describes
changes being Implemented as a method
for handling direct final State
Implementation plan (SIP) actions.
Presently, when the Regional Offices
publish direct final SIP actions In the
Federal Register, if adverse comments
are submitted on these actions or.
notification is received that adverse
comments are going to be submitted, the
Regional Office writes and publishes
another document which withdraws the
direct final action. After the direct final
action has been withdrawn, the
Regional Office prepares a third
document which serves as the proposal,
and then. fourth document is written
and published for promuI atIón.
Under the revised procedure, when
the direct final is published In the
Federal Register, $ short Informational
document will be published.
simultaneously, In the proposal section
of the Federal Register. The purpose of
the Informational document Is to inform
the public of the direct final, and states
that If adverse comments ire received,
a withdrawal notice wIU be published
in the Federal Register, then the
substance of th. direct final document
will serve as a proposed rule action. If
such comments are received, the direct
final document serves as the detailed
basis for the proposal, and the adverse
mments will be addressed In the
promulgation document. If no such
comments are received, the direct final
stands ‘us Is” and no additional action
w lllneedtabetakánbytheReg lonal V
Office. This revised procedure ____
eliminates the lead for. new proposed
rule and an additional comment period,
and assists In getting these SIP actions
published In a more expedient manner.
EffECTiVE DATL This actIon Is effective
on May 10, 1994.
FOR flIRTIER 4FORMAT1ON CCNTACT: Mr.
Jerry M. Stubberfield, Acting Branch
Ief, Regional Operations Brsnch Air
QualIty Management Division, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards ,
MD-IS, Research mangle Park, North
Carolina 27711. telephone numbOr
(919) 541-0576.
S8JPPIENTARY S4FORMAT1ON:
Background V
Recommendation for Improving SIP
processing at EPA has been presented
and approved in full to the Deputy
Administrator (memorandum from
Gerald A. Emison, Director, Office of Air
Quality PlannIng and Standards, to the
Air Program Director, Regions l-X,
dated December 23, 1987). An Intro-
agency work group took necos ary
action to put these wide-ranging
recommendations into place. One
recommendation involved the expanded
use of direct final rulemaking
procedures. The recommendation
concerned not only more frequent use of
direct final where appropriate but also
more aggressive application of the
concept Consequently, It Is policy to
achieve Increased use of direct final
processing consistent with previously
published criteria.
Proposed in 1981 and finalized In
1982(46 FR 44477, September 4, 1961
and 47 FR 27073, June 23, 1982), dIrect
final nilesnaking has been used to great
advantage by several Regional Offices In
the IntervenIng years. Under ow current
direct final procedures, SIP actions that
are noncontroversIal, and where no
adverse public comments are expected.
can be processed as direct final nile..
This type of processing has been
demonstrated to cut the review time In
half. Since Its Inception, hundreds of
changes have progressed to direct flnal.
with very few engendering any adverse
public comment (which under existing
procedures would require wlthdr*wal of
the change. followed by full review and
comment processing).
This history of very little public
intervention suggests that we are not
using, as wemight. an effectivetool for
speeding review and decision making
on SD’s. Dur lngthese 3 years,onty 2 of
134 packages were withdrawn because
of adverse comments.
A wide variety off SIP action. can be
candidates for direct final, the primary
criteria being that the action be
noncontroversial and that no adverse
public comment Is antldpatod. Those
actions do not have to be limited to V
trivial administrative changes. Although
the risk of aggressive action Is a possible
Increase in the number of SIP’s drewing
comment, this risk should be more than
offset by the expected Improvement In
timely processing end In numbers
processed , without Joopardlzing nir
quality.
-------
3/I
Federal Register LVoL 59, No. 202- / Thursday .Octobèr20, ‘1994 /:.Riiles . aid _ Re ulatiOn ;52914
judge Advoc e General Navy . .. - vessel. The Judge Advocate General of . List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 708 -
Department, 200 Stovall Street, •. - the Navy hasalso certified that the Marine ssfetyNav ’ igation(Water
lexanciria, VA 22332—2400 Telephone alore inentioned lights are located in and Vessels’ . -. . .
miber (703) 325—9744 closest possible compliance with the . ‘‘• - .
IPPLEMENTARY INFORMA11ON: Pursuant. applicable 72 COLREGSrequirements. PART 706—LAMENDEDI .• -:
to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. . Notice is also provided to the effect A COTdn 1 2 ci Part 706
1605. the Department of the Navy that USS TOLEDO (ssN 769) isa aniendedJf llows”
amends 32 CFR Part 706. This ‘ member of the SSN—688 class of vessels .1. The authoritycitationfàr Part 706
amendment provides notice that the for which certain exemptions, pursuant continues th read: j .. ... ,.. - .. .: -.
Judge Advocate General of the Navy,’ ‘ t 72 cou cs, Rule 38. have been ‘ . “ . . . • . . .•.•
under authority delegated by the previously authorized by the , Auuuinty 33 U S C. 1605 .- -
Secretary of the Navy has certified t of the Navy The exemptions pertaining §706.2 (Amended)
USST9LE1 O SSAN 769) isa vess?l.ol.; to that.class, found in the existing tables .. ‘ 2.’Table One of 706.2 is amended by
we avy wLu ..u uue to its speciaL - of section 706 3, are equally applicable adding the following vessel
COflStruCt iOfl 8flu purpose, Cannot: . to uss TOLEDO (SSN 769) ;. .. . . • ‘ ,: . . ‘ - ‘: - - ;: ‘ . ...
comply fully with 72 COLEEGS: Rule ‘ ‘ .• : ‘ •‘ . ‘ . . :. :‘ r
21(c). pertaining to the arc of-visibility:. . Moreover, it has been determined, in . .. -. IABLE jNE ,. . _- ‘ ‘
of the sternlight; Annex!, section 2(a)(i). “ .accordance’ with 32 Q R Parts 296 and . - .... -..
pertaining to the height of the masthead 701, that publication of this amendment - ‘I -,
light. Annex I, section 2(k), pertaining to for public comment prior to adoption is -.. i ’— n a st-
the height and relative positions of the impracticable, unnecessary, and_ . heed light
anchor lights and Annex 1, section 3 (b), contrary to public Interest since itis l SS t . tk lntBf be lGW lT flI-
pertaining to the location of the based on technical findings that the , - — •
aldelights. Full compliance with the — placementof lights on this resse1 lii 6 - , c . §2(a)(i)
above-mentioned 72 (X)LREGS mariner differently’from that presaibed ’ . .-‘i:- ’ Annex If
provisions would nterrewitkthé - - herein will adversely affect the vessel’s ss TOLEDO 7 u9 ‘ 3.5
special functions and purposes of the ability to perform its military functions -
-.
§706.2(Amended] - -
.- - . . ... . ... . . .
3 Table Three of § 706 2 is amended by adding the following vessel - . .. -
r P — S r4
TABLE THREE - - -
.
Vesse .
. ..‘
.‘ .
‘ .
.
.
. umber
- . , ‘ ‘
Masthead
lights, arc of
Rule 21(a)
‘
Side lights.
, arc of visi-
R ile
21(b)
‘ ‘
-
Stern light.
arc of vssi-’
,
21(c)
.:
Side lights,
d$StaflC
§3(b) ‘
Annex 1
anc -
‘ ..
stem ui me-
ters, Rule -.
.,.
Fo ward an-
thor
-
e’ 4 9
§2
Annex
USSTOLEOO .......
SSN7S9 -
‘ . . ....
.. .. .._...;_ .....
. 209
4.4
“ 6,1.
. - i!:3:4
of aft light to:,
Annex
- - ‘! ,, , ‘: :‘“.‘- . ‘“‘ ‘.. -: ‘ .•.-; ,. ‘ ..
..‘-.‘ - - . .-. . - ‘ ‘ ‘ - . ‘.6’
Dated August 9 1994 - revision for implementation of a Stage II recovery program without prior . - -
H.E. Grant, vapor recovery program Section approval of USEPA. . -
Rear Admfrvj,JAGC, U.S. Na y, Judge.” . 182(b)(3) of the Clean.Air ACt (CAA) ‘ - The USEPA is partially approving the
Advocate General. ‘ , ‘, , , ‘ , , requires all States that have ozone ,‘ Jes’six , jth the exception of
IFR Doc. 94—26028 Filed 1O-19-- 94; 8:45 am] nonattainment areas classifledas, Paragraph 3745—21—09(DDD)(5), the
BILUNO coo€ o - - ..‘ moderate or above to implement a Stage program satisfies the criteria for
- .‘ ‘ ‘. “ - LI vapor recovery program. The Stage U, approval Of Stage U vapor recovery
- ‘ vapor recovery program requires owners pmgrams The USEPA is disapproving’
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. - - and operators of gasoline dispensing ‘ 3745 -21--09( DD)i5) since it ’ -
AGENCY ‘‘:; ... , facilities that dispense greater than . fails to satisfy,the requirements of Part:
10,000 gallons of fuel per month (50,000 D of Titie I of the ‘C by providing the’ -
40 CFR Part 52 -gallon per month in the case of an or of OEPA the discretion to
independent small business marketer) to ‘ dth s’ ‘n ‘tho t -.
(0H49—i-6072a; FRL.50826j , ‘, - , install and operate gasoline’ vehicle ‘ talig lera ,approv Partial
Approval and Promulgation of ‘ ‘ refueling vapor recovery systems. Vapor approval of the Stateof Ohio’s ‘Stage II
Implementation Plans;’ Ohio . recovery systems control the release 9 f submittal will incorporate the’ “1
volatile’organic compounuz tVOCj, provisions of the program that satisfy
AGENCY: United States Environmental’; benzene, and toxics enutted during the ‘USEPA’sa Iprova1 riteria into’the”-
Protection Agency (USEPA) refueling process The USEPA 15 Stat&s Federally approved SIP
‘partially approving Ohio s Stage U rule ‘ . .“. ‘.- . ‘:. -
package, and disapproving Paragraph - - . DATES: This final rule will bee ectiv.e
MARY: Today USEPA is partially. ‘ . 3745—21-.09(DDD)(5),’which.grants the ‘ onDecember 19; .1994 unlessnoticeis’- ”
roving and partially disajproving, Director Of the Ohio’Environxnental .‘;.‘ received by. November 21 1994 that’any
iugh “direct final ”procédüre,:Ohio’s . - Protection Agency (OEPA) the . - , v : person.wishesto submit adverse ‘or’.-
e Implementation Plan (SIP)’ -‘ .. discretiOn to suspend the Stagell vapor critical comments..If the effective date
-------
52912 •Federal Register / VoL 59, No. 2Ô2 .1 Thursday, ‘ October 20.. 1994 / Rules and Regulations
delayed, timely notice will be published gas line dispensing faduitiès to install ‘:: suggested method fo calculating ‘the
. in the Federal Register. . and operate gasoline vehicle fefueling . - gallons per month dlispensed’hv i ff rf
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to vapor recovery syatems.’Secfion . ‘ faciliti s would be determined
William L MacDowell, U.S. . 202(a)(6) of the CAA st5tes that Stage II’ . calculating the average volumi
Environmentil Protection Agency, ‘ “ vapor recovery programs are no longer . products dispensed per monti
Region 5, (AE—17fl. 77 West Jackson. . required for mod.eraie ozone - —‘ . year period prior’to adoption of the ruk
Boulevard, Chicago illinois 60604— nonattainment areas once USEPA. . “by the State. (See General Preamble, 57
3590. Copies of the documents relevant promulgates regulations fóron-board’. .. FR at 13514).T.he Enforixwent.
to this proposed’action are available for vapor recovery systems. The finairule GuidancO’suggests that if sufficient date
public inspection during normal for on-board vapor recovery systems has is not available fora full 2 year period,
business hours at the fóilowing.addiess: been promulgated and was piiblic}iedin then the available months of ‘operation
‘(It is recommended that you telephone., the Federal Register.on April 6, 1994.., during the 2 year period shàuld be usec
JohiI’Paskevicz at (312)886—6084 before (59FR 16292). Ohloseeksapprovalfor to calculate the facility’s average gallon
•visitingthe R gi 5 office). U.s. . .... .. the Stage U program for the purposes of per month. (See Enforcement Guidance
Environmental Protection Agency, achieving creditable VOC mi -cs’ons Sec 32)
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 reductions.’ ‘ ‘ : . ,: ••‘ ‘, -.. -‘. (2) After adoption by the State of the
West Jackson’Boulevard Chicago . The Cmannati-Hamilton ’Oeveland-,’ “Stage II requirements, section”
Illinois 6O6O4 and.Air Docket 6102,.’ ‘Akron-Lorain ,Dayton-Springfield,and’. -’...-1s2(b)(3)(B)of the CAAástaMishes
United States Environmental protection Toledo areas are designated moderate -, three deadlines for the installation and
Anen . 401 M Street SW Washinoton nonattainment for ozone (see 56 FR - application of Stage II controls The
I b 56694 (November6, 1991) and-57 FR phase-in schedule given in the CAA Is
- 56762 (November 3G. 1992), codifIed at as follows
INFO MATI0N CONTACT ‘° 40 CFR 81.33€ ). Undersection 182(b)(3) (a) 6 months after adoption oi all
£4uorCeTflent L)ran 1. - of the CAA,Olno wee required to - - . facilities commmicing construction eftt
zwMIunuonu veIopment uOfl, iubmit Stage U’wapor recovery iu les for November 15,1990; —
U vimnmen rTOtOCtiOfl — these areas by November15, 1992 The - (b) 1 year for all facilitias whith
Agency; R,lon 5, C2ilcago, Illinois, , USEPA has reviewed the State submittal di pense 10G.000 gallons or more of
60604. L 312 886-6084. against the statutory requirements and gasoline per month, and
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for consistency with USEPA guidance (c) 2 years for aU other facilities
and is now partiallyapprovingand required to be regulated.
Background partially disapproving this subnnttal A (3) Systvw Certification A’n approve
‘Under sèctiàn 182(b)(3) ,of,the CAA, . summary of EPA’s lysisis provided” ‘.iy tern shouldbe tested and cértified,a
‘USEPA W8S required to Issue guidance ‘below; In-addition, i more detailed -‘-‘ - meeting a minimum requirement of 95
as to-the effectiveness of Stage u: k-’’ -‘analysis of the State submittal f : “ percent eni1 ionreduëtio iieP - -
.system in November 1991, USEPA - -- - contained in a Technical Süppórt :; The USEPAbelieves that this C:
issued technical and enforcement Document, dated January 28, 1994. - rate has been demonstrated to
guidance to meet this requnement In which is availablü from the Region 5 feasible 1 As stated in the Gem
addition, on April 16,1992, USEPA Office, listed above - Preamble, the States may meet the
published the “General Preamble for the D testing and certification requirement b
Implementation of Title I-of the ew aria utiIi ng one of the following three
Air Act Amendments of 1990” ‘(General USEPA reviewed the submittal alternatives:
‘Pxeámble)’ (57 FR 13498) The guidance g ct the-requirements of section’- - “ --“ “(a) A method tested and approved b)
documents and the General Preamble ‘ 182(b)(3) of the CAA,as’Interpreted in’ the California Air Resources Board -
inf rpret the Stage U statutory - the General Preamble for :‘‘ (CARB); . ‘-
,-requirement Ond Indicate the elements : implementation of title lof the Clean ‘. “ (b),An equivalent testing program
,,USEPA believes a State submittal-needs Air Act Amèndnients of 1990(57 FR- adopted by the State, conducted by the
to include to-meet-that iequirement. 13498 135i3 (April16, 1992)), andtwo Program Oversight Agency (POA) or
- OnJune7,.1993,theOEPAsubmitted- USEPAdocumentsentitledTechnical ‘ athirdpartyrecognizedbythePOA,
a package of reasonablyavailable ‘ Guidance—Stage U Vapor Recovery ‘ end submitted and approved by USEPA
control technology (RACT) VOC rules to Systems for COntrol of Vehicle Refuöllng for incorporation in the SIP;. or
USEPA for approval The rules for Emissions at Gasoline Dispensing (c) A system approved by CARB (Se
implementation áf the Stage U vapor’ Facilities (Technical Guidance) and the” Enforcement Guidance,’Sec. 4.2).
recovry program, required by sectiofl Enforcement Guidance for StageD.,” “ ‘(4) Facility Verification of the Propei
182(b)(3) of the-CAA were included in “ Vehicle Refueling Control Pi ograzns :,, - Installation and Function of Stage U
the VOC RACT package and -apply .to - (Enforcement Guidance), Specifically ‘. - Vapor Control Systems. The General
three areas in Ohio the followingseven general criteria need Preamble indicates in order for the Stai
(1) Cincinnáff -Hamilton; : , to be met for.á Stage U vaporrecovéry, : Stage U requirement to be enforceable,
(2) leveland-Aon-Lorain and, ‘. regulation to be acceutable “ -- “ - ,the .State should require the regulated
‘(3) Dayton-Sprin ae1d. “‘ ‘(1) Installation’of tageH Controls’. facility to verify properinstallation am
,.The USEPA is conducting this - and Determination-of Regulated ‘ ‘ ‘ function of the Stage U equipment. ThE
rulemaking on the Stage II vapor Facilities Facilities that dispense more Enforcement Guidance specifies use of
recovery regulations separately from the than 10,000 gallons per month must Liquid Blockage Test which determine
VOC RACF rulemaking. ‘ . - - insiall and operate Stage 1I.contrOls. For if there is an acceptable low polnt’in th
Section 182(b)(3) of theCAA requires gasoline dispensing’fácilities that are ‘‘ piping, and a Leak Test, which
States with areas designated as ownedand operated by3ndependent - measures the vapor tightness of the
moderate and above nonattainment -: small business marketers,’the State may - -Stage II system. The Enforceni
areas for ozone’to submit a SIP revision establish a cut-point as ’ high as 50,000 Guidance also states that a fa
to USEPA by November 15, 1992, - gallons per month. in the General - should iecertify the functions
requiring ownersand Operators of ,/ ‘ PreamlIe,USEPA indicated that the: “ :. Stage II equipment at least every. yeas
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 202 I Thursday,. October. 20,-1994 I. Rules-and-Regulations .52913
or upon major facility modification (75 average volume of 10,000 gallonsor Technical Guidance—Stageii \fapor
percent or more change), whichever more. The submittal establishes a 50,000 Recovery. Systems.for Control of.Vehide:
comes firsL (See 57 FR 13514 (April 16, gallon per month cut point for .‘-‘. - ‘ Refueling at Gasoline Dispensing
1992) and Enforcement Guidance, Sec. independent small business marketers Facilities. The test procedures vary..
8.2). . ‘- of gasoline (ISBM). Ohio’s definition of. significantly from’those included in
(5) Recordkeeping and Reporting. In ISBM meets the definition outlined in EPA’s Guidance and, at thethne of this
the Enforcement Guidance, USEPA section 324 of the CAA. The submittal ‘ rulemaking, havenot been adopted by’S
identifies various records that the State also includes a requiremerit that affected the California Air Resources Board
should require facilities to keep’ and to facilities be identified by calculating the (CARB). USEPA anticipates that the.:
make avai1abl upon request. The average volume of product dispensed - tests Ohio EPA has included-will be
USEPA believes that these documents’ per month for the two year period prior approved by CARB in the near future-
need to be available in order ‘to make the’ to adoption of the rule by the State The and will serve.to accurately determine
Stage II requirements, enforceable These USEPA believes this is acceptable since’ proper’installation and function of the”
documents include: ‘‘ . , ‘ ‘ ‘ - it is in full compliance with the Federal’ systems because these tests are actually
(a) Licenses/permits to install and requirements -• :‘ :,.: updated versions of the tests Included—
operate the Stage U systems;:. .‘ ii ..•‘ ‘ .- in USEPA’s Technical Guidance, ‘.:‘ :. :
(b) Verification of passing functiona Stace II Control nwnment .- ‘. Document. However; if these tests are.,
tests after inspection of the equipment ‘ r not approved by CARB, then Ohio
(this includes the Liquid Blockage Test, The time schedule in4.he Ohio,:. ‘i ’’: would be required-to revise its SIP so..
Leak Test, and all shutoff/flow submittal mandates Installation of the — that it does not rely on these tests
prohibiting device testing) Stage U Control equipment by USEPA finds this to be acceptable..
(c) General station file records (1) September 30, 1993, for facilities —
containing initial station information that started construction after November (5) -
such as motor vehicle fuel throughput 15,1990, ‘- Ohio has adopted the recordkeeping
information •:. ‘ . , - .: -j - . .S . -: , .. . -. -. (2) March31, 1994 for facilities which Items reáommènded In USEPA’s
(d) Equipment maintenance and started construction before November 1, and specifies that-sources
compliance file logs containing . - - 1990. and dispense more than .100,000 ‘., subject to Stge Umust make the ,
verification that pro’per maintenance has : gallons of motor fuel pr moh and : following’ dociunenta available upow.,:
- . - -. L3J 1V1dI1 U 31, 1995, iOT uiciuties ,., ‘ rea est ’ - : ‘ .‘ ‘ ,- - .1. -
equipment manufacturers’s whi start construction ore (1) The quantity of gasoline delivered
specifications and requirements, -‘ .. November 1, 1990 and dispense less :, ‘ by the fadlity each.caleüdar month; :
(e) Training certification files (See than 100,000 gallons of motor fuel per (2) The results of any verification —
month -
Enforcement Guidance, Sec. 8.0) - . . “ . .. ‘- ‘- . -.‘- . -.,.,‘., teSts,, .- ,..-. .. -‘ . ,
(6) Periodic Inspection- of Regulated’ The State of Ohio’s Stage LI-rules ‘ (3) A’log of the date and description’
Facility. The State POA should. conduct - became effective on March-31, 1993. .. - - of all repair and maintenance work -
a minimum of one compliance ‘ - Therefore, USEPA.beieves .this time , performed , ,orany’othermodiflcationsto
inspection per facility per year with schedule for implementation is the vapor control system,
mandatory follow-up at fadilitiOs with : ,acceptable since it is in compliance (4).A copy ‘of the most recent permit
violations USEPA believes such with the Federal requirements to operate application submitted to
- inspections are necessary to ensure that ‘ ( ) Sv’ tem - .‘:.. - OEPA; , — .- ‘.
• . • . •‘.. ‘ ‘ - ‘ ‘ . ‘ .‘ (5)A’copyofthemostrecentpermit
aiieciea iaciuues are compiying Wiul- - ., • ‘ - ‘ ‘ , ‘ . . -
.1-. -C u ts This would me Omo ruies manuate mat eu tage ‘, to operate issued’by OEPA and .‘ . -‘
result i i brin L sourcesthat ‘ -‘ - U vapor control systems used be ,-. -“(6) Proof of attenda iice and
1 t th ta 8 ii uiréments Into’ certified by’CARB to meet 95 percent completion’of the trainingrequired by -‘
vio a rng ins ection ‘emission reduction efficiency, by’’ , OEPA. The USEPA finds these -
ldf vi ial ins ec on of weight The USEPA has specified in-its - recordkeepingrequlremeñts acceptable’’
th d a ork ‘and ta -U - guidance documents that it believes that - since they are in compliance with the
e require p peiw i ins rt;on CARB approved Stage U systems meet Federal reqüirements. :: ‘ , -:
equipmen an a • ona the CAA requirement with no additional - ‘ . ‘.-- ‘ ‘ “ - ‘.
‘to’determme if the facility’s Stage II ‘ uired USEPA . (6) Periodic Inspection Reqwrements
equipment is functioning properly. (See li es e spe i 1 system - ‘ ‘. ‘ The Ob.ià submittal contains a
‘Enforcement Guidance, Sec. 5:2(d).) - certification in the Ohio submittal is ,‘ requirement for annual inspections of:,
(7) Enforcement and Comp’iance accentable facihties subject to the Stage U program,
Mechanisms. Requirement to ensure - r - . ,- --- -‘ ‘ ‘‘ with mandator , follow-un inspections
regulated facility compliance with:’ (4) Verification of Proper Installation - - at noncomplying facilitie The -‘:‘
program requirements through’ ‘‘ , - and Function of Stage II Vapor Con frdl ‘ inspection will cover inspection
enforcement mechanisms, and a penalty Systems - , ‘‘ . ‘ ‘.. ‘ records; facility equipment, and ‘- -
schedule that establishes appropriate The Ohio rules require that,’ following functional testing of equipment The
penalties for facthties’violating the , the installation of a Stage U vapor :“ USEPA believes these inspection
‘Stage U requirements. (See Enforcement control system, tests be performed to - requirements are in compliance with the
Guidance, Sec. 5:2(e)) - , - . , verify proper installation and function - Federal requirOments:, ‘ --
- Results of USEPA Review - ‘ ‘. ‘ of the systems and requires systems to , , , ‘ ,, ,;- - -
- be retested after major facility (7/ n 1 orcemen -
(1) Installation of Stage II Controls and modification. These tests-are a leak test, Mechanisms -
Determination of Regulated Facilities -‘ a dynamic pressure drop tesi, and a’ - The Ohio submittal describes the
Ohio’s SIP submittal requirea the ‘ ‘ liquid blockage test The tests the’State measures that the State will ini lement
installation of Stage Ii vapor recovery , has adopted to verify proper,installation ‘to ensure facility compliance with the
systems on any gasoline dispensing - ‘ and function of the systems ae not the progra n requirements. Training and
- facility that dispenses a monthly.’ ,, same tests that are included in USEPA’s public education programs are among
-------
52914 FedSi Register! VoL 59, : No. 202 1. Thursday, October 20., 1994) Rules. and. Regulations
the enforcement activities that OEM The final Stage I I rules package program requirements Before
will undertake. Ifs hcility is found to.:.. submitted b Obio.forapprovalon June 1 suspending the Stage I I program in an
be inviolation ofányof the program 7, 1993,didnot incorpontethe affectedarea,OEPA must demonstrate
reqüirements;the facility will be issued language suggested by Región.5,but • : to USEPA that the program Is not.
a warning letter and provided an . retained theunipprovable discretionary . necessary in the area to ensure
opportunity todevelop an acceptable .. suspension provision from the .. maintenance of the NAAQS for ozone.. -
compliance schedule that describes how December 7,1992, draft. .. . . : - :... :
compliance wilEbe achieved within a 30 The SIP revision MibmittedbyOEPAs. rIV ntww aQ a 6 uUA - . ,. -
day timeframe. FailureS develop in satisfies all of the criteriaouthned in: Thhactionisbeingtwilhout
acceptable compliance schedule will USEPA guidance regardingthe oversight prior proposal because the changes ar -
result in either Findings and Others or and enforcement of the Stage II program. beheved.to be noncontroversial and
a consent decree/order being sued to. However, Paragraphs.3745-21-- • .. IJSEPA anticipates no significant
the farihtv 09(DDD)(SXa)and ??45-21--’ .— - commentson them The public is
consent decree/order will include 09(DDDXS}(b) )eopardi2a the. advised that this action will be effective
t fl. .... .... .-.: inforceability of the-Stage II vapor.::: : .. December 19, 1994. unless notice is.
USEPA recommends thit the OEPA . ubeiY w sran 1 b rant 9 the, receive y ovem 21,1994. at.
a - ee. a 1.1... ‘1” DtrectorofOEPA.thedisehon4o -.. :,: . someone wishes to submit.adveme or.
ueveaop ap y ta 8 . Lc a . ,‘
s ficall to the Stn II Va or suspend the p togram wiusout first - criticalcommetta. USEPA
P 00 Jmon it t h seeking and obtaining a SIP revision receives adverse comment, the direct
shouldincludeftnesandotherpenalties (ze,Federalapproval)The — finalrulewillbemthdrewnandall
that annlv stwlfic nenalties for soecific discretionary suspension provision - public comments received will be
iAdllitiesfallln t . - poses anunacceptablethreattO iu H, .addressedin.asitequentflnalMe
with the i!anirlrctntorto ‘r continuous Federaleikroeablhtyof the basedonaproposednilewhlchls ‘,
requirements of the Stage liprograim pubhshedmt proposed.nile section
These nanaftles ,uld be 4 i a .diUon to Therefore. Paragraph 3745-21- r - - of this Federal Register If the effective
an cl i nnna W a s ncntt,no from a O9EDDDX5) , the paragrapkmust be -1E } date isdelayed, timely notice will be
Y r a a wsaa .... . -
2 . sA I . . us ppna uw .t:.: ..
riawagan er A A memorandum from John Calcagiw Nothing inahis action should be’
OnaflT usnn v, e irn.&nt3T LUUIU SVOiu then Director of the Air Quality construed as permitting 1 allowing, or
mainthi ng its equipment, iviusOut i age t thylsion, Office of Air - establishing a precedent for any future
cons ience,urna an wepector uas ahty Plann and — - to any SIP. The
iuen ca nOz uOfl, zaaur 8 ID1D (OAQPS). dated July 9,192; prdvidei’ . USEPA’ shall consider each reqáest for
suuer wswa 30 uay comp ance time, . guidance on SIP subniittsls that afe :- - resiision.to:the SW in light of speciflv
“ ‘ ° ° W”” ‘ ‘ determined to becomplete, but ontain tic&ai,econonilc, and environmentaL
tenuis O s use wa or UIUtZ some provisions that do meet the — ‘- factors, and In relation to relevant
Director’s Discretion Provision’. : - requirements of the CA-A arid other statutory and regulatory requimment
. ‘ . -:.. provisions that do not in those cases . . . - , ... , . .
USEPA wasprovided several - , where a p sio Stionare .’ . ‘Executzve’0rder12866 . -
opportunities to conunenton the States sep ii1 the guidance reconinténds: -; - This action has been da Ified as a .
‘draft rules while QEPA was developing partial approval ofthe.SIPsubmittaL :: ‘Table 2 action by the Regional
the regulations for implementation of Ohio has informed the USEPA, in a’ ‘Administrator under the protedw’es -
the Stage!! vapor covery p.On letter dated December 9, 1993,’that the ‘publishid,inihe Federal Register-on-
December ?, 1992, theGEPA Division of Stateassents to paitial.approval of its —. - January19; 1989(54 FR 2214-2225), as -
Air Pollution Control requested Regio& St e I! program with disapproval of its ‘- revised’ by enOctobér 4, 1993;.
S s qnirnntsoii&aft °L- -director’è discretion provision - --‘- ‘ ‘ niemoranduin keEn Michael Shapiro, -.
Parsgrajns3745-21-M9ta.n u,t5j. ‘.‘ 4 V . -“ . - .c’ - - ActingAssistant’As lministrator for Air
explained that-the paragraph was , rwaaas.uO n , ,.‘ : ‘ .- ‘- and’Radiation. The 0MB has exempted
developed after the public comni nt ‘T USEPA is partially approvin and this regulatory action from Executive-
period in response to concerns partially disapproving the State of “ ‘ , Order 12866 review.
expressed by Ohio s Joint Committee on Ohio’s Stage U-vapor recovery program. .. ••
Administrative Rules and Regulalions The USEPA is only disapproving “. . ‘ RegukztoryF!exththty
(JCARR). On December 12,1992, Region Paragraph 3?45-tZl-.O9fDDD)(5). The ;:-:. ‘Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, -
5 informed OEM that the new section remainder of the program is being - :-- -“ ‘, 5 U.S.C sectiân. 600 etséq., USEPA
09(DDDXS) was unapprovable, and ‘, . , approved tinder section 11O(k)(3),-of the - should prepare a regulatory flexibility;’
presented OEM with an alternative . , CA L Partial approval of the Stage Il. - ‘: ;analysis assessing the impact of any
- version of the section which-provided -‘ program will result in the approved -‘ , proposed .orfinal rule on’small entities.
that the OEPA Director may exercise portions of the State of Ohio’s rules (5 U.S C. 603 and 604 } Alternatively,
discretion to suspend the Stage U . — being incorp rated into the State!s ‘ USEPA may-certify that the Me will not
program only in-the event that. - Federally approved SIP. The USEPA ii have a significant impact on a. : - -
{1)Aredesignation request is”, disapproving Paragraph 374 5 -21--’ ‘: substantial number of small entities.
approvedby USEPkor. : - , ‘ 09(DDD)f5} ofthe Ohio rules-since the. Smail.entities include small businesses,
(2) The Director (a) provides a provision poses an unacceptable threat small not-for-profit enterprises, end
dewonst1%tionto,US ?4 that the Stage -to continuous Federal eiilorceabitityot . governmententities with jurisdiction -
II program in each affected area is not the requirements of the Stage!! vapor - over populations of less than 50,000
necessary to ensure the attainment end! recovery program. Disapproval of -: -This partial approval/partial -
ormairitenance of the National’Ambient ‘Paragraph 2745-21—o$DDD)(5) is ‘ri- ’ :’: ‘ disappro-vabdoes nUt’create any ne
Air Quality Staadards (NAAQSI for” - 4nterided toensure thát-OEPAfollOws : requirementsTherefos; I certify 9
ozone, and (b) tJSEPA approves such the established procedures required by this action does not have a sigmfic
:demdnstratibn through-a SIP revisiorL ‘ title 1.01 the CA-A for suspending the ‘ :‘ -impact on any small entities atlectr
-------
Federal Register I. Vol. 59,, No. 202. / Thursday, October 20, • 1994. 1 Rules and Regulat1ons .52915
Moreover, due to the nature of the. SUMMARY: EPA is approving rev sions to 22274, June 28, l989 . This Voluntary
Federal-State relationship under the - the #Jabema Stataimplementation Plan’ SIP revision allows EPAIo enforce
CAA, preparation of the regulatory.. : (SIP) to incorporate roles forthe .termsandooñditionsofState-issued’
flexibility analysis would constitute permitting of nunor sources On - mmor source operating permits. k
Federal inquiry into the economic December 20, 1993. the State of - addition, operating permits that are
reasonableness of the State action. The Alabama through the Alabama.: ; - issued under.a date’s minor. source
CAA forbids USEPA. to.base its final Department of Environmental p tiflg permit program.that
partial approval/partial disapproval of Management (ADFj ) submitted a SIP. approved .into their SIPmay provide
Ohio’s. Stage II vapor recovery program revision fulfilling the requirements . .1 ; federally enforceable limftcto an air.
on such grounds.. Union Electric Co. v. necessary to make the State’s minor pollution source’s potential to emlt. - .
IJSEPA, 427 U.S 246,256-66(1976) source operating permit program Limiting ole source’s potential toenni
k federally enforceable Thesubmtttal - thmuglifedemllyenforceableoperatrng.
& 4 )t 01 u ects W w iuii .i . conforms with reqwreinents . . permits can effect a source’s
Air pollution control, Incorporation necessary for a state’s minor s urce £pphcabllityto FedaraLreguIatlonssuClL
by reference. Intergovernmental .. . operating permit program to become as title V operating permits, New Source.
relations, Ozone, Raportang and federally enforceable Review (NSR) precon*vction permits,
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile DATES This final rule will be effectjye Prevention of SignificantOetenoration
organic compounds. . : ‘ i)ecember 19,1994 unless adverse or. (PSD), P C0 KtiOfl permits for
Dated September 1€, 199t critical comments are received by M. . a ie ‘Poll 11t 1ts and Fedemi air toxica
U 1. ile D ‘ordan ’ ..“ .. Noveniber 21,1994. If the effective date mandated under section
• ‘:. “ . .. ‘ Ieta”
Acting ResionalAdministmtor publrsl edin the’FeJ l R IIt ‘ 1990 (CAA) for air toxice whith are also
Pait 52, chaptarl, tItle 40 of the Code Wn r Volatile Organic Ci npoimds(VOCe).
of Federal Regulatkms Is amended as Any e3astuigaouice may lnmt Its
follows - EPA Regional Office llstedbelow < ..? potential toemit.fOr urp0SeS4)f -
, . . .. avoiding title V requirements, up to one
PART 52_ tAMENOEifl ” : • . vi we iX WJIVU%O TeaQuVe WWaQ - .
• .--... . . . ,. . . .. .. . . year or e 0 e
action are lV uawv ‘ - v
• 1.Théauthoity iIatidniorpait 52’.. inspe onduriugnormalbusinees ds ua uue.
continues to read as follows. - - hours at the following locatfona. The “ ° ° a
AuthorIty 42 U S.C 7401-7671q potential to emit, under the applkubillty
on 2::ded b a befw? Zday. u w
I t e 1’ a (A T4.. . .e . source . oesn
C 1-l 7A’ ,-.I rJ n awOi ii .uiOfl ..caawT ri&i $III I ULU&J, .
. Ill v - . j S p t j n Ai,unr..,’ . qu . ‘a . source
* * •. * ‘ • . • ik
* .. .. ‘“ 401 M Street W W hi )Oflflh , uw sonrce may en
(c) * * * .• . .. ‘.. ‘ ‘20460 ‘ . ‘‘ ‘ ‘::: enforcement actions for faihire to-.
Environme ProtectionAgency Re onWM mBran
submitted a revision request to Ohio a. Courtland Street, NE.; Atlanta, Gergia . ‘ ‘°‘ ‘ hid also VOC..
ozone SIP, for approval of the States’ . 30365 ‘ ‘-‘ - . . : ‘ . . . an 4 necessary to
• Stage Ii vapor recovery program. The . ‘• •.. Aiatama Department’oi ..... .‘. “ . O btffl!de OCFR Prn:.
Stage U program requirements apply to “: Environmental Manageanent.1751 ‘.‘ , n of Fede aI
sources in the following areas: ‘. . •. Con ssu W.L. Diddnsonflrive, ” ,‘ “ . an : k ° • _
Cincinnati aznilton; Cveland-Akron -. Montgomery, Alabama 361o9 • .. .. Auuaoritres. For uwer mectiau1 mr mat
• . A r C • •.may be used to limit en air pollution
Loraui, yon - , ,pnng e . .‘ RJRTIIER M1ON CONTACI Joey
() lii tion b reference . . . source s po 0 emi see a
March 31, 1993. ‘. . Management Division, Region IV ‘.“ ‘ September18, 1992, from JóbiiCalcagni ,
IFR D cc. 94-25970 Filed 10-19-94; 8:45 amj Environmental Protection Agency, 345: ‘Director of EPA’s Air Quality : . -
co o - o- Courtland Street, NE , Atlanta, Georgia M gement Division, to William A.
_______________________ 30365. The tetepi one nuniber IS. 4 i ’ Spratlin, Director of EPA Region VU’s’
• . : ‘ . 347—3555e . Reference .,, andToxics.Division and the.:
40 CFR Part 52 A 1916435 guidance document entitled,
• . SUPPLEM ARY RMAflON:.On, . . ,. ‘ “Approaches to
(AL-39-1-8435a;FRL-5089-JI ‘. . • December20, 1993,the,Stateof .‘.‘. . EnforceableEmlssionsL imlts”dated
• Alabama through the AD submifted, , . November 3,1993, m : hn S. S t
Approval and Promulgation of , a SiP revision designed to make , t. - DirectorofEPA’àOffice of Air Quality:
Implementat ion Plans Alabama: ,. minor source operating , ‘ :‘ ‘and PianningStandards (OAQPS), tothe
Approval of Revislonsto ConstrUCtiOn, permit program federally enforceablO .• Air Division Directors for Regions 1—lö.
andOperatloltflegulatlonsfo .‘ pursuant ’toEPAreruirementsas •,‘• -: ,. Inthenforementicned June 281989,
‘SyntheticMlnorSources. : • ,‘. , specifiedinaFedera lKegister . i•. ‘.. . FederalRrgisterdownent ,’EPAlistet
AGENCY• Environmental Protection . document, ‘Requirements for.the .. . -:: five.aiteria.necessary to make estate’s.
A en ‘(EPA) . ‘ ..‘ . . . preparation, adopt on. and’submittai of .. :. minor. sourceoporatingpermit program
g ‘ unpiementatron plans ’ air quality, ‘new, federally enforceable and, therefore,
ACTION: Direct final rule. , “source review; final rules,” .(see54FR... .approvableinto’the SIP. Prior to this.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION-AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
SEP 29 1992
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Public Hearing Requirements for 1990 Base—Year
Emissions Inventories for Ozone. and Carbon Monoxide
Nonattainment Areas -,
-. / —-. -.. , ‘7
FROM: John Calcagni, Directo ”-
Air Quality Management iDivision ‘ \ j
William G. Laxton, Director)fj/J
Technical Support Division
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and”To -ics
Management Division, Regions I and IV-
Director, Air and Waste Management DivIsion,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V -
- Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics DivisiOn
Region VI -
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX,and X
It has come to the attention of the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards that a number of States are confused about
whether they need to follow the public hearing procedü s for
submittal of the emissions inventory. After’ severàl ‘discussions
with the Office of General Counsel, we believe that the emissions
- ,.) - . — ,.. — .,-.. — C 4 . .1. 4 _ • 4.. 4...; _..,—
1fl” 1i LI.).& 1 5 aa.. G.i. G a tJa.L. t. .,.L i..a . l1ak.._ . I fl
plan (SIP) under the amended Clean Air Act (Act) and,- therefore,
are subject to a public hearing requirement at the State level.
This memorandum provides guidance on how-the State, ’ can. meet the
requirement for public participation . iii the -‘develespment of- the
1990 base—year emissions inventories.’ - , ‘ -‘1 ‘: -
Traditionally, the States submitted their emissions -
inventories along with other elements of the SIP.. In some
instances, these inventories may not have been considered as a
part of the SIP. Although the provisions of the amended Act do’
not refer to the emissions inventory as a SIP revision, they do
refer to it as a plan element and,a plan provision [ see sections
182 (a) (1) (A) and 172(c) (3)). Therefore, the emissions inventory-
is a plan submittal that must be approved or disapproved under-
section 110(k) and must meet the requirements of section
-------
2
110(a) (2), including the requirement that it was subject to a
public hearing at the State level.
Moreover, we believe that there are policy reasons
supporting the decision that the emissions inventory is to be
approved into the SIP. The emissions inventory must be used as
the basis- for the rate-of-progress plan for areas classified as
moderate or above. Additionally, all nonattainment areas seeking
redesignation to attainment will rely on an emissions inventory
• for purposes of submitting a maintenance plan under section
175(A). Because the emissions inventory plays such a fundamental
role in determining the reductions necessary to attain and
maintain the standard, it needs to receive full public scrutiny
and be formally thcorporated into the SIP. . -
However, because the regulatory consequences of the
inventories, are delayed, we have determined that it is
appropriate to provide a “de minimis” deferral of the State
public hearing requirement up to such time as a public hearingis
held on. the related regulatory’ provisions. For areas classified
as moderate or above, the State would need to provide EPA with
verification that a public hearing was held for the emissions
inventory no later than, the time the State submits the rate-of-
progress plan. , For marginal areas, such verification would be
due when and if the State submits a maintenance plan for
redesignation. However, to the extent a marginal area is.
“bumped—up” and, therefore, is required to submit a rate-of-
progress plan, the verification would be due as for moderate and
above areas. - .
Since EPA is’ providing a “de minimis” deferral df the public
hearing requirement, it is also appropriate to provide a “de
minimis”deferral of the requirement for EPA to approve or
disapprove such submittal within 12 months of the time EPA
determines the submittal is complete. Therefore, EPA will
publish the emissions inventories for public review after the
Novcmber 15, 1 92 submittal date, but. EPA il1 d f s cticn
110(k) approval action on the submittals until no later than the
time at which they are submitted -with the rate-of-progress plan
or maintenance plan. Please note, however, that if the emissions
• inventory submittal does not otherwise meet’ the completeness
criteria (i.e, aside from the deferred public.hearing.
requirement), EPA may make - a ‘finding of incompleteness pursuant
to sections 110(k) (1) and •179(a)(1). Such a finding would
trigger the 18-month sanction clock. A memorandum will-be
forthcoming which addresses issues on completeness
determinations, parallel processing, and submittal’ of
comiuitments. •
This is’sue.is not relevant for carbon .. monoxide (CO)
nonattainment areaS,-since CO areas with design values greater
than 12.7 ppm must submit,,the entire SIP (emissions inventories,
-------
3
attainment demonstrations, and control strategies) by
November 15, 1992, and EPA expects the emissions inventories to
have gone through the public hearing process as part of the full
Co SIP. .Exnissions inventories for Co areas with design values of
12.7 ppm and below have no regulatory impacts at the time of the
November 15, 1992 submittals. Like marginal ozone areas, CO
areas with design values 12.7 ppm and below would be required to
subject the emissions inventory to the public hearing and
adoption process if the, area attains the CO NAAQS and
subsequently develops a redesignation request and associated
maintenance plan, or if the area fails to attain the standard by
December 31, 1995 and is reclassified to serious and therefore
required to submit an attainment plan.
Cer ain concerns have been raised regarding this
interpretation. First, some Regions believe that imposing the
public hearing requirement so late in the process will have the
ramification of delaying the submittal of the 1990 base-year
emissions inventories by as much as 18 months. Such a delay
would in turn delay the development of the 15 percent plans and
the full SIP’S. Therefore, the above proposal allows submission
of the emissions inventories prior to the public hearing process.
States would then complete the public hearing and adoption
process on the emissions inventory prior to the submittal of the
rate-of-progress plans on November 15, 1993 because this is the
point at which these emissions inventories take on regulatory
status. This approach would not create significant delays in the
emissions inventory and SIP development process and would allow a
reasonable time for the States to complete the public hearing and.
adoption process. Under this approach, EPA could parallel
process the emissions inventories, proposing approval of the
inventories, and providing that final approval will not occur
until the States revise the inventories to address publiO
comments. In fact, we encourage Regional Offices to parallel
process the emissions inventories for moderate and above ozone
areas which are developing their rate-of-progress plan and for
any ozone oi Co area seeking to redesignate to a taint.
Several Regions have raised additional concerns with the
requirement that the emissions inventory be approved into the
SIP. One such concern is that the emissions inventory will be
subject to a significant amount of questioning concerning the
details, assumptions, and calculation methods. Although this may
be true, we believe that it is a necessary result. As previously
stated, the emissions inventory will be the basis for control
measures, trading, banking and other Act programs. Therefore,
the public should have an opportunity to closely scrutinize the
inventory before the State develops and implements those aspects
of its SIP. -
A third major concern is subsequent revisions to the
emissions inventories and the need to go through the SIP revision
-------
4
process. We recognize that in certain cases, a few major changes
or numerous minor changes to the emissions inventory will impact
the 15 percent reduction calculation and will thus require a
revision ..tothe control strategy. In such cases, all changes
could be bundled together into one SIP revision. However, we
also reáognize that certain changes will not impact the 15
perôent reduction calculation, the control strategy, or the
maintenance plan showing. We believe it is appropriate to create
a “de ininimis” exception to the public hearing requirement for
minor changes. We also think it is appropriate for EPA to traák
these “de minimis” changes and record them. Such changes could
then be handled through a letter notice or a direct final action.
We define “de minimis” for such purposes to be those in which the
15 percent reduction calculaticn and associated co;itroi strategy,
or the maintenance plan showing, do not change. We expect a
State to aggregate all such “de minimis” changes together when
making the determination as to whether the change needs to become
a SIP revision. At the point when all such “de minimis” changes,
aggregated together, impact the 15 percent reduction calculation
or maintenance plan showing, then all changes need to be -
submitted• as a SIP revision, alOng -with any associated control
strategy changes. -When approving the initial emissions inventory
into the SIP, the Region should also provide notice that “de
minimis” changes temporarily will be made through letter notice.
Headquarters will develop boilerplate language for insertion into
these packages. At the time when an EPA Region believes that
several “de minimis” changes together impact a control measure or
other program, the State will then need to-make the change
through a formal SIP revision process, in conjunction with the
change to the control measure or other SIP program.
We trust that this information will be of help to you as you
guide your States through the SIP development process. If you
have questions or comments, please contact Sheila Holman ,(919—
541—0861) or David Misertheimer (919—541—5473).
cc: J. Seitz
L. Wegman - -
Regional Air Branch Chiefs
bcc: T. Helms
B. Nicholson
D. Mobley
D. Misertheimer
S. Holman
S. Nizich ‘ i
M. Martinez
M. Wolcott -
N.’ Dobie • ‘
R. Ossias
J. Tierney
Regional SIP/El Section Chiefs
Regional Ozone/CO SIP El CONTACTS
-------
WORKGROUP
FINAL REPORT
ApriI5, 1995
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
J.F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203-2211
MEMORANDUM
DATE: APR 5 1995
SUBJECT: Transmittal of Final Report
FROM: Linda M. Murphy, Chair ”.I& It 44,1*4 i?
SIP Improvement Workgroup
TO: Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air and Radiation
I am pleased to transmit the final report of the SIP Improvement Workgroup. This
report recommends ways not only to streamline the SIP review process, but also to
make SIPs more understandable and useful to our customers.
Several issues warrant mention. First, contrary to popular belief, the resources
devoted to SIP processing cannot be dramatically reduced as a result of
streamlining because: (1) the SIP workload is increasing over time as a result of the
1990 CAA; and (2) a significant SIP backlog currently exists. As a Workgroup, we
believe that streamlining will enable the Regions to process SIPs more efficiently
and thus address a greater number of SIPs with no increase in resources.
However, several Regional Counsels do not share this belief and are concerned
about the added burden for their off ices.
Second, strong SIPs are essential for progress towards attainment, are the
foundation for a credible enforcement program, and provide the regulatory clarity
necessary for market-based and voluntary approaches. As an Agency, we must
place more value on this work and more support for the people who do it.
Third, there are many data improvements recommended in this report which can be
accomplished regardless of final SIP streamlining decisions. We recommend that
these be implemented now. We further recommend that the Phase II data
recommendations, which will help ensure national. policy consistency, also be
implemented when and if SIP decision-making is delegated to the Regions.
As you requested during our recent briefing, the Workgroup has prepared an
implementation plan to assist your office if you decide to move forward with the
recommendations in this report. This implementation plan was reviewed by all the
DRINTED ON PEC CLED PAPER
-------
2
Regional Counsel and Regional program offices, as well as appropriate
Headquarters offices. Attachment 14 at page 69.
The Workgroup appreciates your support of our efforts; we look forward to your
final decision on this matter. Although the Workgroup has formally disbanded,
Glenn Hanson has agreed to assist the Regions in implementing your decisions.
Also, the Air Division Directors have agreed that the Sublead Region for SIP Policy.
(currently Region X) will be available to help with any further follow-up you may
need.
It was a privilege to work with such a professional group of people on this report.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 617-573-5700 or
Glenn Hanson at 215-597-6723.
cc: Members of the SIP Improvement Workgroup
Regional Air Program Directors
Regional Air Branch Chiefs
Regional Counsels
Regional Administrators
Richard D. Wilson, OAR
Ann Goode, OAR
Margo T. Oge, OMS
John S. Seitz, OAQPS
Lydia N. Wegman, OAQPS
Alan W. Eckert, OGC
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
• SIP IMPROVEMENT WORKGROUP MEMBERS v ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SIP IMPROVEMENT WORKGROUP: COMMITTEE REPORTS . . .. 1
SIP BACKLOG COMMITTEE
A. Charge and Scope 1
B’. Definitions: “SIP Elements” and “SIP Backlog” 1
1. SiP Elements 1
2. SIP Backlog 2
3. Results of Backlog Analysis 3
C. Size of the SIP Backlog 3,
1. 1990 Amendments SIP Backlog 3
2. Backlog of SIPs Other than 1990 Amendments 6
3. Types of Backlogged SIPs 7
E. Data Analysis Insights 8
F. Identification of root causes 9
1. Regions , 9
a. Regional resources are limited . . 9
b. Regions assign certain SIPs lower priority 10
c. Regions use a low threshold for ‘completeness 10
d. Regions suàpend processing in anticipation of
fUrther state submittals 10
e. Regions, experience dOlays in bringing policy issues
to closure 11
f . Regions submit flawed Federal ReOister notices for.
publication 11
- 2. Headquarters 11
a. There Is a lack of EPA guidance 11
b. Headquarters role’ in SIP review may,cause delay . . . 12
3. States 12
a. States may deviate from national policy 12
b. State. may have an extended process for
- regulatory review 13
c . • , States have complex organizational systems .. . . . 13
• d. State SIP includes adopted non-regulatory
• ptOViSiOflS ‘ 13
G. Identification of options for addressing root causes . 13
1. Regional Reorganizations and the Impact Upon SIP
Processing 1 3
2. General recommendations 14
3. Improvements in the area of resources 14
-------
UI ’
4. Improvements in the area of communication 15
5. Improvements in the .area of Agency guidance and policy
development 15
6. Priority recommendations for immediate implementation . . 16
II. OPTIONS COMMITTEE 17
A. Charge and Scope . 17
B. SIP Processing 17
1. Positive Aspects of the Existing System . 17
a. Techniques that expedite publication of final action
in the Federal Reàister 17
b. Techniques that improve Regional Office and
Headquarters communication 18
c. Tools that aid in drafting Federal Register Notices . . 18
d. Techniques that result In approvable SIPs 18
e. Techniquis that track SIPs In the Regional Office . . . 18
f. Techniques that assure Regional Offices review
appropriate SIPs 19
2. Negative Aspects of the Existing System 19
a. Techniques that delay publication of final action in
the Federal Register 19
b. Techniques that hinder Regional Office and
Headquarters communication 19
c. Obstructions in drafting Federal Register Notices . . . 20
d. Techniques that hinder an approvable SIP being
submitted by the States 20
e. General frustrations with the SIP processing
system 20
3. General Principles for New System 21
a. Regional SIP processing and sign-off . 21
b. Early issue resolution 21
c. Regional SIP processing within 12 months of U.S.
EPA ’s completeness determination 22
d. Headquarters issuance of guidance and regulations . 22
e. Regional Counèel review of SIP packages 22
4. Recommendations for New System 23
a. Abolish SIP Tables 23
b. Retain Limited Headquarters Review 23
c. Require Proper Delegation 25
d. Revise Boilerplate 25
e. Use Boilerplate 26
• I. Draft Understandable SIP Packages 26
g. Develop Checklists 27
-------
iv
h. Develop Clear and Timely Guidance and
Regulations 28
i. Provide Regionil Access to Information 28
j. Eliminate Unnecessary Information Transfer 28
k... Establish a Centralized Processing Fund 29
I. Develop New Data System 29
m. Develop Pre Submittal Review ProcOss 29
n. Review Grandfathering Policy 30
o. Revise Completeness Criteria 31
p. Develop Internal Review Process 31
q. Establish System for Prioritizing SIPs 32
r. Retain Substance Of Agreement with 0MB 32
s. Establish Annual SIP Processing Training Course . . . 32
C. SIP Content (Code of Federal Regulations) . 33
1. Identification of Customers 33
2. Pros and Cons of Existing Content (as related to
customers) 33
3. Recommendations for Improving SIP Content 34
a. Revise pre-1985 Identification of Plan Provisions . . . 34
b. Publish the SIP 35
c. Continue Current Method of Identification Under
Identification of Plan Section 35
d. Review Other Portions of SIP in C.F.R. 36
Ill. CONSISTENCY COMMITTEE 37
A. Charge and Scope 37
B. Assumptions 37
1. Consistency Process . 37
2. Implications of Lack of Consistency 38
C. Current system 38
D. Fundamental principles for new process 39
E.., Recommended Consistency Process 39
G. Data system and staff training needs 43
IV. DATA COMMITTEE REPORT .. 44
A. Charge and Scope .. . 44
B. Data Tracking 44
1. Current System . . 44
2. Management/Tracking Systems 44
3. Centralized System (OPTION I) 45
4. Distributed System (OPTION II) 46
5. Data Elements for Tracking System 46
6. Recommendations 46
C. SIP Docket Files 46
-------
V
1. Background . . 46
2. Recommendations: Official Docket File 47
a. Core Docket File should consi t of certain
documents, which should be indexed 48
b. Excluded EPA generated documents 48
c. Public access guidelines 48
d. Timing of accessibility of documents 48
e. Storage of material for public docket 49
D. Section 110(h) 49
1. Background 49
2. Recommendation 49
Attachment 1: SIP Elements lnvfntoried by Backlog Committee 50
Attachment 2: Other SIP Elements 52
Attachment 3: Top 12 States with Active SIP Elements 52
Attachment 4: Top 11 States with Active SIP Elements in the Backlog 53
Attachment 5 Top 12 States with “Other” Active SIP Elements 54
Attachment 6: Top 8 States With “Other” Active SIP Elements
in the Backlog 55
Attachment 7: Options Committee Checklist 56
Attachment 8: Description of Tiered Hierarchy of Reviews 58
Tierl 58
TierIl 59
Attachment 9: Sample Request.for Alternative Interpretation 60
Attachment 10: Guide to Developing Options When An Alternative
Interpretation (Al.) is being Proposed and Considered 61
Attachment 11: SIP Processing Information Tracked by Regional Computer
Systems 62
Attachment 12: Events Dates Tracked by Regional Systems . 65
Attachment 13: Findings/Sanction Information Tracked by Regional Systems . 67
Attachment 14: Workplan for the SIP Improvement Workgroup 69
-------
v i
SIP. IMPROVEMENT WORKGROUP MEMBERS
Steering Team
Linda Murphy, Region I, Chair
Emanuel Souza, Region I
Tom Maslany, Region Ill
Judy Katz, Region III
Marcia Spink, Region Ill
Glenn Hanson Region III
Sandra Lee, Region V
Stan Meiburg, Region VI
Pat Hull, Region VII
Kim O’Lone, OIG
Jan Tierney, OGC
Phyllis Wright, OAQPS
Jerry Stubberfield, OAQPS
Conalst.ncv Committee ’
Tom Maslany, Co-Chair
Pat Hull, Co-Chair
Glenn Hanson; Co-Chair
Kay Prince, Region IV
Tom Diggs, Region VI
Patricia Cupp, Region VI
Mark Sather, Region VI
Laurie Ostrand, Region VIII
Doug Skis, Region VIII
Dan Meer, Region IX
Montel Livingston, Region X
Mike Bussell, Region X
Rich Ossias, OGC
Pam Johnson, OAQPS
Jane Armstrong, OMS
Ann Bailey, OECA
Nina Speigelman, Region IX
Phyllis Wright, Co-Chair
Emanuel Souza, Co-Chair
Hal Frankford, Region III
Richard Shufl, Region IV
Carol LaVaIley, Region VII
Laurie Osti-and, Region VIII
Joanne AlIman, OAQPS
Stan Meiburg, Co-Chair
Jerry Stubberfield, Co-Chair
Ray Werner, Region II
Hal Frankford, Region Ill
Richard Shun, Region IV
Jay Bortzer, Region V
John Crocker, Region VI’
Julie Rose, Region IX
Joe Pales, OAQPS
Gene Tierney, OMS
Options Committee
Office of Inso.ctor GonraI
Marcia Spink, Co-Chair
Jan Tierney, Co-Chair
- Pam Johnson, OAQPS
Luis Troche, OECA
Joel Blumstein, Region I
Ray Werner, Region II
Kay Prince, Region IV
Jay Bortzer, Region V
Wayne Leidwangar, Region VII
Carol LeValley, Region VII
Laurie Ostrand, Region VIII
Julie Rose, Region IX
Mike Bussel, Region X
Montel Livingston. Region X
Phil Lorang. OMS
Administrative Support
Jeri Flowers, OAQPS
Francine Picardo. Region I
Rosita Graciani, Region I
Judy Kennedy, Region V
Angela Brown. Region V
Eva Sanders, Region VI
Judy Katz, Region III
Sandra Lee, Region V’
Kim O’L.one
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based upon recommendations made at the April, 1994 Regional Air Division
Directors meeting in St. Louis, MO, a SIP Improvement Workgroup was established
to examine EPA’s procedures for promulgation of State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
and to recommend improvements. The Workgroup examined ways to simplify and
streamline the SIP review,, content and documentation procedures in order to make
SIPs more useful and, understandable. The SIP Improvement Workgroup was
specifically charged to:
a Examine the current SIP backlog and devise procedures to eliminate
it and prevent its reoccurrence; and
I Recommend changes to maximize regional authority, while assuring
clear accountability and adequate• national consistency\necessary for
program integrity. , .
The SIP Improvement Workgroup is comprised of a Steering Team and four
âommittees: SIP Backlog, Options, Consistency and Data.
Steering Team: The steering team is comprised of the co-chairs of the 4
committees listed below; the report editors, and the OIG representative. The
steering team provides overall guidance to the workgroup in completing its mission.
The steering team insures that committee work progresses on schedule and that
the various committees properly integrate their work products The steering team
also provides advice to the workgroup at critical decision-making junctures, and
seeks input and support from’higher level management where appropriate.
Responsibility of Co-chairs:’ Co-chairs define the workplans for their
committees, provide guidance to committee members, set up and
conduct necessary conference calls, review work products and
coordinate as necessary with other committees. Co-chairs participate
in biweekly conference calls of the steering . tèam.
SIP Backlog Committee: This committee is responsible for defining the extent of
the SIP backlog, analyzing the causes of the backlog and recommending means to
reduce it.
Data Committee: This committee is responsible for reviewing the current SIPTRAX.
data system, analyzing the needs of the customers of this data, and recommending
improvements. This committee will also quantify the FTE savings associated with
each option. In addition, this committee will recommend administrative
improvements that will enable the contents of SIPs to be more’ easily identifiable by
and’ accessible to users.
-------
V III
Consistency Committee: This committee will examine the need for national
consistency in SIP decision-making and record-keeping, and recommend procedures
to achieve the desired level of consistency under each of the options which are
developed.
Options Committee: This committee will examine SIP improvement options which
simplify the review process and maximize regional authority. This committee may;
as a result, recommend changes in SIP review procedures. This committee will
examine ways to make SIPs more understandable for internal, state and public
customers without jeopardizing federal enforceability.
Report Editors: The editors are responsible for defining the contents of the final
report to Mary Nichols, for collecting input from the other committees and regional
contacts for inclusion in the report, and for producing/editing this report.
Regional Contacts: Regional contacts are responsible for collecting regional data as
required by the other, committees, for writing sections of the report pertaining to
their respective Regions, for keeping the Regional Counsel and Air Division Director
informed and for seeking their input on important workgroup decisions.
-------
ix
BACKLOG COMMITTEE
Charge
The Backlog Committee was charged with:
1. examining the current SiP backlog, and
2. devising procedures to eliminate it and prevent its reoccurrence.
Procedure
The Backlog Committee divided the SIP inventory as of September 1, 1994 into
two categories:
1. SIPs submitted to meet the requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments, and
2. All other SIPs.
Findings
• EPA has not clearly defined the term “SIP Backlog.”
• There is a total backlog of 675 SIP elements:
398 are 1990 Amendments elements and 277 are all other SIP
elements.
• EPA has focused on processing SIPs submitted in response to the 1990
Amendments.
I The responsibility for the backlog is shared with the Regional offices,
Headquarters, and the States.
I The 1990 Amendments of the Clean Air Act still require a large number of
SIP submittals that the Regions have not received. These submittals will.
âonstitute a significant work load for the next several years.
• The SIP Backlog in California presents a unique situation for the “all other
SIP elements” category of SIPs submitted prior to the 1990 Amendments
and distorts the statistics of the size of the backlog.
Recommándations
• EPA needs to use clear, common definitions and terms in speaking to the
public about SIPs.
I The “inactive” category for SIP submittals should be used for those SIP
elements that are not required and that serve little or no benefit for
improving air quality. Regional offices should more extensively use this
category, in consultation with the states.
• EPA should more extensively use innovative SIP processing approaches,
such as letter notices and SIP flexibility, to address the existing backlog and
prevent future growth of the backlog.
• Procedures for processing SIPs using interim guidance/policy developed
before EPA can develop, final regulatiâns need to be improved. A clear
understanding needs to bedeveloped between Headquarters and the Regions
on what issues are of national importance and what issues can be decided
by the Regions.
-------
x
• Improvements are needed:
O to retain S!P processing staff in the Regional offices;
O to minimize staff turnover;.and
O to reèngineer and streamline the process to minimize the
disruptive effects of turnover.
-------
xi
OPTIONS COMMITTEE
Charge
The Options Committee was charged with examining:
1. “SIP Processing”-- finding ways to simplify the review process and
maximize regional authority, and
2. “SIP content”-- finding ways to make SIPs more understandable for
internal, state and public customers without jeopardizing federal
enforceability.
SIP Processing Findings
• The regional offices should have maximum control over processing SIPs; the
Regional Administrator should be the signatory on all SIP packages.
• Any issues should be resolved as early in the process as possible during the
review of a draft or formal SIP submittal.
• Regions should affirmatively determine SIP completeness and should
process SIPs within 1 2 months of completeness determination.
• EPA should issue guidance and regulations necessary for reviewing SIPs
sufficiently ahead of time; Regions and States should rely on those
documents for producing and reviewing SIPs.
• Regional Counsel review of SIP submittals and SIP packages and draft SIP
submittals should be increased; Regional Counsel resources to perform this
review should be increased.,
SIP Processing Recommendations
I The SIP Tables should be abolished; but Headquarters should retain a review
period for SIP packages that contain alternative interpretations to EPA
policies or for which EPA has received significant adverse comments on the
proposed rulemaking.
• New or revised boilerplate should be developed by Headquarters for
numerous categories of SIPs. Regional offices should. use the boilerplate in
developing SIP packages.
• Headquarters should develop checklists for reviewing all categories of SIP
packages, as well as clear and timely guidance and regulations.
• Centralized computer data bases should be set up in each Region (or
nationally) to contain all SIP boilerplate and guidance.
• A centralized processing fund should be established for printing SIP Federal
Register notices.
• EPA should work with states on their regulations as early as possible and
develop processes for review of draft regulations.
• To the extent legally feasible, EPA should review and revise EPA policy to
allow grandfathering state regulations, if EPA has worked with a state to
develop a regulation that later appears problematic because or a revised
policy interpretation.
-------
X I I
I EPA should establish a system for prioritizing SIPs.
• EPA should establish an annual SIP processing training course. and should
dedicate travel funds to assure Regional attendance.
• Regions should enhance the status and job satisfaction of staff assigned to
SIP review through greater empowerment, variety of assignments and
enhanced reward systems.”
• SIP Content Findings
• 40 CFR ( Code of Federal Regulations ) Part 52 is the basic reference for the
approved SIP.
• The “customers” include the regulated community, public interest groups,
the State and local agenciesithe public at-large, and EPA’s own staff.
I. Some of the IBR (Incorporation by Reference) material is not very specific
and makes it almost impossible for the average reader to ascertain exactly
what action EPA took in past years.
• Much of the nonregulative material in SIPs is no longer relevant and has no
identifying date of promulgation.
SIP Content Recommendations
• The pre-1 985 Identification of Plan Provisions should be revised to clarify the
federally approved rules and the other parts in the SIP.
• Regions should publish the SIP, as required by Section 110(h) of the Clean
Air Act.
• Regulatory portions of SIPs must be clearly identified, in the IBR
(Incorporation by Reference) section. Rules and regulations should be
identified by number and by descriptive title. Other material should be
described in a manner the average non-EPA reader can understand.
• Materials in the state-specific portions of Part 52 should be edited and
updated. . .
-------
XI I I
CONSISTENCY COMMITTEE
Charge
The Consistency Committee was charged with developing a process that could
strike a balance between the need to have consistent application of regulation and
policy nationally with the need for regional flexibility to address local issues.
Findings
• There is disagreement within EPA at both national and regional levels about
the necessity and desirability of consistency.
• There is a need for a process that contains:
o a way to communicate within EPA the policy decisions that
have an impact across the Regions;
0 a mechanism to identify issues that have national implications
and should be discussed by all Regions;
.0 a mechanism that raises identified issues quickly to appropriate
top managers, if necessary, for resolution;
• There is a need for a process that contains:
0 a mechanism to encourage Regions to be accountable to one
another when an individual Region deviates from existing policy;
0 a mechanism to consult the Office of General Counsel in the
event that a proposed Alternative Interpretation results in
significant adverse comments.
Recommendations
• EPA adopt, for a 1 2 month trial period, a process for identifying national
issues and communicating among the Regions quickly when a Region wants
to take a position that is an alternative interpretation (deviation) from
established national policy or where there is no national policy. This process
will allow appropriate managers to become aware of the issue early to
facilitate resolution.
• All alternative interpretations (from existing policy) and formulation of new
policy should be developed with adequate c’onsultation with affected parties
and based on a defensible rationale.
As the Regions are empowered, they should take responsibility for their
actions as they impact other Regions.
• When a Region deviates from the Tier I process and takes a position that is
inconsistent with established policies, regulations, etc., that Region should
explain the rationale for such deviation. Additionally, corrective measures
have been.estab lished to correct deficiencies, including, possibly, Agency
rulemaking.
• EPA should designate, an objective process facilitator within the Office of Air
& Radiation (OAQPS desk officer) with the following responsibilities:
-------
xi v
o ensuring that the consistency process is.being followed and
that afl issues are addressed in a timely manner;
o ensuring that when there is nonconcurrence on a proposed Tier
I Alternative Interpretation, any tssue is elevated to the
appropriate Agency senior managers for resolution;
0 ensuring that all decisions on proposed Alternative
Interpretations are properly dOcumented and distributed.
-------
xv
DATA COMMITTEE
Charge and Scope -
The Data Committee was charged with reviewing:
1. the current SIPTRAX II data system to analyze the needs of the
customers and to recommend improvements;
2. the docket systems of each Region to establish some consistency in
the material available in the SIP files; and
3. the Regional files for the status of the availability of federally approved
• ‘ rules to comply ‘with the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments requiring
the Agency to identify federally enforceable State implementation
• plans by November 15, 1995, and every three years thereafter.
Findings
• The current SIPTRAX data system does not meet the needs of its customers
• and therefore is not useful to EPA for managing SIP pràcessing. The
regional offices, Headquarters, general public, or the regulated community
are not able to use the system for most types of management reports on SIP
processing.
• Each Region maintains at least one separate tracking system because the
current information in SIPTRAX is not helpful to the Regions.
• Because Headquarters cannot access information, each time Headquarters
needs information, it must poll the Regions for information on SIP
processing.
• The current information is on MAPS which is frequently slow or difficult to
access.
• There is a need for a national tracking system that’ serves as a central
repository for SIP tracking information and to serve the needs of
Headquarters in answering inquiries to GAO and Congress.
• A central repository for guidance/policy documents, Federal Register
boilerplate, and document transfer is desirable, but will not be addressed by
the Data Committee.
Certain items such as the official State submittal and Designee’s cover letter,
EPA’s rulemaking notices (both proposed and final), public comments and
responses thereto, and the Technical Support Document (TSD) should be
kept in the public docket file.
• The mechanism by which the Regional OfficeS released information to the
public or provided the public the opportunity to review the docket file also
differed.
Recommendations ‘
• The Data Committee evaluated two options; both options would be
developed by a steering committee of regional and HQ representatives, with
one central contract for development and management of the system.
-------
xvi
o Option I (Centralized Systeml--a system located on the Headquarters
LAN system and managed by HQ staff. All Regions would use direct
access to the NETWORK instead of MODEMS,which would make the
system faster and more efficient/reliable.
o Option II (Distributed Systeml--{The Data Committee’s
recommendation}--a centrally developed system with all available SIP
processing data elements provided to each Region to place on the
regional LAN system. All ten systems would be tailored to the needs
of each Region, with screens and reports being set up as each Region
determines. Each Region would be responsible for uploading core SIP
processing data elements needed by HQ to prepare reports needed by
HQ customers. Information would be input by the Regions, but the
core data elements required by HQ would be uploaded to
Headquarters via MAPS on a weekly or monthly basis.
• Docket File should include certain core documentsand exclude certain EPA-
generated documents.
• One notice should be published in the Federal Register for all Regions by
November 15, 1995. This notice will make available to the public all
federally approved rules for each State. A contact person for each Region
should be identified in the notice.
-------
SIP IMPROVEMENT WORKGROUP:
COMMITTEE REPORTS
A result of the April, 1 994 Air Division Directors meeting in St. Louis, Missouri was
the formation of aWorkgroup to examine how state impI ementation plan (SIP)
revisions might be processed more expeditiously. This SIP Improvement
Workgroup is comprised of a Steering Team and four committees: SIP Backlog,
Options, Consistency, and Data. The following reports of the committees discuss
the specific charge, the findings, and the recommendations of each committee.
I. SIP BACKLOG COMMITrEE
A. Charge and Scope
The charge of the SIP Backlog Committee was to analyze the Agency’s current SIP
backlog and to devise procedures to eliminate it and prevent its reoccurrence.
Initial discussiOn of the Committee addressed two factors: (1) there was no
convention for identifying the SIP universe almost 4 years after the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (1990 Amendments); and, (2) there was no procedure for
assessing SIP processing information, which can represent essentially different
revisions. For example, a state may prepare and submit either a SIP revision that
includes regulatory requirements either applicable to the entire state or applicable
to only one nonattainment area within the state. These very different revisions are
not equal in terms of Agency processing time.
Therefore, the SIP Backlog Committee devised definitionS of “SIP Element” and
“SIP Backlog” to establish uniformity in collecting data about the universe of SIP
submittals and the backlog. The Committee developed a “lowest common
denominator” for the purpose of making worklOad comparisons between Regions.
B. Definitions: “SIP Elements” and “SIP Backlog”
1. SIP Elements
To determine the nature and extent of any SIP backlog, the Committee first
delineated an accurate SIP inventory by defining a “SIP Element” and establishing a
counting convention to allow EPA to define a “universe” of required SIP
submissions and to assess the percentage of those requirements that have been
satisfied.
A “SIP Element” is a revision to a SIP submitted to satisfythe
requirements of a particular section of the 1990 Clean Air Act and for
the area specified by the requirement.
-------
2
To illustrate, if a State with 3 ozone nonattainment areas submits a SIP revision
containing Stage II rules and a 15 percent VOC plan applicable to all 3 areas, the
Committee counted that one SIP revision as 6 SIP elements - Stage II regulations
for 3 nonattainment areas and 1 5 percent VOC plans for 3 nonattainmen areas. If
a state submits a SIP revision addressing changes not required by a specific section
of the 1990 Amendments, the Committee counted that revision as a SIP element
consistent with those categories contained in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the “SIP Reform
Policy.” A List of SIP elements is included in Attachment 1.
Therefore, there are two types of SIPs included in the inventory:
1. SIP elements required by an explicit statutory provision in the
Act; and
2. any SIP submitted that was not explicitly required by the 1990
Act.
The following SIP elements were included in the SIP inventory:
o incomplete SIPs;
o committal SIPs;
O any SIP where final action was published in the Federal Register
before September 1, 1994 (or August 1,1994 for Direct Final
actions); and,
o any SIP that a Region had placed on the “inactive list” or “on
hold.”
The Committee counted SIP elements by geographic area in most instances. If a
Clean Air Act provision applied to several classified areas in a State, then the
-Committee counted a SIP element for each area. Some SIP elements, such as
Small Business Assistance Program SIPs, were counted as “Statewide” SIPs.
2. SIP Backlog
The SIP inventory was divided into two categories:
1. SIP elements submitted to meet the requirements of the 1 990
Amendments, and
2. all other S 1Ps, including those submitted prior to the 1990
Amendments and those unsolicited submittals after the 1990
Amendments.
The “SIP Backlog” incorporates those SIP elements without a final approval
published in the Federal Register that have been in a Regional office for 18 months
or more (24 months for redesignations) and have not been found incomplete. The
1 8-month start point for backlogged SIP elements is based upon a 6-month
-------
3
completeness determination and 1 2-month processing timeframe (1 8 months for
redesignations).
3. Results of Backlog Analysis
Relying on the definitions of “SIP Element” and “SIP Backlog,” the Committee
tabulated the results of the survey of Regional offices to compile a “snapshot”
analysis of the inventory of SIP elements that were in EPA for processing as of
September 1, 1 994. The Committee had asked each Regional office to fill out a
matrix that covered the universe of SIP elements at EPA for processing.
Furthermore, the Committee performed a final quality assurance check by asking
the Regions to review the results before completing several analyses of the
information. During this process, the Committee was guided by two principles: no
useful conclusions were possible without accurate data and the analysis was not
aimed at affixing “blame” or “fault.” Instead, the Committee conducted the
analysis to use factual data to identify those systematic Agency-wide patterns of
activity that appeared to contribute to the SIP backlog. All Regions were genuinely
cooperative in this effort.
C. Size of the SIP Backlog
There is a sizeable inventory of SIP elements now at EPA: as of September 1,
1 994, there were 1 ,592 SIP elements in process at EPA. Of these, 1 ,01 6 were
elements required by the 1990 Amendments; 576 were other elements. Of these
SIP elements, 675 are backlogged. Of this backlog, 398 are 1990 Amendments
elements, and 277 are other SIP elements. Neither the SIP inventory nor the
backlog is evenly distributed across all Regions and States. Charts 1 and 2.
There are also significant differences in the nature of the backlog for the 1 990
Amendments SIP elements and the non-i 990 Amendments SIPs.
1. 1990 Amendments SIP Backlog
About two thirds of the 1990 Amendments SIP inventory is associated with
actions in 12 States. Attachment 3. These States tend to be highly
populated, major industrial States with the largest numbers of nonattainment areas
and with the most severe air pollution problems. Yet, Arizona and Colorado are
relatively high on the list due to significant requirements associated with carbon
monoxide and PM 10 ; Maine and New Hampshire are also high on the list because of
requirements associated with ozone transport in the Northeast. Yet, Illinois and
Michigan, with a relatively high number of 1 990 Amendments requirements, have a
relatively low inventory. This may result from a combination of rapid action by
Region 5 on 1 990 Amendments submittals and failure by the States to make
certain required submittals. Seventy-seven percent of the 1 990 Amendments
-------
4
Chart 1 - Total SIP Inventory by Region
Chart 2 - Total SIP Backlog by Region
F-
I —
34
12
‘ e
9C :a* S P S’Ps
s ;ic
-------
5
backlog occurs in 11 states. Attachment 4. Most of these States also have
high SIP inventories.
The Committee also examined different categories of 1990 Amendments elements
in the inventory and backlog. VOC RACT and emissions Inventory/emission
statements and New Source Review (NSR) submittals constitute two thirds of the
inventory. The first two categories are 45 percent of the total inventory. But, the
percentage of these elements that are backlogged varies widely. The VOC RACT
and emissions inventory! emission statements categories are two-thirds of the
backlogged SIP elements. Other categories with a high percentage of submittals in
the backlog are oxygenated
fuels (80 percent of the
es f C A S Eeme 5 current submittals are
backlogged) and small
- . business technical assistance
programs (71 percent of
__ current submittals are
backlogged). NSR SIP
- elements have been
submitted too recently to be
J heavily backlogged.
However, because NSR SIPs
• • Ot ...i 29C a have been assigned lower
processing priorities in some
... . . •• .• -. .. Regional offices, they have
S,C ‘ .:: - ::‘• the potential to constitute a
greater percentage of the
Agency’s SIP backlog in the future. In addition, the 1990 Amendments SIP
Submittals that.were received in 1993 do not qualify as part of the backlog
because they were received too recently. The Committee examined the
relationship between the . - - - - - -
1990 Amendments SIP :‘ : - -
backlog and the number of , . .
active findings in each
Region. It had been assumed
that there was an inverse
relationship between the
number of SIP elements
backlogged and the number
of active findings. However,
the data did not support this
assumption. In most
Regions, the volume of SIP ,; ,.::
activity appears to be the .
• -
I . - ‘ -‘
A
-------
6
strongest factor ir determining both the size of the backlog and the number of
active findings. Chart 5, Active Findings.
2. Backlog of SIPs Other than 1990 Amendments
Several efforts prior to the 1990 Amendments have addressed how the process of
handling SIP revisions could be streamlined. The SIP Processing Task Group,
which issued its report in October 1987, had recommended several processing
changes, including increasing Regional responsibility and reducing excessive EPA
review, making increased use of direct final rulemaking and letter notices of
approval, and including a completeness hurdle to prevent EPA from having to act
on blatantly deficient submissions. Many of these processing reforms may have
kept the backlog from being larger, although a lack of organized historical data
makes this conclusion more
qualitative than quantitative.
In most Regions, there is not
a large backlog of SIPs other
than those required by the
1990 Amendments. For
these SIPs, 55 percent of the
backlog is attributed to one
State, California.
Attachments 5 and 6.
There is an inventory of 576
non-1990 Amendments SIP
elements in EPA for action;
yet, if California’s SIPs are
removed from the inventory,
there are only 124 non-1990
Amendments SIPs that are
now backlogged. The California
California is comprised of 34 local air pollution control agencies; each agency has
its own set of air pollution control regulations. As each of these agencies revises
its regulations, the regulations are submitted to the State, which compiles these
revisions and submits them to EPA Region IX each quarter.
These revisions address both the Act requirements for nonattainment areas as well
as administrative and prohibitory regulations for attainment areas. The submittals
contain 50 to 200 rule revisions. A preliminary review of the California backlog
indicates that 30 percent of the backlog consists of Test Methods received from
the State and local agencies. California had 48 local air pollution control agencies
when the SIP was created in 1972. Since then, many of the local county agencies
have formed “unified” agencies. As each of these unified agencies begins to
• . . .— .- -. .z.---
By eQor
N rroe
‘0
6
situation is a factor of the State’s organization.
-------
7
generate new regulations, the previously submitted local county agency regulations
become part of the Region IX backlog. The EPA cannot remove these regulations
until the new “unified” agency submits regulations that replace the individual
regulations or until the State formally withdraws the submittal.
3. Types of Backlogged SIPs
The Committee looked at the types of non-i 990 Amendments SIPs that were now
in the inventory and the backlog. Region IX . was treated as a special case in this
analysis because of the California situation. For the other Regions, about one third
of the existing SIP inventory consisted of three categories: NSR/PSD SIPs, Source-
Specific Revisions, and Redesignatlons. Chart 6. Significantly, these three
areas were only about 25
- - - - - percent of the backlog.
- Chart 7. The remainin9 non-
1990 Amendments SIPs
were distributed among a
number of categories; no
generalizations were possible.
D. Inactive SIPs
One other SIP category is the
“Inactive” classification,
which was established during
the earlier SIP reform effort to
:‘ :. .:‘; : : distinguish State submittals
that did not merit either
approval or disapproval action, but that also could not simply be returned to the
State. Generally, a SIP was termed “inactive” when the Region made a specific
management decision that no time or effort would be expended in trying to process
the SIP. Regional use of the Inactive category has varied significantly. Chart
8. Some Regions have never used the category and have attempted to act on all
submittals. Other Regions have aggressively used the inactive category--in
agreement with their States--to deal with those submittals that were required in the
past, but because of subsequent events, there is agreement that it would be a poor
use of management and staff resources to get the old submittals out of the
“system.” During the course of the Committee’s analysis, some of the Regions
considered using the Inactive category more extensively. For example, an initial
analysis revealed a total of 96 inactive SIP elements. After further review, this
total rose to 540.
The Committee compared the number of active and inactive non-1990
Amendments SIPs. The results show that a significant number of these SIPs are
Scjc. c 23 ‘7 3%
•0 o’ 2C 4%
.c,a ‘cae”%Q 3 2%
-------
now being classified as
inactive. Chart 9. From
a management standpoint,
this is an important
development for EPA because
of the need to use available
resources in the most
effective manner. The
Committee is not aware of
any adverse consequences
from the use of the Inactive
category to date.
E. Data Analysis
Insights
The Committee’s findings suggest several insights into the nature of the SIP
backlog. First, consistent definitions are essential in defining and discussing the
SIP backlog. These definitions need to be shared and agreed upon with all those
inside and outside EPA who are responsible for and review the task of processing
the SIPs. Second, there is a SIP backlog, but its nature and extent are somewhat
different from what the Committee assumed. With the exception of California and
the continued use of the Inactive category, the backlog of non-i 990 Amendments
SIPs is not large. Whereas no backlog is desirable and no backlog should be the
Agency’s goal, that the backlog is not larger is a credit to past reform efforts. The
approval of the Title V operating permit programs, and the accompanying increased
focus on applicable requirements, may potentially create an upsurge in source-
specific SIP revisions. EPA should now work to further streamline SIP processing
to prevent any such surge from creating a new backlog. Moreover, the situation in
California warrants special analysis to determine whether there are ways to
minimize the impact of that State’s administrative structure on EPA’s work load.
Nevertheless, EPA has had difticulty processing some of the 1990 Amendments
SIP elements, especially those dealing with VOC RACT and Emissions inventories.
Certain Regions have also experienced difficulties processing PM 10 SIP elements.
There is a substantial processing work load for the November 1993 submittals that
could produce an upsurge in this part of the backlog if not carefully managed. In
addition, many of the same staff who must process SIPs are also engaged in the
task of working with States on the November 1994 submittals. There is obviously
no opportunity for complacency contained in this analysis; action is now necessary
to not only address the existing SIP inventory, but to prevent a much worse future
backlog.
.c - - :-
e, ‘ e ‘ S
.o. go 9)
‘1(i) sr s 8 101%
— .—. . .
‘1
• $a, w S ‘0 ‘%
0t’l..s 52 65 8%
.5 ) 94
-------
9
There are some components of the SIP backlog that reflect conscious management
decisions about how best to implement the Act. The use of the Inactive category is
one example. Regions have placed a higher management priority on working with
States to submit approvable 1990 Amendments submittals than in completing
other non-1990 Amendments work. Regions have also had to choose to further
the goals of the Act by working with a State to improve a submittal that seems
deficient on its face, but that could be rendered approvable, through further work.
The data gives no clear guidance on a best way of addressing all questions about
SIP processing. Different contexts require different actions by EPA even if the SIPs
involved seem be similar. Regions can impact the current size of the backlog and
mitigate, if not totally prevent, future buildup. This factor credits past reform
efforts and current Headquarters management philosophy.
F. Identification of root causes
Many activities affect the development of the backlog. These activities relate to
the States in preparing or revising SIP submissions and to the Regions and to
Headquarters as the SIPs are processed. The actions and activities were reviewed
by organization--Region, Headquarters and State-- and ranted in order of effect
upon the development of the backlog.
1. Regions
a. Regional resources are limited.
The Regions face numerous competing priorities in processing the large number of
SIP revisions required by the Clean Air Act 1990 amendments. Regional SIP
processing resources in the wake of the 1990 Amendments were not dramatically
increased. During the last
four years. Regions have
focused on pre-submittal
reviews in an effort to ensure
that approvable revisions are
submitted. As Regions
attempt to be heavily
involved in upfront work with
their States and at the same
time balance SIP processing
responsibilities, resources are
stretched to the limits.
Additional resource drains in
some Regions have resulted
from significant increases in
Freedom of Information Act
“L.
3’
9’. ‘ D”
—
-------
10
requests regarding SIP-related
activities.
Staff turnover also
contributes to the backlog
because of the loss of
institutional knowledge and
continuity in proposal actions
versus final actions. The
Regions’ constant need to
provide comprehensive and
specific ongoing training to
new staff on SIP processing
and writing Federal Register
notices can slow down the
process and result in an
b. Regions assign certain SIP. lower priority.
Regions assess the relative importance of the revisions in-house in an effort to
effectively manage their resources. Processing and “backlog” decisions can reflect
management decisions about the importance of particular SIPs. For example,
Region Ill instituted a “triage” system to reflect those SIPs that should be
processed on a priority basis. Region V. in consultation with the States, will
classify certain SIP revisions as inactive if a State agrees that processing a
particular revision is of no environmental consequence. Region IX has recently
reclassified a significant number of submittals as inactive because the original
submittals came from counties in California that have now been consolidated into
air quality control districts.
c. Regions use a low threshold for completeness.
Regions may accept as complete, submittals that minimally fulfill completeness
criteria. The Regions thereby spend a long time working with a State to correct the
problems. Acceptance of weak or minimally acceptable SIPs may be the result of
trying to avoid the issuance of finding letters, principally because of FIP
implications.
d. Regions suspend processing in anticipation of further
state submittals.
Often a State will submit a revision that is found complete but the State indicates
that the submission will be supplemented, revised, or superseded because of an
accumulation of unprocessed SIP revisions.
-------
11
approvability issue. In such a case, the Region may suspend processing of the
existing submission to avoid a disapproval finding. This potential disapproval can
result when the state is unable to share a draft of the regulatory change prior to
formal submission.
e. Regions experience delays in bringing policy issues to
closure.
Regions may face politically complex and sensitive issues that require negotiations
at the highest level of Regional/State organization. Other lower level issues may be
discussed at the staff level with the States and/ar with Headquarter’s staff and left
unresolved for long periods of time. There are many reasons for such lack of
resolution, including:
O Regional management does not place a high priority on processing SIP
revisions;
O disapproval actions may be considered as “failure”;
o disapproval actions start FIP clocks and Regions don’t have resources
to devote to FIPs; and
o final decisions in certain policy issues can produce lawsuits or
negative public reaction.
f. Regions submit flawed Federal Register notices for
publication.
When a Region submits a flawed Federal Register notice, the Office of Federal
Register holds the package until corrections are made (e.g. typesetting request
omitted).
2. Headquarters
a. There is a lack of EPA guidance.
When national rules or guidelines ‘are delayed, SIPs are developed and submitted in
the absence of final guidance because of the Clean Air Act’s statutory deadlines.
Processing delays occur as a result of trying to use individual SIPs to resolve
national policy issues. In certain instances, the Regions prepare SIP revisions
based upon existing guidance that is subsequently revised or reversed, e.g. NSR
requirements, CTGs versus ACTs, negative declarations. As SIPs are developed
and submitted to meet requirements of a new program, a submittal may approach
-------
the requirements from a unique or alternative perspective. Headquarters may take
a long time to decide how to respond to this new approach.
b. Headquarters role in SIP review may cause delay.
Prior to the SIP Reform in 1989, the sequential review of all SIPs by Regions and
- Headquarters created an almost unworkable situation. Following SIP Reform and
the advent of classifying SIPs into Tables I, II, or Ill, processing improved. But
many SIP packages (Table I SIPs) were still held up due to Headquarter’s review.
In October, 1993, additional SIP categories were moved from Table I to II and from
Table II to Ill. This reclassification resulted in additional SIPs being processed by
the Regions. While this procedure has helped expedite processing time, Regions
• still receive comments from Headquarters on Table II SIPs at the very end of the
40-day comment period; subsequent resolution may go well beyond the 40-day.
review period. Examples include the Small Business Assistance SIPs, and the
Texas Stage Il vapor recovery SIP. When the Agency is sued regarding actions it
has taken, the processing of related SIPs slows due to the uncertainty created by
• the pending legal action. Also once the Court renders a decision, the Agency may
then revise the applicable guidance.
3. States
a. . States may deviate from national policy.
States may sometimes prepare SIP revisions that contain regulations that deviate
from existing national policy or regulations. (In some states, local agencies.or
districts have sufficient legal authority to submit revisions separate from the state
agency). For example, in the VOC RACT fixup regulations, States adopted
regulations that deviated from national guidance on VOC RACT. Once submitted,
the Regions spent much time discussing with the States and with Headquarters
whether such deviations were approvable. Such deviations require more time to
process. Many States have boards or other oversight authorities that consider and
adopt regulations sUbmitted by the State’s administrative air agency. The State air
pollution control agencies are typically more cognizant of the requirements that
EPA has set than their governing boards or oversight authorities. However, often
the State board will adopt a regulation and exclude a portion of the regulation or
provide an exemption that the State air agency did not endorse. . This action
impacts the Regions similarly to the deviation action described above, although it
comes from a different source.
-------
13
b. States may have an extended process for regulatory
review.
Often a State will submit a regulation and, for numerous reasons, will advise EPA
that it intends to amend or supersede the revision with an additional submission.
The Region will suspend processing of the original submission in anticipation of
receipt of the additional information. The State has a very lengthy process for
adopting regulatory changes, and the new submission may be greatly delayed.
c. States have complex organizational systems.
The organizational composition of States like California tend to’ contribute to the
backlog problem. Regulatory revisions are received from districts as opposed to
the State agency. This creates an additional workload upon a Region to process
multiple SIP ‘re uIatory packages as opposed to the processing of a single SIP
package for the State.
d. State SIP includes adopted non-regulatory provisions;
A State SIP submittal may include adopted non-regulatory provisions. Thus the
State must revise the SIP in order to change these provisions. This problem is
especially acute in California, where the State submitted numerous non-regulatory
provisions as part of the original SIP in the 1 970’s. The State has submitted many
revisions to these portions of the SIP. Processing these revisions creates a
significant paperwork burden with little or no a,ir quality benefit.
G. Identification of options for addressing root causes
1. Regional Reorganizations and the Impact Upon SIP Processing
The 10 EPARegional offices are currently undergoing restructuring and
reorganization. Some of the Regional office restructuring are more extensive than
others. At present OAR has reviewed proposed reorganizations from Regions I, II,.
V, VI, and VIII. The remainder, of the proposals are due to be submitted in March,
1995. A common theme among the reorganization plans that have been reviewed
is the-restructuring of the Regional offices to address multi-media issues, to focus
on ecosystem protection, and to have a more pronounced role in strategic planning
activities. In almost all of the proposals, however, there appears to be a general
de-emphasis of Clean Air Act-related activities, particularly SIP processing.. The
Backlog Committee found that one of the root causes for the backlog of
unprocessed SIP revisions was the lack of priority placed upon SIP processing by
Regional management. If this attitude was evident in the existing organizations,
the reorganization of the Regions and the further de-emphasis of SIP processing
can only exacerbate the formation of a backlog. The Agency must ensure that a
-------
14
continuing theme in the Regional Offices is that SIP processing is a high priority
and must remain so until EPA has finally approved the large number of revisions
currently residing in the Regional Offices.:
2. Generat recommendations
The original charge to the SIP Backlog Committee was to examine the current SIP
backlog and devise procedures to eliminate it and prevent its reoccurrence. The
Committee has concluded that even though the complete elimination of the backlog
may not be an achievable management objective, there is a need to make’
conscious decisions regarding the makeup of the backlog. The Agency does not
have the prerogative to return SIP revisions to the State once they are found
complete. However, the processing of certain SIP revisions consumes precious
resources with little or no environmental benefit. tn instances in which resources
could be better utilized, it should be the responsibility of Regional management,
after consultation with the States, to elect to place particular SIP revisions in an
“inactive” or non-processable status. The use of an inactive category has met
with success in several Regions. The Committee recommends that a Region that
chooses to Implement such a category establish (‘1) defined procedures so that this
process is not abused, and (2) effective communications with affected ,State
managers so that all parties clearly understand the use of the inactive category.
The following more specific recommendations, which were developed in response
to the root causes of the backlog, are divided into 3 categories: resource,
communications and policy/guidance. The Committee recognizes two important
factors: (1) in the past the Agency has accepted some delay in the processing of.
SIPs to allow, the States addit onaI time to cor!ect deficiencies so that the Agency
could approve otherwise unapprovable SIPs, and (2) general improvements that
simplify SIP processing will reduce and prevent unacceptable backlogs.
Furthermore, the Committee believes that these recommendations should be
reviewed in one year so that they’can be enhanced based upoi any changing
conditions over the course of the year.
3. Improvements in the area of resources
One source of the backlogproblem, and a potential for its continued existence, is
related to the ability of the Agency to devote adequate resources to SIP
development and processing to address the growth in ‘SIPs related to the November
1992, 1993, and 1994 submittals .
0 Retain core of knowledgeable SIP staff by enhancing the SIP
processing profession, including recognition and the.greater use of the
journeyman GS-1 3 level for SIP experts.
-------
1.5
o DeveloD Standard Ooerating Procedures (SOP ) because the greater
development and use of SOPs can make SIP processing easier and
increase the effectiveness of junior staff in the process.
o Train junior staff in SIP processina in courses modelled after the
national workshops, on SIP process training conducted by OAQPS and
the Office of Federal Register.
o Develoø an electronic reoositorv for current guidance to simplify SIP
processing and allow junior personnel to be more effective.
o Assign SIPs to the “inactive” category using nationally developed
criteria.
4. Improvements in the area of communication
Higher quality and fully approvable SIPs require less time and effort to process than
those that are flawed or poorly documented.
o Ensure early and effective communications with State agencies . Not
only are problems avoided, but if the State chooses unique or
alternative approaches, policy discussions can begin earlier.
o Ensure early and effective communications with Headquarters to
develop guidance and recommendations. States and the Regions must
have a clear understanding of what guidance and policy EPA will or
will not issue and what options the States have when guidance will
not be issued by the deadline.
5. Improvements in the area of Agency guidance and policy
development
Rapid processing of SIPs is adversely affected by the lack of clear Agency policy
and guidance; procedures that improve the clarity, availability and timeliness of
such guidance will reduce delays ii, SIP processing.
o Empower the Regions to make more policy decisions .
o Identify and resolve issues of national scope at an early stage .
o Comply with schedules for the development of national standards and
guidance . In cases where these commitments will be missed,
Headquarters should establish real options for the States and Regions.
-------
16 ,
o Make broader use of the “letter notice of apDrovaf, as has been done
in Region V .
o Endorse and use SIP Flexibility policies that would establish
streañilined procedures for amending SIPs while still providing for
public notice and participation, and EPA veto authority.
The Options Committee has recommended a variety of SIP processing
improvementS. Generally, these recommendations have the potential to expedite
processing and reduce SIP backlog. In particular, the SIP Backlog Committee
believes recommendations 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 17 address problems
related to SIP backlog identified by the SIP Backlog Committee and concur in their
recommendations.
6. Priority recommendations for immediáte implementation
The following recommendations, which are limited to certain SIP actions, can be
implemented immediately and can eliminate a specific subset of the SIP backlog
very quickly. 0
o in consultation with affected States. Regions should use the “inactive”
classification for SIPs that are no longer worth processing because of
changing circumstances.
o The Agency should distinguish the Region IX backloa by recognizing
that the majority áf the SIP backlog in Region IX is attributable to
unique circumstances in California’s State organization and is not
indicative of a failure on the part of EPA. As such, those particular
SIP elements should be distinguiShed from the general SIP backlog in
discussing appropriate EPA management responses to the backlog.
o Regions should consider the expanded use of Letter Notices as a
means of expediting SIP processing where appropriate.
-------
17
II. OPTIONS COMMITTEE
A. Charge and Scope
The charge of the Options Committee was (1) to examine SIP improvement options
that simplify the review process and maximize Regional authority and (2) to
examine options to make SIPs more understandable for internal, state and public
customers without jeopardizing federal enforceability.
The Committee developed its recommendations after reviewing the positive and
negative aspects of the current system because the Committee believed that
evaluating the positive and negative aspects of the existing system would facilitate
developing recommendations for a new system. The Committee’s report first
addresses SIP processing, identifying the positive and negative aspects of the
current system and then briefly setting forth the recommendations developed,
including the rationale and any anticipated problems associated with such
recommendations. The second part of the report follows the same format for SIP
content.
B. SIP Processing
1. Positive Aspects of the Existing System
a. Techniques that expedite publication of final action in the.
Federal Register
Several current processes expedite review of packages by eliminating layers of
review . These processes include classifying packages as Table 3. This
classification resulted in expedited review since Headquarters does not review
Table 3 packages and packages could be shifted from Tables 1 and 2 to Table 3 at
the final rule stage if no adverse public comments were received.
Another positive aspect of the current system is that Headquarters is provided a
time limit for reviewing Table 1 and 2 actions. If Headquarters fails to comment to
the Region within that time period, the Region may forward the package to the
Office of the Federal Regist 4 er. In addition, the Regional Offices now send
completed Federal Register notices directly to U.S. EPA’s Federal Register liaison,
rather than routing them through OAR. Finally, the direct final rulemaking
procedures, particularly as recently revised, have been identified as time saving
mechanisms.
-------
18
b. Techniques that improve Regional Office and
Headquarters communication
SeveraLorocedures facilitate communication between Regional and Headguarters
offices . The SIP workgroup Structure is one mechanism for facilitating
communication. The current practice of the Headquarter’s office identifying the
reviewer upon receipt of package (by facsimile to the Region) is also a positive
process because the RegionalOffice then knows the contact person if any issues
arise or if there is concern over the progress of the package. Another device 3hat
benefits communication is the sàheduling of.conference calls with Regional Offices
and Headquarters reviewers to discuss particular SIP packages. The issue
resolution process, which raises to a management level issues that cannot be
resolved at the staff level, is an effective means of opening the lines of
communication between management and of resolving issues in a timely fashion.
c. Tools that aid in drafting Federal Register Nólices
Soecific tools facilitate SIP processing and the drafting of Federal Register notices .
The SIP processing manuals.prepared by Headquarters and Regional Offices are
very effective tools as long as they remain current. The boilerplate Federal Register
notices are effective mechanisms for assisting in the drafting process, particularly if
the boilerplate is made available on a central word processing system for access by
Federal Register drafters.
d. Techniques that resuft in approvable SIPs
The receiptof an approvable SiP greatly improves a Region’s ability to process a
SIP in a timely rhanner. Several proceSses helo to ensure that states submit
aporovable SIPs . RegionalOffice review of draft state submittals or regulations
significantly increases the likelihood of an approvable submittal. In many
instances, such review is more beneficial iithe Office of Regional Counsel is
involved either in the entire review or with respect to specific isSues raised to that
office. Training courses for the States help to ensure timely, approvable
submissions. Such training could include substantive training on specific types of
submittals as well as training regarding the administrative matters concerning SIP
submittals, such as completeness.
e. Techniques that track SIPs in the Regional Office
Administrative processes play a large role in effectively processing SIPs . The use
of a SIP Processing “expert” to log in SIPS immediately upon receipt from the State
is a positive administrative procedure. In addition, developing a matrix (that could
be shared with the State) for action on submittals is also an effective administrative
tool for ensuring SIPs are processed in a timely manner.
-------
19
f. Techniques that assure Regional Offices review
appropriate SIPs
SIPs can be orocessed in a timely manner if the Regions only process SIPs that are
substantively complete . Therefore, returning incomplete SIPs to States is a very
effective tool for eliminating unnecessary SIP action.
2. . Negative Aspects of the Existing System
a. Techniques that delay publication of final action in the
Federal Register
Several orocesses of the current system delay publishing actions in the Federal
Register . Headquarters review slows down processing and, in many ways, seems
duplicative. Despite the procedures for Headquarters to review packages within a
specified amount of time, sometimes Headquarters reviewets will fail to complete
review by that time or will submit comments at the last moment and note that
more comments are to follow. In addition, the failure of Headquarters and the
Regional Offices to adequately communicate regarding the status of a SIP is a
problem. For example, at times Headquarters fails to indicate whether it is
concurring by failing to return the concurrence sheet, and the Regional Offices fail
to follow-up in order to determine the status of Headquarters review/comments.
Regional Offices lack resources for SIP processing. Both the Regional program and
Regional Counsel offices have insufficient resources. Furthermore, political
pressure may prohibit the disapproval of a SIP, thereby leading to lengthy
negotiations with a State to receive corrections. These negotiations take place
during the statutory period provided for EPA action on the submittal. Late issue
identification by both the Regional Offices and Headquarters serve to slow down
the processing of SIPs.
b. Techniques that hinder Regional Office and Headquarters
communication
Several factors hinder communication between Regional and Headauarters offices
and between Regional Offices . Frequent changes in the list of Headquarters
reviewers and the fact that the list is not regularly updated leads to confusion.
Although the issue resolution process has positive aspects that appear to facilitate
communication about controversial issues, the process is too lengthy. Moreover,
the outcome of issue resolution generally is not memorialized; therefore, it is easy
to change the bottomline decision later. This situation results in inconsistencies
between Regions.
-------
20
C. Obstructions in drafting Federal Register Notices
There are many SIP orocessing administrative difficulties that arise . Regional
Offices often have difficultly keeping track of administrative changes in Federal
Register language, such as the language concerning Executive Order 12866, and
with changes to boilerplate language. Headquarters also makes changes to
boilerplate language without an adequate explanation or rationale. Boilerplate
language may often be too lengthy and legalistic rather than reader friendly. In
addition,SIP processing manuals from both Headquarters and Regional Offices
become outdated too quickly. Regions are often faced with administrative issues
that are first raised when the package is forwarded to the Office of the Federal
Register for publication.
The Regions generally believe that there is confusion over what the Technical
Support Document (TSD) should contain in contrast to what the Federal Register
notice should contain. This confusion may be attributed to the lack of boilerplate
TSDs. With respect to Headquarters review of SIP packages, Regions believe that
Headquarters spends too much time making stylistic or editorial changes to Federal
Register notices, rather than focusing on issues that would “stop” a package from
being published. Regions also believe that the legal review of SIPs focused too
much on the Federal Reoister notices rather than on the actual regulations.
d. Techniques that hinder an approveble SIP being
submitted by the States
There are factors that inhibit the submittal of approvable SIPs . Adequate guidance
is not always available to the States in a timely fashion. Moreover, the absence of
substantive checklists that could be used by both the Regions and the States may
have a negative effect On the State’s ability to submit an approvable SIP. The
Options Committee believes that even when States submit SIPs early in draft form,
a technique noted as a positive aspect of SIP processing, Regional resources for
review of the draft submittal are often inadequate. In addition, the Office of
General Counsel (OGC) resources available for. SIP review are typically not used at
this early stage but rather are focused after the formal SIP issubmitted and a draft
Federal Register notice is prepared.
a. General frustrations with the SIP processing system.
The completeness criteria, SIPTRAX. and Part 51 hinder timely SIP processing ;
The current completeness criteria do notadequately address the current SIP world
and must be revisited. The completeness criteria do not address the specific types
of SIP submittals required by the 1 990 Amendments, but rather speak to the more
general type of SIP submission EPA received under the pre-amended Act. In
addition, 40 C.F.R. Part 51, which sets forth general provisions for SIPs, is
-------
21
outdated and needs revision. Finally, SIPTRAX is not an event tracking system
and, therefore, is not useful in revealing which SIPs are processed late and why
there’ are delays in prpcessing.
3. General Principles for New System.
The Options Committee developed “General Principles” that guided the
recommendations in this report. These General Principles are the underlying bases
for the specific recommendations adopted by the Committee.
a. . Regional SIP processing and sign-off.
Maximum control for processina SIPs should be at the Regional Offices: Regional
Administrator should be the signatory of all SIP packages . This principle is a
significant departure from the current system whereby Regional offices and
Headquarters share the role of processing SIPs. Pur suant to this principle, the
Options Committee effectively recommends that the existing SIP Tables be
dissolved and that no specific type (e.g., l/M submittals, redesignation requests) of
SIP packages routinely will be subject to a formal system for review by
Headquarters. The Consistency Committee, has developed a process for resolution
of issues regarding proposed or suggested Alternative Interpretations from
established regulation, language (e.g., Preamble), policy orguidance. The process
allows for up-front/early discussion and resolution for proposed Alternative
Interpretations, including an escalation process and suggested corrective measures
in the event that Alternative Interpretations are not properly resolved.
Recommendation 3.
In addition, OGC will be provided an opportunity to review significant adverse
comments and the response to those comments. Otherwise, Headquarters review
of all or a portion of a SIP submittal or Federal Register package will be at the”
option of the’ Region. ‘ ‘ ‘
b. Early issue resolution.
Issues should be resolved as early in the process as possible during the review of a
draft or formal SIP submittal . The success of the SIP program is largely dependent
on EPA’s working relationship with the State. Mutual respect is necessary for a
good working relationship. EPA can receive that respect only by providing States
with timely, supportable feedback on draft and final rules. While the Options
Committee recognizes that there may be times when issues do arise late in the
process, the Committee believes that as a general principle, the Agency should
work as hard as possible to resolve issues as early as possible, preferably while the
State is still in the rule development stage.
-------
22
c. Regional SIP processing within 12 months of U.S. EPA’s
completeness determination.
Regions should affirmatively determine whether SIPs are complete arid orocess
SIPs within 12 months of comoleteness determihatjon . Under the current SIP
process the Agency frequently takes longer than the 1 2-month period provided
under the CAA to approve or disapprove complete SIP submittals. Moreover, there
is some concern that the Agency is not affirmatively reviewing SIPs to determine
completeness and is not making findings of incompleteness for all SIPs that are
incomplete. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to revieW submittals for completeness
and to approve or disapprove SIPs within specified time frames. EPA should take
affirmative action to comply with these statutory mandates. A State submittal is
not federally enforceable until it is approved into the SIP.
d. Headquarters issuance of guidance and regulations.
Headauarters should timely issue guidance and re ulatiohs necessary for reviewing
SIPs . The States and the Regions will need to rely on thàse documeflts for
producing and reviewing SIPs. Under the Option Committee’s recommendations,
Headquarters role in the SIP process will be shifted to place more emphasis on
timely resolution of issueseither raised by the Regions or raised as an initial matter
in drafting regulations and guidance. Providing both the Regional Offices and
States with thorough guidance and regulations early in the process will help assure
that SIPs are consistently developed and that the SIPs will comply with the
mandates of the CAA.
a. Regional Counsel review of SIP packages.
Regional Counsel review of draft and formal SIP submittals and SIP packages
should be in.creased . Regional Counsel resourtes should be indreased. The fourth
general principle reàognizes that in order to provide States with the necessary
- feedback on draft and formal SIP submittals, legal review and advice is imperative.
Because the role of formal OGC review will be eliminated for. most SIP packages,
although OGC will be available for consultation on specific issues, the Offices of
Regional Counsel will carry the sole burden of providing legal advice with respect
to specific SIP submittals. Therefore, early and thorough review by ORC will be
increasingly necessary. Because of the expanded role for ORC review, the Options
Committee also believes that it will be necessary to increase ORC resources.
Currently, most of the Regional Counsel offices have difficulty devoting sufficient
resources to SIP review. Under the recommended system, the Regional Counsel
offices will need to devote more resources. •To do so adequately, they will need an
expanded staff.
-------
23
4. Recommendations for New System.
a. Abolish SIP Tables
The Options Committee recommends that the SIP Tables should be abolished and
that all SIPs should primarily be processed within the Region and signed by the
Regional Administrator. Despite general recognition that Headquarters review does
provide some benefit to the SIP process, the countervailing balance of timely
review of SIPs and the potential for developing alternative processes to ensure that
those benefits are not entirely lost (e.g., through the consistency process) has led
to the recommendation that the Regional offices take responsibility for developing
and issuing SIPs.
b. Retain Limited Headquarters Review
Although the Options Committee recommendS that Headquarters does not formally
review any subset of SIP packages on a regular basis, the Committee recognizes
two instances where Headquarters review of at least a portion of specific SIP
packages is essential.
Alternative interpretations: The Consistency Committee has developed a process
for determining when a Region may propose action On a SIP package when such
action may deviate from existing national policy. Pursuant to that process, the
Regions may determine that an alternative interpretation of the policy is acceptable
for the conditions represented in that SIP packége. This resolution process should
occur at an early stage, most likely before the Region has drafted specific Language
for the SIP. Howeverr when such language is drafted, (one or more offices m l
Headquarters will review the language discussing the alternative interpretation to
determine whether it sufficiently represents the agreement reached and whether it
presents any, other legal or policy problems. As a general rule, Headquarters will
have 10 working days to review such’ an alternative interpretation, If a shorter or
longer period may be needed because of the complexity and the sensitivity of the
issue involved, the Region and the relevant Headquarters offices should work
together to determinean appropriate review period.
Significant Adverse Comments: The Office of General Counsel will be provided an
opportunity to review SIP packages containing significant adverse comments and
the responses thereto. The Options Committee recognizes that there is a
significant litigation risk when adverse comments are received on a SIP package.
Therefore, to strengthen the defensibility of any potential litigation, it is important
to involve the Office of General Counsel in drafting the rationale for any approach
taken in the final rule. The Region should notify OGC when significant adverse
comments are received and should identify the nature of the comments. At that
-------
24
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEW SIP
PROCESSING SYSTEM
2.
Retain Urnited
Headquarters Review
Establish System for
Pr$óritlzina SiPs
1 .
Retain Substance of
Agreement wIth 0MB
1.
Abohel, SIP Tables
4.
Revise Boilerplate
Require Proper Delegation
5.
Use Boi rp 1ate
Draft Uc 1erstandable SIP
7.
..
.
..
Provide Re onal Access
Guidance and Reg iatlons
10.
Eliminate Unneceuaty
Information Transfer
I EstablishCentrellzed I
Devekp New
De op Pr Submft
Review Process
.
Review Grandfathedng
P0I
15.
evtse’C’ateness crtt
1 .
Develop Internal Review
Process
17.
F
I.
•1
19.
Establish Annual SIP
Processing Training Course
-------
25
point OGC will indicate whether it needs to play a further role in reviewing the draft
response to such comments and, perhaps, based on the nature of the comments
and the action being taken, the entire final action.notice. If mutually agreed upon,
OGC and the Region may determine that OGC should take the lead in drafting
responses to certain comments. As with draft alternative interpretations, the
presumptive period for review of draft responses to comments will be 10 working
days. However, based on the complexity of the issues involved and the number of
comments received, the Region and OGC may establish a shorter or longer review
period.
c. Require Proper Delegation
The existing delegation provides for Regional Administrator signature of SIP actions
represented by the categories “initially published in the Federal Register , and as
periodically revised by’ the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.” The
Memorandum of Delegation further provides that changes in the categories “will be
documented by memorandum from the Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and
Radiation, to the Regional Administrators.” Therefore, the Assistant Administrator,
at a minimum, must issue a memorandum to the Regional Administrators, providing
that signature authority for all SIPs has been delegated. However, in order to more
clearly indicate in the delegation itself what authority has been delegated to the
Regional Administrators, the Options Committee recommends that the delegation
be revised to specifically state that the signature authority for all SIPs, Section
111(d) plans, and redesignation requests has been delegated to the Regional
Administrators.
d. Revise Boilerplate
Boilerplate is a positive aspect of the current SIP processing system in that it helps
the Regions produce Federal Register packages quickly. However, some o’f the
boilerplate is too long and too legalistic., Furthermore, for some major programs
final boilerplate has never been developed. Therefore the Options Committee
recommends that specific boilerplate be revised or initially created by deadlines set
forth in Attachment 7. The dates identified in Attachment 7 are the dates by
which the Regions should have final boilerplate available for use. ‘In addition, the
Options Committee has identified boilerplate that does not need to be revised since
thosö types of SIP submittals have already been processed, for the most part.
These are also listed in Attachment 7, which addresses SIP requirements due on or
before November 1 5, 1 994. For future requirements due under the Amended Act,
the Options Committee recommends that boilerplate be drafted within ‘four months
following the required submittal date.
In developing the boilerplate, the Options Committee recommends that
Headquarters should’ draft only the program specific information and, not include the
-------
26
standard SIP language that is included in all SIP packages (e.g., regulatory
flexibility, 0MB review under E.O. 12866). The standardSIP language will be
available at the Regibnal Offices and can be combined by the Regional staff with•
the program-specific boilerplate. Keeping the standard boilerplate separate will
ease the administrative duties of the Regional SIP processing contact, see
• Recommendation 9, who must insert revisions to boilerplate. If standard SIP.•
language is attached to all types of boilerplate, any revision to the standard SIP
language’would then require multiple changes by the Regional SIP contact.
Headquarters should work with the sub-lead Regional office in distributing the draft
boilerplate to the Regional Counsel and Regional program offices. Each Region
should submit one set of comments to the sub-lead Regional office that will
coordinate aRegional response on the boilerplate.
e. Use Boilerplate
In identifying the positive aspects of the current system, the Options Committee
identified boilerplate Federal Reaister notices as speeding up the process of action
on SIP submittals. In addition, the boilerplate assists the public because it provides
a consistent format for similar packages. Therefore, Regions should use the
boilerplate in developing SIP packages.
f. Draft Understandable SIP Packages
The Committee recommends that EPA delete the standard SIP language stating that
• the SIP action does not have precedential effect. Furthermore, EPA should
standardize the citation forms in all SIP packages. In the past, the person
developing the Federal Register package has frequently been faced with comments
from different people as to the citation form to use in SIP packages. The SIP
developer has wasted time changing citation form. Moreover, the public may be
confused by different packages concerning the.same type of SIP submittal but that
contain different citation fOrm. Therefore, the Options Committee recommends
that standard citation forms should be identified and provided in the SIP Processing
Manual.
The Background section of the Federal Register package should include enough
information so that the public understands the basis for the action being taken. In
general, that section should answer the following questions:
o - what is the statutory requirement;
o what is the affected area;
o why does the statutory requirement apply to this area;
o when did the state take action to fulfill this requirement; and,
o what has been EPA ’s action on this submittal to this point.
-------
27
•However, the Background Section should neither be overly legalistic nor provide
more information than is necessary for the public to adequately understand the
nature of the State’s action in relation to the statutory requirement.
The Options Committee recognizes that the process of ensuring that Federal
Register packages are concise and understandable will be an ongoing process.
Therefore, the Committee recommends that EPA explore further opportunities to
shorten or clarify’ the boilerplate without removing any provisions required by law.
g. Develop Checklists
With the elimination of Headquarters review of SIP packages, SIPs may not always
be reviewed by people with the strongest expertise in a subject area. The
‘checklists, to be developed by the policy and legal experts in a specific SIP area,
will help to guide both legal and policy reviewers in determining whether the issues
of concern have been addressed and whether there are issues to raise through the
consistency process. In addition, the checklist will lead the reviewers to the
pertinent documents that should ‘be considered when reviewing a specific SIP
submittal. The Regional program should use the checklist in drafting the TSD for
any action (or, if no TSD is piepared, in drafting the Federal Register notice). The
TSD (or Federal Register notice) should address the items on the checklist and
indicate the portion of the state submittal that addresses that item. The checklist
will be essential to program management oversight of the SIP review process and,
therefore, it should accOmpany thedraft Federal Register package until it is signed
by the Regional Administrator. At that time the Federal Register package will be
sent forward to the Oftice of the Federal Register and the checklist should be
returned to the SIP file.
In implementing this recommendation, the Options Committee recommends that,
for SIP submittals already due under the Act, the checklists should be developed
simultaneously with the related boilerplate. Attachment 7. For requirements
that are due in the future, checklists should be prepared and/or revised
simultaneously with the promulgation of any regulations or the issuance of any
guidance or policy memoranda. This will allow checklists to be available to
Regions for reviewing draft State submissions that may be submitted prior to the
statutory due date. At a minimum, checklists for future SIP requirements should be
available no later than the statutory due déte for State submission of such
programs. Furthermore, each ‘checklist item will identify the applicable statutory,
regulatory, or guidance provision’related to the item. In conjunction with
developing these ‘checklists the Committee recommends that the enforceability
checklist be phased out and incorporated into the program-specific checklist as
nee’d ed.
-------
28
h. Develop Clear and Timely Guidance and Regulations
Because the recommended SIP review process effectively limits Headquarters
involvement, Headquarters will have more time to devote to other SIP activities
that are important to the timely processing of SIPs. In order for States to submit
SIP submittals in accordance with the requirements of the CAA, timely EPA
regulations and guidance is imperative. Moreover, these regulations and guidance
documents are important for Regional review of SIP packages.
I. Provide Regional Access to information
In order to effeciively and efficiently review SIP submittals and prepare Federal
ReóistIr noices, the Regions need to have access to guidance, regulations,
boilerplate and checklists. This will require eflicieht distribution from Headquarters
to the Regional program and counsel offices. From the Regions, this will require a
SIP contact whO will be the contact for Headquarters with respect to any new
boilerplate, guidance or other processing information and who will be responsible
for a centralized computer system within the Region. Boilerplate and checklists
should be kept on acentralized computer system for easy retrieval by those
persOns drafting SIP packages. The Regional SIP contact will need to make sure
- the system remains current. Headquarters will distribute hard copies of these
• documents as well as send computerized versions by disk or a computer retrieval
system. There also neóds to be a process for informing the Regional offices in
timely fashion of any revisions placed n a Oomputer retrieval system. With
respect to guidance documents, Headquarters should develop a computerized
• listing of specific types of SIPs, with cross references to documents, guidance,
policy, and regulations used for each specific type of SIPs. As an alternative, if a
system is available or could be develOped, Headquarters could include the actual
documents on such a system. Therefore, the system will either contain the
documents or provide information where copies of the documents are located and
how they may be retrieved.
j. Eliminate Unneceisary Information Transfer
A significant amount of paperwork is transferred between EPA end the Office of
Federal Register. There may be some way to reduce the paper transfer and rely
more on computerized transfer; suèh a procedure would ultimately save paper
(consistent with the Agency’s goal of reducing the amount of paper produced) and
could ultimatelyspeed up SIP Processing by eliminating reliance on the mail system
and relying more on the instantaneous transfer of information via computer.
Therefore, the Options Committee recommends that OAR in conjunction with the
Office of the Federal Register explore ways to use paperless information transfer
with respect to promulgating SIPs.
-------
29
k. Establish a Centralized Processing Fund
Regional preparation of typesetting requests is a time-intensive exercise that
produces little benefit in SIP processing. Establishing a centralized fund would
eliminate that task, thereby simplifying the SIP processing procedure and allowing
the Regions to devote those resources to other, more substantive, activities.
I. Develop New Data System
A new system that differs significantly from the current SIPTRAX system needs to
be developed. The.current system does not track “events” with rispect to SIP
processing and, therefore, does not provide the information that would be most
helpful to Headquarters ‘and the Regions. Such a system is necessary ‘for several
reasons, including (1) easy access to information for which we are held
accountable by Congress; (2) easy access to information for purposes of
developing litigation documents; and (3) determination by management of the
status of implementatibn of the statute. The new events tracking system should
include fields for the expected date of the Region’s next Federal Register action on
each SIP submittal and the type of action expected (e.g., direct final approval,
proposed disapprovOl, àtc.). For most SIP submittals, completion of this field
would be optional. However; for some identified types of submittals, Regional
Offices would be required to complete these fields at least 30 days prior to
anticipated publication in the, Federal Register . This will allow the field to serve as
a fail safe “heads up” warning to other Headquarters offices on sensitive SIP
actions. The Office of Mobile Sources has requested that enhanced I/M be the
only mobile source SIP for which completion of these files be required.
m. Develop Pre-Submittal Review Proóess
The pre subthittal review stage provides the best opportunity for EPA to make
meaningful comments on issues upon which the State must follow through.
Therefore, the Options Committee recommends that the Regions work with each
State to develop a process for review of draft submissions. Although many States
do submit SIPs early and some Regions may have formal or informal systems for
reviewing’early submittãls, a necessary recommendation for the revised processing
system is that each Region develop an up-front process with each State for early
review of SIP submittals. While the timing of such early submission may vary from
Region-to-Region and between States, it is important that such review should occur
at a point early ehough for the State to make revisions in response to EPA’s
comments before making a final submittal to EPA. To minimize the likelihood that
additional issues will be raised later, the Region should invoke the review of each
relevant Regional Office, including Regional Counsel. At a minimum, the Region
should establish an internal process for spotting and identifying issues to raise to
Regional Counsel and any other relevant Regional Office. Headquarters assistance
-------
30
should be available when the Region believes that a national issue has been raised
or the Regional staff determines it does not have sufficient expertise.
It is important to work with a State early in the process in order to receive good
SIPs and SIP revisions and to minimize the need to work with a State after
submission to correct deficiencies. Each Region and each State will be operating
under specialized constraints. Therefore, each Region will have the opportunity to
establish procedures that best fit the circumstances of that Region and a specific
State. For example, at least one Region has indicated that the public hearing stage
is too late in the process for at least one of its States to make any significant
‘changes to its regulations without restarting the State SIP process. This Region
can develop a procedure fOr ‘earlier review of that State’s submittals. For other
Regions and States, the period before the public hearing may be an adequate forum
for identifying deficiencies in the SIP.
In negotiating with the States for a review of draft submittals, the Region should
attempt to provide 60 days for’ EPA revieW. The 30-day period provided at the
time of publió hearing may not provide adequate time for EPA to complete a
comprehensive review of the prehearing Submittal identifying all deficiencies.
TherefOre, whether EPA review occurs at the public hearing stage or earlier in the
process, the Regions should attempt to negotiate at least 60 days forreview of the
early draft submittal.
This recommendation will require cooperation from the States. Some States may
not want to set up a formal prisubmittal process. In other cases, it may not be
feasible under the State adoptiOn process. However, although some Regions may
not be able to establish such an agreement with each of their States, each Region
should set implementation of this presubmittal process as a primary goal, since
early review will provide the best opportunity to work with the State in making
timely revisions to its SIP submittal.. . . .
. Review Grandfathering Policy
Regardless of the quality of the review or the time allotted, it will not always be
possible to identify and resolve all issues at the early. stages of review. To the
extent it is legally feasible; there should be a procedure to grandfather State
regulations when the State has worked with a Region to develop a regulation that
meets Agency and Act requirements and policy changes or legal interpretations are
further defined after the State has developed the regulation. EPA Should review
its grandfathering policy to determine what flexibility may be provided. Issues that
are identified late in the process often prodUce strained EPA-State relationships and
increased political involvement. Furthermore, these issues slow down the process
of getting an approved SIP in place. However, all late changes in policy may not be
able to be grandfathered due to Act requirements or air quality issues or other
-------
31
reasons. In those cases, the Regions should work with the States to make the
necessary changes to the SIP.
o. Revise Completenele Criteria
The completeness criteria were originally developed under the pre-amended Act.
Although they were marginally revised shortly after the CAA Amendments were
enacted, the revisions did not address the specific new requirements of the
amended Act. Furthermore, continued application of the completeness criteria to
new SIP submittals has highlighted additional problems with the existing criteria.
OAR should simplify the administrative functions of the completeness criteria with
an eye to limiting the required items to those necessary for EPA review of the State
submittal. Currently, in order to meet the administrative criteria, States need to
submit more paperwork than is needed for EPA review of the SIP submittal.
Simplification of this process would be beneficial to the State, which would be
required to generate and submit less paperwork, and beneficial to the Region,
which would have less paperwork to sort through in reviewing the SIP. For
example, with respect to the number Of copies of the submittal that EPA needs to
receive from the State (currently EPA’s regulations require 5 copies), EPA should
evaluate (in conjunction with the Information Transfer Workgroup) the acceptability
of electronic filing in lieu of some or all of the hard copies currently required.
The technical criteria have proved to be problematic over the past several years;
therefore, OAR should review and revise this portion of the completeness criteria to
alleviate these problems. In conjunction with this effort, OAR should take the
opportunity to clarify the distinction between completeness and approvability.
There is currently a misconception that an unapprovable SIP should be found
• incomplete. To the contrary, completeness and approvability are two different
concepts. Completeness should not be used as a mechanism to return
unapprovable SIPs, unless they clearly are incomplete under the existing criteria.
p. Develop Internal Review Process
Under the revised system, the Regional offices will provide all aspects of the policy
and legal oversight for a SIP submission. Because the additional cushio of
Headquarters review is being removed, it is imperative that the relevant offices
within the Region work together to develop a system for ensuring that all aspects
of the SIP are adequately reviewed. Such a system should be in place prior to the
time the Regional offices take sole responsibility for reviewing SIPs. These offices
should work together to establish a sysiem for reviewing SIP submittals and
Federal Reciister notices. Because the ten Regional offices are so diverse, it is
impossible to recommend one system that will work effectively for all ten offices.
Therefore, the Committee recommends that each Regional Office work internally to
-------
32
develop its own system, consistent with the recommendations made by this
Committee.
At this point, Regional authority for SIP review is a new concept and the various
offices within the Region may not be familiar with what resources will be needed
for reviewing SIPs. To help alleviate this problem, each Region should be prepared
to reevaluate its established system within one year from the time Regional offices
take sole responsibility for reviewing SIPs.
q. Establish System for Prioritizing SIPs
The CAA requires that SIP submittals be approved or disapproved within 12
months of a determination that the submittal was complete. Because of the
enormous quantity of SIPs required to be submitted under the amended Act, EPA,
despite its best efforts, may be unable to. process all SIPs within the statutory time
frame. Therefore, the Regions should prioritize SIPs such that the majority can be
processed within .that statUtory time frame. However, in prioritizing the SIPs, the
Regions should àonsider other factors, such as air quality benefits.
r. Retain Substance of Agreement with 0MB
The Options Committee does not recommend that any substantive changes be
made to the agreement worked with 0MB regarding the SIP packages that will be
reviewed by that Office. However,. since the current agreement refers to SIPs
merely by location in the SIP Tabló and since this Committee is recommending that
the SIP Tables be abolished,. OAR shoUld revise the agreement with 0MB to clearly
reflect those types of SIP submittals that need to be sent to 0MB for review. For
example, any reference to “Table 1 “ .in the agreement should be replaced by a list
of the specific type of SIP submittals listed in Table 1 as of the time of the
agreement with 0MB. .
With respect tà the processes of forwarding packages for review to 0MB and for
communications between 0MB and EPA, the Options Committee recommends that
these processes not be changed. The Options Committee believes that it is to the
Agency’s benefit to have 0MB direct all of its communications through one office;
that office will have the responsibility of ensuring that the correct persons in the
Region address any issues raised by 0MB. The current process reduces the•
possibility for miscommunication between EPA and 0MB.
s. . Establish Annual SIP Processing Training Course
With the delegation of SIP processing to the Regions, it will be important for OAR
to establish and help fund an annual SIP processing training course to accomplish
four goals.
-------
33
1. to provide an opportunity to introduce those who are new to SIP
processing to the system,
2. to provide an opportunity for Regions to share new and innovative
strategies and concepts that they may have developed with respect to
SIP processing,
3. to allow those people who have become experts with respect to
certain issues to share their knowledge on a national basiswith other
people performing the same work, and
4. to provide an opportunity for those in the SIP processing field to meet
those people in the other Regions and Headquarters with whom they
will be dealing on controversial issues in order to foster
communication among Regional personnel and between Regional and
Headquarters personnel.
The course shoUld be available to both Regional program and Regional Counsel.
The course should focus, in part, on general principles of SIP processing. In
addition, sessions on specific substantive and administrative issues will be an
important part of each training session.
C. SIP Content (Code of Federal Regulations)
1. Identification of Customers
One of the goals of the Options Committee was to develop one or more options for
making SIPs, as presented in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations (C.F.R.), more understandable for all customers. The C.F.R. is the SIP
repository because EPA incorporates SIPrevisions into the C.F.,R. by reference to
the underlying State regulations. Part 52 of the C.F.R. includes subparts for each
State; all States have an “identification of plan” section plus other provisions
identifying related matters. The Identification of Plan section has a title of plan, a
plan submittal date, and a list of plan revisions. Part 52 is the basic reference for
anyone wanting to know what the approved SIP is for the State. The “customers”
include the regulated community, public interest groups, the State and local
agencies, the public at-large, and EPA’s own staft.
2. Pros and Cons of Existing Content (as related to customers)
The process for approving SIPs by notice and comment in the Federal Register
followed by publication in the C.F.R. is well established. This processprovides the
basic underlying mechanism for the enforceability of SIPs by the federal
government. As such, this system cannot be changed without major changes in
-------
34
the federal statutes. However, there are both pros and cons regarding the manner
in which EPA has used this system over the years•as well as opportunities for
improvement. The “incorporation by reference” (IBR) system provides a distinct
advantage for both EPA and the Office of the Federal Register in that it allows the
Agency to very briefly summarize the SIP revisions that have been approved, while
still giving these provisions regulatory effect. Without the IBR system, the C.F.R.
would grow by many volumes because every plan item from each State would
need to be printed in its entirety.
However, the IBR system does have disadvantages. The list of plan revisions that
were made from 1972 through the late 1980’s is not very specific concerning the
rules and other materials actually incorporated into the SIP. As a result, it is almost
impossible for the average reader to ascertain from the C.F.R. exactly what action
EPA took in past years. In the late 1980’s, however, EPA improved the IBR
system. Since that time, the Regions have identified in a much clearer fashion the
SIP material that is being approved into the SIP. For example, the Regions now
specifically list the State regulations that are the subject of the action’ and the
Office of the Federal Register requires that the effective date of the State regulation
be stated in the IBR section. This procedure provides a much clearer picture to the
customer regarding the regulatory portion of the SIP. Improvements could still be
made in identifying nonregulatory SIPs (e.g., attainment demonstrations, emissions
inventories, etc.) although these are less critical to understanding the existing SIP.
The sections other than the Identification of Plan section contain miscellaneous
matérial that has been inserted into the SlPs.in rulemaking actions over the years.
This material may include compliance schedules,, clarifying language regarding
particular State regulations, promulgation of EPA requirements into the SIP, etc..
Much of this is material that is no longer relevant (e.g. “a State will request an
extension until July 1, 1980”) and that has no identifying date of promulgation.
This characteristic makes much of the material outdated or incomprehensible.
3. Recommendations for Improving SIP Content
a. Revise pre-1985 Identification of Plan Provisions.
This revision would clarify what federally approved rules and other parts the SIP
contains and would greatly enhance the public’s understanding of what is in the
SIP and provide impértant benefits with respect to enforcement actions. It is
imperative that this activity be carried out with great scrutiny and by someone
knowledgeable about the approved SIP. Therefore, before such action is
undertaken, adequate resources must be provided because such action should not
be undertaken until sufficient resources can be devoted to the effort.
-------
35
b. Publish the SIP
Section 110(h) of the 1990 amended Clean Air Act requires EPA to publish the SIP
no later than November 15, 1 995. This publication would also serve to greatly
enhance the understanding of the SIPto all customers.
c. Continue Current Method. of Identification Under
Identification of Plan Section
The current identification of plan provisions that establish separate sections for
materiel incorporated by reference and for material included as additional material
are sufficiently clear to inform the public of what is contained in the SIP. However,
the improvements made in the late 1 980’s must not be allowed to deteriorate. The
regulatory portions of SIPs must be clearly identified in the IBR section. Rules and
regulations should be identified not only by number, but by a descriptive title as
well. Other material being approved into the SIP should be described in a manner
that the average non-EPA reader can understand.
1 RECOMMENDATIONST p
I FOR iMPROVING ____
I SIP CONTENT I
-------
36
d. Review Other !0 boE18 of SIP in C F.R.
Material in other sections of the State-specific portions of the C.F.R. should be
updated. The material needs to be carefully reviewed and should be deleted if they
are outdated or no longer relevant. In the future, any language inserted into these
other sections should be linked to the particular SIP action in the “Identification of
• Plan” section or clearly state the circumstances under which EPA is promulgating
the requirement. These provisions should also be dated for the sake of clarity.
-------
37
III. CONSISTENCY COMMITTEE
A. Charge andScope
The charge of the Consistency Committee was to develop a process that could
strike a balance between the need to have consistent national application of
regulation and policy with the need for Regional flexibility to address local issues.
B. Assumptions
1. Consistency Process
There is disagreement within the Agency (both at the Regional and national
program levels) whether consistency is necessary and/or desirable. To improve the
way that existing regulations and policy are applied and to address areas where
policy development is needed, the Committee developed a process that
incorporates the following elements:
o a way to communicate within EPA the policy decisions that have an
impact across Regions;
o a mechanism to identify issues that have national implications and that
should be discussed openly with all Regions participating;’
o a process that raises identified issues quickly to the appropriate people
(i.e., Office Director, AA for OAR); and
o a mechanism to encourage Regions to be accountable to one another
when an individual Region decides to propose implementation of an
Alternative lnierpretation to existing policy, etc.
Throughout the report the Committee refers to two types of issues: Tier I and Tier
I l.
Tier I: Issues in which national consistency is considered important
enough that alternative interpretations of binding statutes, regulations,
etc., would require resolution either by the relevant workgroup or from
Regional lead/facilitator process because such alternative
interpretations could impact other Regions or set national precedents
for a particular program(s).
Tier Il: Issues in which an alternative interpretation of policy or
guidance is unlikely to impact other Regions or set national precedent.
-------
38
A Region is free to pursue this alternative without consulting other
Regions or national program offices.
See Attachment 8 describing the tiered hierarchy of reviews.
Throughout the report the term “Alternative Interpretation (A.l.)” is used to denote
a situation when a Region or national program office identifies a Tier I issue that
may require a change in the way regulation, guidance or policy has been applied in
the past. The term A.l. also includes situations when a policy has not yet been
developed.
2. Implications of Lack of Consistency
The Committee identified several implications of a lack of national consistency,
including:
o concern about giving up program objectives in one Region and then
having that decision reproduce itself in other Regions, ultimately
• making the program less effective (lowest common denominator
effect);
o complications that occur in developing a legal theory or strategy in
response to litigation when the statutes and policy are not interpreted
and applied consistently across Regions; and,
o impact on Regional credibility with the States and local agencies when
inconsistent application of regulation and policy occur.
On the other. hand, in many cases, Regions want and need greater autonomy in
interpreting and applying the CAA and related policy because political, economic
and environmental conditions and concerns vary across the country.
C. Current system
The existing system relies on Headquarters or the national program offices to
ensure consistency through the SIP review process. With declining resources and
shifting priorities, the consistent application of regulations and, policy nationally has
been uneven. With SIP’streamlining, the evaluation of SIP submittals wilt reside
with the Regional Oftices. Consequently, there is a need to ‘develop a process to
encourage communication of Regional decisions in relationship to SIP submittals.
-------
39
D. Fundamental principles for new process
Three fundamental principles underlie any process that seeks to balance
consistency and flexibility. These principles are:
1. Alternative Interpretations (A.l.’s) be implemented through
adequate consultation with affected parties;
2. A.l.’s be based on a defensible rationale; and
3. as Regions are empowered, they will take responsibility for the
impact that their actions may have on another Region(s). The
process described below relies on an honor system and
accountability for those who do not follow established
procedures to ensure consistency.
E. Recommended Consistency Process
The Consistency Committee recommends a system that brings together all
stakeholders when a Tier I issue is identified and an A.l. is proposed. This process
is summarized in the following flow charts showing a two-stage process for
bringing issues forward to resolution, including an escalation process. Consistent
with the timelines included in the flow charts, the process will include the following
elements, Flow Chart 1:
First Level Negotiation on an A.l.:
o Begin Process : When a tier I issue is identified, the initiating offiàe
writes a one-page description of the issue. The initiating Division or
Office director will distribute the one-page summary to the identified
contact list and facilitate the initial call. See Attachment 9.
o Initial Call : The initial call should explain the issue, determine the
appropriate decision level given the time critical nature of the decision
(existing workgroup, DD call etc) and explore possible options.
Factors listed in Attachment 10--Guide, should be considered.
Negotiations: Negotiations will follow the initial call, via follow-up calls,
meetings etc., to work out a compromise among the stakeholders.
Final Call: A final call is scheduled to either reach closure or decide to
escalate. lf.closure is reached, the decision is distributed to all Regions and
the decision is documented. Escalation will occur if a Division. or Office
-------
40
Director non-concurs in writing or if the Associate General Counsel for Air
and Radiation indicates that a significant legal risk is associated with the
proposed A.l.
Facilitator: EPA should designate an objective process facilitator within the
Office of Air & Radiation (OAQPS desk officer) with the following
responsibilities:
o ensuring that the consistency process is being followed and
that all issues are addressed in a timely manner;
o ensuring that when there is nonconcurrence on a proposed Tier
I Alternative interpretation, any issue is elevated to the
appropriate Agency senior managers for resolution;
0 ensuring that all decisions on proposed Alternative
Interpretations are properly documented and distributed.
If the decision is to escalate, then the process outlined in Flow Chart 2 will be•
initiated. The steps are similar to those in Flow Chart 1; the process relies on the
designated facilitator to ensure that all stakeholders are engaged; that a decision is
reached and that the decision is distributed and documented.
-------
41
P0/OFF CE
____ Beçin
Process
ATTACHMENT ii (Figure 1)
PROPOSED SIP CONSISTENCY FLOW CHART
LEAD! FAC 1 L I TATOP SUPPORT
CTIEP I ONLY)
-Alternative Interpretation
(Al,) Identified
-One-pager corroletea
-Stakeholders Notified
-A Lead Identified
______ ________ -Cal I Scheou le
-Facilitator Copied
-One-pager Explained
-Concerns Discussed
K i cI -off
1 WI(
(RO/Off ice Lead)
it a I
LE ’_
Negotiations
(PC/Office Lead)
2 wks
Close-out
Call
4. ________ ___________
2 ¼s ___________ _______________
No Escalate
Re ached See Next Page
1-12
mo
P0/Office
OD
Non-Concurrence tion
-A. I Lead Atterrots
To Work Out Differences
-Outcome of Negotiations
Sunr ar zea
-Decision Announced
RE Resolution vs
Escalation
-Concensus Reached wnen
ALL Staleriolders
Satisfied wttl A I
Can Live With
-Faci tator Records
Data System
-A I Documented ( .‘
reQuired) [ Faci :: . r-
TracKs)
or
-------
42
ATTACHMENT II CF gure 2)
PROPOSED SIP CONSISTENCY FLOW CHART
ESCALATED
I.
i cK-off
lw i(
(Faci I tator Lead)
lflit i6l
Call
I
(F
Megotation
ac I tator
S
Lead)
WK S
Dec Si Ofl
Mace
,
I SSUE/ FAC I L I TATOR LEAD
(TIER I ONLY)
-Stak eholders Notified
-Call Scheduled
- Issues SunTnarized
- tions Discussed
-On-going Calls or Meetings
Schec uIed as Necessary
- Dec is ion/ Pat I ona I e
Announced
-All Interested PO/t4
Off ices Participate
-Facilitator Pecords in
Date System
-A.l Documented (if
re uirec) [ Facilitator
TracKsj
-Urresol ’ed Issue Identified
-Decision Maker Identified
(I e. Off Ice Director)
2-4
I
-Issue May Be Escalated
To i-digller Level Decision
MaKer. e.g AA or A
Close-out Call
( aci itator Lead)
1-12
t out.
-------
43
F. Corrective measures
If it is apparent that, in a specific instance, a Region or national program office has
not abided by the agreed upon system, the DMsion or Office Director from the
deviating Region or office would be responsible for explaining to all other
stakeholders why such an A.I. occurred, so that all stakeholders fully understand
the implications and consequences of such an A.l. This would occur on a
conference call, during which time a decision would be reached whether corrective
action is necessary, i.e., a recision of the action pursuant to 1 1O(k)(6) or a change
in the national policy to allow for the A.l.
G. Data system and staff training needs
To ensure that all stakeholders are sufficiently involved in the consistency process
early on, and to enhance communications and facilitation throughout the process,
the development of accompanying appropriate data bases and staff training will be
necessary. Training will be needed not only for Regional office staff, including
Regional Counsels, but also for those stakeholders at the Headquarters’ level,
including national program offices, at a minimum, OAQPS, OMS, OPAR and OECA.
In addition, it is necessary that the Regional and national program office personnel,
involved in consistency issues, be able to determine when their interpretations of
regulation, language, policy and guidance constitute a Tier I or Tier Il Alternative
Interpretation. In order to ensure that there is a level playing field on current policy;
guidance, it is imperative that, through appropriate computerized databases,
existing document compilations be updated for those programs for that
compilations have been developed, and compilations of various documents be
developed for those programs where it is lacking.
-------
44
IV. DATA COMMITrEE REPORT
A. Charge and Scope
The charge of the Data Committee was to review the current SIPTRAX II data
system 1 to analyze the needs of the customers, and to recommend improvements.
The Committee also reviewed the docket systems of each Region to establish some
consistency in the material available in the SIP files. Another charge of the
Committee was to review the Regional files for the status of the availability of
federally approved rules. The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1 990, requires the
Agency to identify federally enforceable State implementation plans by November
1 5, 1 995, and every three years thereafter.
B. Data Tracking
1. Current System
The existing SIPTRAX Il system does not meet the needs of its customers and
therefore is not useful to the Regions, Headquarters, the general public, or the
regulated community. Each Region maintains at least one separate tracking system.
because the current information in SIPTRAX II does not generate reports helpful to
the Regions or Headquarters. Because the system is not functional, each time
information is requested from GAO or Congress, Headquarters must poll the
Regions for this information. The current system is on MAPS, which is frequently
slow or difficult to. access.
2. Management/Tracking Systems
There is a need for a national SIP tracking system that is a central repository for
Regional SIP tracking information and a resource for Headquarters irI answering
inquiries from GAO and Congress. . The Data Committee polled all the Regions
regarding the elements to be tracked; the Committee also polled Headquarters
regarding specific and essential core elements. Having identified these core
elements, the Committee developed a method for tracking these elements under
one system. The goal of the Data Committee was not only to have one
comprehensive system that included data tracking and information transfer, but
also to make the system more manageable and less costly The Committee will not
address the information transfer data recommendations of the Options or
Consistency Committees. Consequently, the policy/guidance library, deviation
process tracking, graphics feature and boilerplate library are not part of this
proposal.
-------
45
Theessential features of the system are:
o one-time entry of data that would update the Finding/Sanctions data
base;
o address MOARS inquiries;
o allow for the creation of management reports for both Regional and
headquarters managers;
o provide Regional autonomy;
o be user-friendly;
o be cost-efficient;
o requireminimal re9iOflal and/or headquarters maintenance support;
o require all changes be approved by a national work group;
o contain a screen for Headquarters required core elements; and,
o contain Regional screens to track as much information as each Region
needs.
The system would allow the Regions to track and count SIP elements by Districts,
counties, States or whatever is used at the Regional level in the format needed by
Regional management and provide the information in the format required by
Headquarters, e.g. by SIP element and nonattainment area. All Regions would be
able to track all the SIP procesCing information that they now track on their own
systems. This system would allow for the tracking of packages that are not
considered SIPS, such as permit programs, Section 111(d) plans, etc.
A training course would be conducted for all Regional SIP coordinators or a satellite
course could be presented for all Regional personnel. A contractor would develop
and design the systems with the SIP national workgroup along with input from the
other Regional offices.
3. Centralized System (OPTION I)
The two systems discussed in this section of the report are basically the same
except for the location of the system, whether Headquarters or Regions will
maintain the system, and the cost of developing the system. Both systems would
have the essential features listed above.
-------
46
The centralized system would be a system located in Headquarters and managed
and maintained by Headquarters staff. Changes to the structure of the system
would only be implemented by the lead person (Headquarters or Region) but would
require approval by the SIP work group. All Regions would be using NETWORK to
get on the system instead of MODEMS. This would make getting onto the system
faster and more efficient than MAPS.
4. Distributed System (OPTION II)
The distributed system would be a LAN-based system locate.d on each Region’s
LAN. All ten systems would be identical; the screens would be the same as in the
centralized syétem. Information would be input by the Regions; but the core data
elementsrequired by Headquarters would be uploaded to Headquarters,probably
via MAPS, on a weekly basis. The Findings and Sanctions data base would also be
located in the Regional offices and would need to be uploaded to the Headquarters
data base. Having the system located on the Regional LAN systems would assure.
the Regions of easy access but would require some maintenènce from Regional
LAN experts at the Regional level. Regional contacts would need to have upgrades
in hardware because this system would be designed using WINDOWS.
5. Data Elements for Tracking System
All items listed in Attachments 11, 1 2 and 1 3. The items marked with an “H” will
be required by Headquarters.
6. Recommendations
The Committee recommends Option II, the distributed system, because the Regions
will have access to their own tracking systems at all times; the system will be
maintained at the Regional level where the information is used most; there will be
more flexibility at the Regional level, and the, system will alleviate the Regions’
having two tracking systems. For Headquarters, the system will result in less time
•spent on managing the system while making the information needed to generate
management reports available. The Committee Would also recommend that after
the system is designád that one work assignment be put in place to support all ten
Regions in handling maintenance problems.
C. SIP Docket Files
.1. Background
For any rulemaking action,such as an action on a SIP package, the Agency needs
to maintain a file of the information relied upon in taking the action. Such
-------
47
information should be available to the public. The Data Committee po lied the
Regional Offices to discern what is currently being kept in the record, what is being
excluded, and how the public can gain access.
While the individual responses were varied, there was a consensus that certain
items such as the official State submittal and Designee’s cover letter, EPA’s
rulemaking notices (both proposed and.final), public comments and responses
thereto, and the Technical Support Document (TSD) should be kept in the public
docket file. Some Regional Offices included some presubmittal correspondence
(such as EPA comments on the State’s proposed action) in the official docket file,
while other EPA offices maintained a separate internal file on presubmittal
correspondence.
At the same time, half of the Regional Offices routinely included the Action
Memorandum in the SIP docket file. The Regional Offices that excluded available
Action Memoranda did so on the basis that they represented the internal
deliberative Agency process and only a recommendation for Agency action. The
Regions were also split over the inclusion of specific evaluations of completeness
and enforceability, although a majority of the Regions did include their analysis in
the public docket files.
The mechanism by which the Regional Offices released information to the public or
provided the public the opportunity to review the docket file also differed. Some
only released docket file information upon receipt of a Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request, while others sent the material out upon receipt of a written
request. Some Regional Offices required a 24-hour advance notice to review the
files, while others did not. Some offices charged for the duplication of materials
while others did not. Most Regional Offices did not release any portion of the
docket file to the public (including the initial State submittal) until EPA published its
initial rulemaking action (NPR, DFRN) in the Federal Register .
All of the Regional Offices maintained hard copies of the State Submittal in a
dedicated storage area. Some Regional Offices archived the files (due to space
limitations), while others physically, kept all records within the office.
2. Recommendations: Official Docket File
The Data Committee reviewed these responses and consulted with OGC and the
Agency Records Manager. Based on these discussions, and in order to maintain
some level of consistency among the Regional Offices in the maintenance and
availability of EPA SIP revision decisionmaking records, the Data Committee makes
the following recommendations:
-------
48
a. Core Docket File should consist of certain documents,
which should be indexed
The following documents should be in the core docket file [ an “‘“ indicates
Agency generated documentsl:
o Cover letter - Governor
o Submittal
o Completeness checklist *
o Completeness determination letter *
o Officiél correspondence and supplemental information
o Approvability checklist
0 Any technical documents relied upon in determining approvability
oTSD
0 FRN - proposal and final [ manuscript and published copyj *
0 Public comments received
0 EPA analysis of comments *
0 Office of Federal Register cover memo with IBR attachments.
b. Excluded EPA generated documents
The following documents should be excluded from the core docket file:
0 Presubmittat correspondence
0 Internal memoranda and records of telephone calls
0 Action memorandum
Any other documents being considered for inclusion or exclusion must be reviewed
by the appropriate Office of Regional Counsel.
c. Public access guidelines
The docket file can be accessed by the public without a request pursuant to the
Freedom of Information Act. The Agency can require advance notice of 24 hours,
which is consistent with the Agency’s policy on the release of docket files
associated with Agency-promulgated regulations. Requests for a copy of the
official docket should follow Agency policy on duplication costs.
d. Timing of accessibility of documents
0 Completeness Determination: after letter is sent out
0 Substantive analysis: after initial publication in the Federal Register
(NPR,DFRN)
0 State submittal: same as above.
-------
49.
0 Public comments: as of the receipt date.
e. Storage of material for public docket
The Data Committee recommends that the decision regarding storage of docket file
documents, including the archiving of historically useful but regulatorily outdated
material, be left up to the individual Regional Offices.
D. Section 110(h)
1. Background
Section 110(h) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, requires the Agency to
identify federally enforceable State implementation plans by November 1 5, 1 995,
and every three years thereafter. The Data Committee surveyed each Regional
office to find out the status of the Regional offices in compiling federally approved
rules. Most Regions have completed or are working on the compilation of these
documents. One outstanding issue is whether this requirement includes the non-
regulatory portions of the SIPs as well as the regulatory portions.
2. , Recommendation
Since this is a requirement of the amended CAA and all Division Directors are
committed to completing, at a minimum, the regulatory portions of the SIPs for
each State in their Region, the Committee recommends that one notice be
published in the Federal Register for all Regions by November 1 5, 1 995. This
notice will make available to the public all ‘federally approved rules for each State.
A contact person for each Region should be identified in the notice.
-------
50
Attachment 1: SIP Elements Inventoried by Backlog Committee
SIP Element
SIR
Attachment
Total
Total Backlog
% Backlog
VOC RACT Fixup
II
98
81
83%
PM-b SIPs
II
46
32
70%
so 2 sip
I)
4
2
50%
NSR for PM-b
II
43
11
26%
NSR Rules (VOCINOx)
II
114
25
22%
Stage II
II
11
5
45%
VOC RACT Catchups
II
92
16
17%
VOC MCI (New & Expanded)
II
31
17
55%
VOC Non-CTG MCI
II
34
12
35%
CO NSR(>12.7 ppm)
II
14
3
21%
Nox RACT SIP:
182(f)
II
7
0
0%
SIP SUBMITTAL
II
67
4
6%
Emissions Statements
II
113
70
62%
CO Attainment Plan (>12.7 ppm)
II
.11
2
18%
CO Contingency P lan(>12.7 ppm)
I I
10
0
0%
03 Emission Inventory-VOC/Nox/CO
II
91
54
59%
CO Emissions Inventory
II
23
13
57%
TCMs to Offset Growth
II
13
2
15%
VMT Forecast (CO >12.7 ppm)
II
9
4
44%
Employee Trip Reductionp
(I
14
3
21%
Clean Fuel Fleets/Opt out
II
1
0
0%
Oxygenated Fuel Program
II
20
18
80%
Sm Business Assistance Prgm Sip
II
24
17
71%
LeadSiP
II
8
0
0%
CO NSA (<12.7 ppm)
(I
21
5
24%
15% Plan (VOC)
Il
12
0
0%
(IMSIPs (03 & CO)
(/M . Ozone
I
26
1
4%
l/M-C0
I
7
2
29%
CO Contingency MeasuresRi2.7ppml
II
8
0
0%
PM-iC Contingency Measures
II
19
1
5%
PAMS
II
19
0
0%
-------
Elemerl SIP
Attachment
Tót.I
Total Backlog
% Backlog
IntraState Moderate II
.
& CO) II
6
0
0%
SIP Elements
1016
398
39%
51
-------
Attachment 2: Other SIP Elements
Other SIP Element
S
SIP
Attachment
TOTAL
T
.
otal Backlog
% Backlog
‘
Redesignetions
II
20
3
15%
Maintenance Plans
II
14
I
7%
Visibility Protection Plan SIP
5
.
4
80%
111(d) Plans
III -
10
8
80%
New Source Review/PSO
III
50
11
22%
Recodifications
III
10
3
. 30%
Source Specific SIP Revisions
III
23
,1 1
48%
Other
883
423
62%
Subtotal Other SIP.
•
815
1
57%
Attachment 3: Top 12 States with Active SIP
Required by 1990 Amendments
(Total Inventory)
Elements
.
.
State S of Act Bem.nt.
Percentage
California 174,
17.1%
Pennsylvania 132
13.0%
New
York 55
5.4%
Texas 48
4.7%
New Jersey 5 45
4.4%
Ohio 40
3.9%
Colorado 39
3.8%
Arizona 30
3.0%
Utah 28
2.8%
Connecticut 27
2.7%
Mains 27
. 2.7%
Now -Iamp.l*s 27
2.7%
All Others ‘ 344
33.9%
Total 1016
100.0%
52
-------
Attachment 4: Top 11 States with Active SIP Elements in the Backlog
Required by the 1990 Amendments
53
State
S of Act Element,
PercentaQe
California
81
20.4%
Pennsylvania
80
20.1 %
Taxis
30
7.5%
Colorado
20
5.0%
Vir irv.
16
4.0%
Arizons
16
4.0%
Washington
15
3.8%
New Hampshire
14
3.5%
Kentucky
13
3.3%
New Jersey
12
.0%
Connecticut
10
2.5%
Ail Ott .
91
.22.9%
Total
398
100.0%
-------
54.
Attachment 5: Top 12 States with “Other” Active SIP Elements
(Total Inventory)
State
S of Other Elements
. Percentage
California
317
55.0%
Arizona
45
. 7.8%
Tennessee
. 19
. 33%
Texas
19
3.3%
North Caro l ina
14
2.4%
virginia
14
2.4%
Kentucky
13
2.3%
Ohio
. . 13
2.3%
NewJer sey
12
2.1%
Nevada
. 11
1.9%
Pennsyfvsr . .
. . 11
1.9%
Floiida
10
1.7%
All Others
78
13.5%
Total
. . . 576
100.0%
-------
Attachment 6: Top 8 States with “Other” Active SIP Elements
in the Backlog
55
Slate
S of Other Elements
Percentage
Cahfornia
153
55.2%
Arizona
36
13.0%
Virginia
11
4.0%
kentucky
11
4.0%
Nevada
9
3.2%
Pennsylvania
7
2.5%
North Carolina
7
2.5%
Texas
7
2.5%
All o1he
36 .
13.0%
Total
‘277
. 100.0%
-------
56
Attachment 7: Options Committee Checklist
The Options Committee recommends that boilerplate Federal Register language and
substantive policy and legal checklists be created (or revised) for specific types of
SIP submissions that have come dueunder the Clean Air Act. The Options
Committee recommends that for certain types of SIP submissions that have already
come due under the Act boilerplate and checklists be prepared (or revised) in
accordance with the schedules set forth below. For requirements that have not yet
come due under the Act, the Options Committee recommends that Headquarters,
with input from the Regions, prepare boilerplate Federal Register language no later
than 3 months following the statutorily-required submittal date and that checklists
be prepared and revised each time the Agency issues guidance or regulations
relevant to a specific submittal. In any event, a checklist should be available no
later than the date a submittal comes due under the Act.
Boilerplate and checklists to be reøared within 3-4 months of adoption of
Recommendations
Ozone 15 percent plan
New Source Review
VOC RACT catch-ups
CO attainment demonstrations and contingency measures
Enhanced and Basic l/M
Lead SIPs
PM 10 contingency measures
Transportation conformity
NOx RACT rules
Boilerplate and checklists to be ore ared within 6 months of adoption of
Recommendations
TCMs to offset growth
Redesignation/maintenance plan
1994 Ozone attainment demonstrations
Post-1996 VOC/NOx reductions
111(d) plans
General conformity
Boilerplate and checklists to be prepared within 9 months of adoption of
Recommendations
PM 10 SIPs
SO 2 SIPs
-------
No Need for New or Revised Boilerplate
Emission Statements
VOC RACT fix-ups
Stage II
Emission inventories
VMT forecast
ETR/ECO
Oxyfuels
Small Business Assistance programs
PAMS
57
-------
58
Attachment 8: Description of Tiered Hierarchy of Reviews
Description: The separation of issues into Tiers will provide the Regions and
national program offices with a framework for deciding when an issue needs to be
raised to a broader forum. The “Tiered Hierarchy” separates issues into two Tiers,
with Tier I being the universe of issues that initiates consultation outside of an
individual Regional office.
Tier I: Issues where national consistency is considered important enough that
alternative interpretations of binding statutes, regulations, etc., would require
resolution either by the relevant workgroup or from Regional lead/national office
facilitator process because such alternative interpretations could impact other
Regions or set national precedents for a particular program(s).
Tier II: Issues where an alternative interpretation of policy or guidance is unlikely to
impact other Regions or sêt national precedent. A Region is free to pursue this
alternative without consulting other Regions or national program offices.
The following historical examples, are meant to give the flavor of what the
Consistency Committee felt were representative of the two Tiers. The Tier I
examples are taken from issues that have been subject to recent conference calls
involving Regional and national program office staffs.
Tier I.
1. Can a nonattainment area be redesignated to attainment without a fully
-approved NSR program that meets the requirements of ‘the ‘90 Amendments?
2. Does an approvable SIP submittal have to contain an emission limit or control
requirement that establishes RACT or is it sufficient to have a process defined in a
SIP by that RACT is determined with the RACT limit or control requirement
specified in a permit?,
3. Does an entire nonattainment area need-to have “clean” air quality data, for a
portion of the area, to be able to have its. redesignation request found complete?
4. Can a redesignation request be found incomplete on grounds of inadequate
pub!ic process?
5. Can an exemption from the NOx portion of the conformity requirement be
granted based on an area having attained the standard?
6. Can 1 00 percent credit be given for clean fueled vehicles under the ECO/ETR
program? -
-------
59
7. Do PM 10 SIPs that do not demonstrate attainment have to address the RFP
requirement in the Act?
8. •Can a new nonattainment problem be addressed through means other than a
SIP call or formal designation as a nonattainment area?
Tier II.
1. Approving consultation procedures in transportation conformity SIPs and
definitions of “regionally significant”.
2. Approving a State’s 5 percent determination (a deviation from a CTG limit based
on a showing that, for a specific source category, the emissions resulting from the
deviation are negligible).
3. Approving “good faith efforts” tests in ECO SIPs.
4. Approving a program design for enhanced I/M that differs from the model l/M
rule , provided the program meets the performance standard.
-------
60
Attachment 9: Sample Request for Alternative Interpretation
REQUEST FOR ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION
ISSUE/POLICY IN QUESTION.:
DESIRED ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION:
BACKGROUND:
JUSTIFICATION FOR ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION
LIKELY IMPACT(S):
TIMEFRAME FOR RESPONSE:
SUBMITTED BY:
-------
61
Attachment 10: Guide to Developing Options When An Alternative Interpretation
(A.l.) is being Proposed and ConSidered
This document was designed as a guide in assisting stakeholders on how to
proceed in determining, through options, how to formally or informally address
Alternative Interpretations to established regulation, language, policy, or guidance.
1) Determine whether the A.I. relates to regulation or policy (nonbinding
interpretation of statute or regulation), and:
a) If it the A.I. departs from clear language of regulation, decide whether to;
- propose to amend regulation to allow for the proposed A.l.,
- advise RA nOt to proceed with A.l., OR,
-propose the A.l. without amending the regulation (OGC would advise against this
option).
In any event, it is recommended that any such decision only be made by upper-
level HQ management and the appropriate RA(s).
b) If the A.I. departs from policy, decide whether the’A.l. can be reconciled with
the general policy by finding an “anchor” in the statute that accommodates both
the policy and the A.l.; for example, perhaps the policy could be altered to allow
that type of Alternative Interpretation even while retaining the basic statutory
interpretation underlying the policy (consistency does not require identical results).
If no such justification for the proposed Tier I A.I. can be found, decide whether to:
- change the policy to match the A.l.,
- advise the RA not to proceed with the proposed A.l., OR,
- propose the A.l. without changing the policy (OGC would advise against this
option because the Agency as a whole would be acting “capriciously ”). In any
event, the decision should be made by upper-level HQ management and the
appropriate RA(s).
2) Assign specific offices with the task of implementing the decision.
-------
62
Attachment 11. SIP Processing Information Tracked by Regional Computer
Systems
Based on information received August 31, 1994
IC)lipper,IW)P 5.1,(D)Base,lL)otua
C
W
D
W
0
0
W
1.0
C
L
Name Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
State
X
X
X
X3
X3
X
..
District
X
Submission Title
X
X
•
•
.
X3
X
ContractlAssigned To/Stiff Name
X
•
X
•
X
X
X
Previous Contact
.
X
Date Assigned To Staff
—
—
X
Reviewer
X
Submission ID
X
Xl
Xl
Xl
X l
Xl
Pollutants
,
8
2
1
X3
X3
.
1
X
Date of Governor’s Submittal Letter
X
1. Submission Received Date
•
,
X
X
X
X
X
X
EPA/Stat. Initiated Flag
X
X
3. Grandfathered
X
14. Enforcement/Court/Both Flag
X
X
•
•
.
,
5. Legislative Interest Flag
X
,
16. DraftS .
X
X
17. Attorney Assigned (Draft)
X
18. Formal Partition ID .
X
X l
X
X
X
X
19. Formal Partition Title
X
X
20. Formal Submittal Oat.
X
.
1. Formal Results of Compl.t.nsss Rsvi.w (C/l/P)
X
X
,
X
.
22. Formal Letter Sent To Stat. 0.t. or
. Completeness Date
X
•
.
X
X
X
X
X
.
X
23.. Formal Letter Sent To State Target Date
X
X
X
X
24. Completeness Determination Due or Compliance
Date .
. X
,
X
25. . lndicationThat Completeness Deemed
X
26. RFC .
x
,
-------
(C)lippsr.(W)PS.1.(D)8s$e.(UOtU$
C
W
0
w
0
0
w
w
c
L
I
Nsrna Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
27.
OAQPS ID
X
X l
Xl
X
x l
x
x
28.
H
Review Action Type (PIF/O)
X
X
X2
29.
H
Review Table
X
X
X2
X
X
X
X
30.
H
Review Procesa4ng Type (PPISP4tN/DF)
X
X
x
31.
H
Approval Status
•
X
X
X2
X
x
32.
H
LNluued
X
..
33.
RACT Fix-Up Flag
X
x
34.
Number of RACT Fix-Up Rule,
X
35.
Number of SIP Elements
X
36.
Iocation of Action lAO/MO)
.
X
X
37.
H
Remerks
x
X
X
X
X
‘
•
38.
H
FRCitstion
X
X
X
X
39.
Cola in Published FAN to neereal 0.2
X
.
40
Cost Factor Used in Calculating Published Costs
X
41.
Estimated Coal of Published Notice
X
‘
42.
H
Withdrawn Citation
X
.
43.
Publicity Flag
x
44.
Active/Inactive
.
X
•
:
•
45.
Docket Number
X
X
X
X
DCN: APCO.Rti.-CatAdoPt -
.
X
47.
Document Control No.
X
48.
PriorIty Ranking Factor
x
49.
OiviaionOrg.Auagn.dTOSIPRIv.
X
50.
Billing Cod.
X
••
51.
Specific HO Office Currently Reviewing
.
x
52.
6T-AP Work Plan Number
.
X
53.
Texas Amendment Number
.
X
54.
CAA ReQuirement Section
x
55.
CFR Requirementis) Section(s) or Subpart
X
63
-------
64
lC llipper.(W)P5.1.lD)Base ,(Uotus
C
W
0
W
.0
D
W
LD
C
I.
Name Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
56. Record/Total Records for Docket File Number
.
X
57. Division 1611 Fili Code .
.
X
58. MOA Requirement Flag
x
5 Bubble Flag
X
—
—
60. Code To Identify Unique Situations
x
•
.
61. TSD Prepsred Flag
x
62. Parallel Processing Flag
.
x
.
63. State Regulations Affected
.
.
x
•
84. CFR Part 52 ID Number for Final Rules
.
X
.
65. CFR Sections Revised Including Part 52 ID
Number
X
Expect More Info From State Flag
x
.
Number of Typed Pages
.
.
x
Typesetting Request Docket Control S
X
Typesetting Request AccountS
,
X
70. Typesetting Cost Factor $Iest. cola
X
71. Typesetting Estimated Coat (EFC a eat. S cols.l
,
X
72. No. Days From Receipt to Sent to HO
X
•
73. No. Days From Proposed Sent to HO to Publish
X
74. No. Days From Proposed to Final Sent to HO
•
.
X
75. No. Days From Final Sent to HO to promulgated
.
.
X
•
76. Mm/Max/Avg of No. of Days
X
Calculated Above .
,
.
.
77. Committal Flag .
.
X
X l = Whole IPTMA.X llJ 5 ,mu Ofle held
X2. Region 5 system has one fidd (cwsctionl that holds the iction type, table; and approval status.
X3 = Combination of some or d of th. state. NA.A. pollutant and requ*rement information as part of the description.
-------
Attachment 12. Events Dates Tracked by Regional Systems
Based on information received August 31, 1994
(C)lipper.(WIP 5.1.(d)Bsse.(L)otus
C
W
D
W
D
0
NI
A
ID
C
I
S
Event Region:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.
DtsftRscsived
X
2.
Draft Sent to ORC
X
3.
Stat. Requests for Dr aft
X
4.
Comments Sent to State for Drift
X
5.
Drift Returned From ORC
X
.
6.
Target Date for Draft Return IOAC)
X
7.
Attorney Comments for Draft
X
•
8.
PublicHesnngfofOraft
X
.
9.
DraftTSDtoSC
X
•
10.
Draft TSD to SC Target
X
•
11.
DraftTSOR.turnsdFromSC
X
12.
Draft TSO Returned From SC Target
X
.
13.
.FIA.IiZSdTSD
X
•
14.
When TSO Expected to Be Ready/Target
X
X
1 5.
For complex. controversial SIP, target
decision date from mgmt
.
X
16.
Compleoon of internal reviews, where
necessary
,
,
x
17.
Draft NPRIIRN to SC
X
X
.18.
Draft NPR/FRN Due to SC
X
X
19.
Draft NPR/FRN Return.d From SC
X
:
20.
Draft NPR/FRN Returned From SC Target
X
21.
NPPJcRNSsittoBC
X
22
NPR I Sent to BC Target
X
•
23.
NPRJ 4 Draft Sent to CRC
X
X
24.
NPRI d Draft Due to ORC
X
X
•
25.
NPR/FRN Draft Returned from ORC
X
X
26.
NPR/FRN Draft Returned from ORC Target
X
.
27.
NPR/FRN Circulated
X
28.
- 29.
NPR/FRN Circulated Target S
NPR/FRN Due to HO
X
.
X
X
X
65
-------
66
(C)Iipper .(W)P5.1.(d)Ba*L(UOIU S
C
W
0
W
0
0
NI
A
LD
C
L
Event Region:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
NPR/FRN Sent to HO
X
•
X
X
X
x
x
HO Returned P g
x
x
NPRIFRN Sent to RA
X
X
X
‘_
NPRI1RN Signed by RA
X
X
X
NPR/FRN Due to FRO
X
NPR/FRN Sent to FRO
X
X
X
.
NPR/FRN Publish Target
X
X
X
NPRIFRN Published
X
X
X
.
X
X
X
X
38. Direct Final Published
,
.
.
.
X
.
39. Withdrawn Date .
X
•
LN
X
41. State Adopted Regulation
,
X
.
42. Last Submittal Received From State
x
43. RO returned SIP Reviaion Pkg. to Stat.
X
•
44. Typesetting Reguest Mailed to HO
X
-------
67
Attachment 13. Findings/Sanction Information Tracked by Regional Systems
Based on information received August 31, 1994
(WordPerfect 5.1.(L)otus spiaadaheet
W
W
W
w
L
Name Region:
1
2
3
4
5
8
7
8
9
10.
State
X
X
X.
X
•
NAANsm
X
X
X
Agency (if more than one)
X
Resson For Findings Letter
. X
X
Pollutant
X l
X l
X
X
Requirement
Xl
Xl
X
X
Cla*sificatlon
X
X
Due Out. of Requirement
X
X
x
Sanction Clock Start Date (Findings
Letter)
X
X
x
First Sanction Off/On Flag
X
.
. Second Sanction Off/On Flag
X
9 Month Projected Sanction Date
•
X
18 Month Projected Sanction Date
X
X
X
X
FIP Due Date
X
X
X
•
SubmittaiFlag
X
Expected Submittal Date
X
Submitt.l Date
X
X
X
8. Completeness Determination Rag
X
Completensu Determination Date
x
Anticipated Action (Apgrovsl)
X
. Approval Statue
x
Approval Oat.
X
Oats of .making Action lP/ )
•
X
Sand to HO Oat.
x
Discussion .
.
X
X
X
Expected NFR Date SIP/FIP
X
CAAA Citation
.
X
Submittal Status (submitted; not
submitted. complete by default;
complete, no hearing; draft;
incomplete)
:
X
29 Problem Indicator Flag
X
I C
-------
68
(WordPerfect 5.1. (Uotus spreadsheet
W
W
W
W
t.
Name R. on:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
On Schedule Flag
‘
.
x
.
FIP in Preparation Flag
X
•
Sanctions Process Initiated Fleg
x
.
Final EPA
,
X
Total Requirements By State By Du.
Date and Grand Total
X
Total Number % Received By State On-
Time By Due Date and Grind Total
X
Total Number % Received By State
t.ate by Due Date and Grind Total
X
.
Total Number % of Running Clocks By
Due Date and Grand Total
X
(C)l ipper,(W)P5.1.(d)8.ae.(Uotua
C
W
0
W
0
D
N/
A
LD
C
L
Event Region:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
LNDate
x
.
.
. State Adopted Regulation
X
•
t.ast Submittal Received From Stat.
.
X
RO returned SIP Ravision Pkg To Stat.
.
X
Typesetting Request Mailed To HG
X
— — — — —
—
..
,sf ;. ..h
Xl - some combinatIon 0 ? pollutant/requsrernen ? in me sam. nasa
-------
Attachment 14. Wàrkplan for the SIP Improvement Workgroup
Coin.
ACTiON $T $
SPONS1S1E 0 FICE
. B.AP$W TIME f DAYS
CHANGE Wd FTE$/
FY
6 (1000)
ActIons st.pa which ehosdd occta ens. St the ba.)...J.. of d i. new I P ”tØ Proc.&.Msa
0’
Design of Distributed Data System by Contractor (Phase
I)
R.gionalMOs Steering Team
— 100 days (3.5 months)
0.7
$125 to 225’
Pilot project w/ lrilti.l data -
I Regional Office
15 day.
Data Input
Contr actor/Regions
60 to 90 days
Training m.nuais. tutoring)
R.glone l/HO* Steering Team and each
Regional Olfice
30 dsya
0
Issue memorandum for beginning new process
OAR
14 days’
OAR - n* m s i
.
0
Conference caT with Division Directors/Branch
Chiefs/SIP contacts to discuss the new SIP procesi
proced ,ses
Eststillsh System for Prlorltistng SIPs
OAOPS
Rag.
30 days
120 days
nona
Rags- I
‘This column idantifije the committee name by initials: Data (0). Consistency (C) and Options (0).
‘This range was given by the contractor a. an initial cost estimate for the initial centr.lized system. The revised system thi Oats committee is recommending Is baa comprehensive than this initial
system. Additionally, a regional system will be uaed ss initial model. Therefore, we may be able to estimate the cost of the system SI $125,000 for the initial system (Phase I) and 100,000 for the
Phase II of the system which will include a centralized area for boilerplat, language and alternative interpretations.
‘OAR may choose to discuss this revised process with STAPPA and the Regional Administrators prior to the issusnce of e memorandum.
69
-------
70
Corn.
ACTION STEPS
S
RESPONSIBLE OFFICE
ELAPSED TIME IN DAYS
CHANGE IN FTESI
FY
$ 11000 1
0
Eliminate Unnecessary Information Transfer to FR Office
- RegionS
OAR
Effort to establish• 180
days
Effort to work
w/FRO -minimal
0
Develop Prasubmittal Review Process
.
Regions
I 80-360 days
To establish Regions
-.2
‘
0
Reach agreement with 0MB
OAR
180 days
OAR- m n lmal
-
-
0
Eit.bllsh/Conduct SIP Irsining Course
All
180 days
All - 1
16 - IS
0
.
Develop Boilerplate and Checklists ..
OAR
OGC
Regions
Initial effort - 270 days.
OAR. .5
OGC-.5
RegIons- .2
.
0
.
Revise completeness criteria
OAR
OGC
Regions
360 days
•
.
OAR-
OGC-.I
Regions - .2
C
.
Implement the Tier I/Il SIP consistency Process Including
1 peger and as outlined in Tier I Process Flow Chart
S
Regional Offices
OAR
No later than date of
formal SIP Processing
Delegation to Regional
Offices
.
S
C
Designate OAR Process Facilitator Irecommend OAQPS
deak c.lficerl. S -
S
OAR
.
No star than date of
formal SIP Processing
DelegatIon to Regional
Offices
OAR - I ’
S
none
-
‘To be accomplished through collateral assignments of OAQPS desk officerls)
-------
71
Cam.
ACTION STØ$
.
RE8PONSI&E OFFICE
B.APIED T iE WI DAY$
CHANGE WI FlU!
FY
.
•(l000)
C
Provid. for date ne.ds to f.cWtate consIstency Pvoc.s*
end resolution documentatIon.’
OAR
No later than dale of
formal SIP Proc.ssing -
Del.g.tion to Regional
Offices
S.. footnote 16
.
.
S.. lootnot. SB
.
O.+.kb. edt . . .. once the new BP process Is estal,Reltsd end hnplemat$.d
0
increased Role of Regional Counsel
Regions
ORC - 14’
0
.
Eliminating Stenderd HQ Review of SIP Peckages
.
OOC
OAOPS
OMS-
•
OGC Ii )
OAQPS ’ 131
OMS-l’ I
Regions . (2)’
.
0
0
.
Develop Boilerplate end Checklists
.
.
OAR -
OGC
Regions
Ongoing as new
r. 1.m.n1s corns due
and policy changes
.
Ongoing effort.
FTEs accounted for
under d.veloplng
guidance and
regulations
.
0
Us. of uniform Boilerplate and Checklists
Regions
Ongoing
Regions -minimal’
‘The designated SIP Consistency Process fecilitstor would be responsible for ensuring tht decisions regerc ng proposed Alternative InterpretatIons are , ..,p..it documented in appropriated date base’
that record policy decisions end distributed to all atekeholdets via POSTMAN. etc. This process would be appropriate for Phase II of the Dete system.
At this point, it is difficult how much of en mc, seas eech Regional Counsel’s office will need. Currently. the resources devoted to SIP revIew greatly vary from Region to Region. Under the revised
system. the workgroup enticipates that more SIPs will be processed, even in those Regions where the ORC currently spends significant resolNcea on SIP review. (he ORC may determine th.t eddftional
resources sre needed once OGC no longer provides backup support due to a need to become more familiar with the substantive SIP issues.
‘As of the time f this printing. OMS had not listed any FTE ssvlngs.
‘In sdditlon to FTE savings, eIrmmnetlng atsnda,d HO review of all SIPs will reduce the amount of time needed to process eny one SIP package. Currently, ths HO review period for Table 1 end T.bk
2 packages is 40 days. -
-------
72
Corn.
ACTION STEPS
.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICE
ELAPSED TIME IN DAYS•
CHANGE IN FTESI
FY
$110001
0
Develop Clear end timely guidance and regulations
OMS
OAOPS
OGC
.
.
.
0
Eliminate Unnecessary Information Transfer to FR Office
Regions
OAR
-
On going
.
Saving, once
process developed
Regions. 12)
.
‘
o
.
Develop Presubmittel Review Process
Regions .
.
Ongoing .
.
Est. Savings once
system established
Regions IS)
•
• 1)
Maintaining the Dale
Regional Offices
ongoing every week
.5
0
-
.
Continue Limited HO Review . When consistency
process invoked or when negative comments are
received. .
.
OGC
OMS
•OAQPS .
Regions
14 . 30 days when
invoked
.
OGC .2
OAQPS. .2
OMS. .1
Reg. . .2 -
.
,
0
.
Provide Regional Access to Informationlnew Data
System .
:
. -
.
.
.
.
D
C
Maintaiing the Distributed System - -
.
Evaluate the effectiveness of the SIP Consistency Tier I
Process & recommend necessary changes and revisions
to enhance the Process. .
Reglonst/HOs Steering Team
.
SIP Consistency Committee
As needed for changes
1 year from official SIP
Regional Office
delegation. . .
Minimal
. .
Min lmal ’
$15 Ofl Sn $S needed work
assignment basis.
.
.
.
.
.
.
‘OAR, in conjunction with OGC and the Regions, has currently drafted boilerplate for numerous types of submittals. TPO boilerplate is ,.v ed to varyIng dsgrss. by the Regional offices. The FTE
saving achieved through this recommendation wilt vary from Region to Region, depending on whether boilerplate previously existed for the types of SIP. balng ocessed and whether the Region utilized
existing boilerptit. .
°No new resource needs but resources necessary for eflorts expended by a cadre of existing Cnnsistency Committee standing membership to conduct evaluation.
-------
73
-
• cam.
ACTiON STIP$
RESPONS LE OfFICE
ELAPSED TIMt W4 DAYS
CHANGE W4 cTuI
FY
.
1(1000)
S.vb gs from .slstlng .y.t.ma
0
HO. requests br SIP info from Regions
Regions/HO,
Ongo Ing
(.5)
no cost
0
U.inI.inlng existing systems
Regions/HO.
Ongoing
(1.5)
130 psr FY for work
.a.ignm.nts
Actions that shoiid occt, whsthst or not the SIP proc.s.iog chsng .* go Ireo .ffsct.
0
Revise Pre-1985 JaR L.ngu.ge
Region.
1 yr/slate •
R.gIon .. .33/stat.
.
0
PubIi h the SIP for 110(h)
RegIons
Regions- 2.5
.
0
Review Other Portions of the CFR Pert 51
Region.
1 yr/state
Region.. .26/st.ts
-------
T. Stack Heights
-------
T. Stack Heights
T.1. Implementation of the Revised Stack Height Regulation-
Request for Inventory and Action Plan to Revise State
Implementation Plans (SIP’s) - - Aug. 7, 1985 memo from Darryl D.
Tyler
•T.2. Guidance on Fluid Model Demonstrations for Determining GEP
‘Stack Height in Complex Terrain - - Sept. 19, 1985 memo from
Joseph A. Tikvart
T.3. Questions and Answers on Implementing the Revised Stack
Height Regulation -- Oct. 10, 1985 memo from Darryl D. Tyler
T.4. Determining Stack Heights “In Existence” Before December 31,
1970 - - Oct. 28, 1985 memo from Darryl D. Tyler
T.5. Implementation of Stack Height Regulations, - Presumptive
NSPS Emission Limit for Fluid Modeling Stacks Above Formula GEP
Height - - Oct. 28, 1985 memo from Darryl D. Tyler
T.6. Implementation of Stack Height Regulations - Exceptions From
RestrictioflS’ofl Credit for Merged Stacks --‘ Oct. 28, 1985 memo
from Darryl ID. Tyler
T.7. Clarification of Existing Guidance on Dispersion Modeling
Requirements for Plants With “Tall Stacks” and Other Prohibited
Dispersion Techniques - - Feb. 11, 1986 memo from Darryl ID. Tyler
T.8. Credit for Stack Height Increases Due to the Siting of New,
Nearby Structures - - June 29, 1992 memo from John Calcagni
-------
0 5125/95 10:21 ‘ 2024O11617 EPA OGC MAD 03I
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
I Research Triang’e Park 1 North carolina 2771 1
AUG :7 85
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: implementation of theR v1sed Stack Height
• Regulation -Request for Inven ry and Action Plan
to Revise State Implenenta on Plans Ps)
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler Director
Control .Progr ns Developitent 01 sIan (MD- 15)
TO: Director 1 Air Diyiston, Regions I—X
Purpose
The purpose of this memo is, first, to direct ydur attention to.. the
stack h 1ght regulation promulgated on July 8, 1985, by the EPAunder
Section 123 of the C i ean Air Act (Act).; and, second, to ask you to secure
an Action Plan from each State for submittal of any necessary SIP revisions
within 9 months. The approach outlined in this memo was developed with
representatives of the Regional Off ices at the ImplementatiOn workgroup
meetIng during the Southern Pines Workshop.
Reguirement for SIP Rev1sion 1 Reguest for Action Plans, Desériltion
• fAction Plans . . . .
As noted above, EPA promulgated a newly revised stack héightr gulatiori
on July 8. 1985 (50 Federal Register 27892-27907). This regulation Is
intended to ensure that air polfutaiit emission limitations required under
• applicable SIP 1 s are not affected by. that portion of any stack height
which exceeds ‘ good engineering practiced (“GEr) or by any other dis erslon
techni que aS defined in the revised rule. In accordance with Section
406(d), States now have 9 in nths or until april 7, 1986, in which.tO
submit any revisions to their SIP’s which includes (a)any changes to
State stack height rules, as necessary, to be consistent with the revised
EPA stack height rule, and (b)any revised source emission limitations
where the existing limitations are affected y stack height credit above
GEP. .
Since Implementation of the revised stack height regulation will
require that States take action to comply with. the timing set out In the
Act, I suggest that you take the following, actions.
-------
- 05/25/9 5 1.0:21. 202 L0I16I7 A OGC — -
-2-
1. •Irmnediat&y notify each of your ‘States that revisions to their
‘SIP’s may be required because of the revisions to the stack height regula—
tion .and tha t the’ revisions must be submitted to EPA by April 7, 1966;
2. Coi mencework1ng with each of your States to develop’ and forward
to EPA by October, H an acceptable Action Plan consisting of (a) an
inventory of sources requiring review and’(b) a schedule 1 as discussed in
the following section, for the complete review and revision of their State
rules and source SIP emission limitations as necessary to lmp1 nent the
stack hei9ht regulation; , ‘ .‘
3. Request that each a? your States provide monthly reports in
order that ,EPA has a ongoing knowledge of.their progress In meeting the
Action Plan; and ‘ ‘
4. Ineorporate these activities ‘along with milestones for source -by-
source’ analysis far conformance with the revised stack height rule,
revision of source emission limitations, and revision of State stack
height rules into the SectiOn 105 air quality grant awards for fiscal
year 1986.1 , ‘ ‘ “ ‘
The State’sAction Plan, that Lam’asking you’ to secure Is a planning
tool that Is not a subject of the revised stack heIght’rule. Therefore, it
should not be included in any rul naking action. The Action Plan is,
hOwever,th primary means for the Regional Office and Headquarters to
manage the process withIn the hort time’ fr e and, alon9 with the State’s’
monthly status report, allows EPA to make sure the States are making
satisfactory progress. Therefore,! request that you send copies of the
tton Plans’ and a monthly progress report on each State to my office.
Please coordinate with Sharon Reinders of my staff.
o tent of the Action Plan
The Action Plan should be detailed enough to assurethat each State.
Is making satisfactory progress. It should contain (a) an iflvento of
all sources that’ will require review’ and, evaluatidn’under the revised
regulation; and (b) a schedule covering the,SIP review and revision
process. ..:Th. schedule hould Include (1) revIewing the sources ‘in the
Inventory for can fortnance with the stack height regulation; (2) revIsion
of State rules as necessary to ensure that EPA ’S stack height regulation
is impleneiit’edin all future SIP actions,’ new source re 1ews (NSR’s), and
prevention of significant’ deterioration (P 50) actions; and (3)’ revisIon
of source emission limits where existing limits are affected by stack
height credit above GEP for any other prohibi ted dispersion technique.’
1 Formore detail, see memo entitled u) flocatjon of SectIon 105 Grant
Fund and t4egotiatfon of Grant Awards for Fy 86k’ Issued by Charles Elkins,
June4,L985. “ ‘ ‘ , ‘
-------
05/25/95 10:22 202401161T EPA oGC MAD -
1nvent rx - To assure that sources are properly reviewed, as a
“first cut, the Inventory must ‘Include the following sources.
1. Sources with stacks greater than 65 meters;
2. Soui ’ces which exceed 5,000,tons per year total allowable
emissions.
Schedule — The schedule of dates and milestones In the Action Plan
should reflect all significant State actions that are necessary’ to
revise the SIP’to conform, both the State’s stack height rules and emission
limitations to EPA’s.stack height regulation. To accomplish this, the
‘foliowihg interim steps muSt be Included. . . . .
1. Date for completion of ev luatlon of sources in.the inventory
for canpllance with respect to. (a.) whether the stack(s) are grandfathered
and (b)- whether the sourc&senlssloii limitation is affected by stack
height credit above G P or any other prohibited dIspersion technique,
2. Date for the Idantification of sources requiring air quality
dispersion (math nat1cal) modeling and a schedule for this analysis.
The Schedule should Include dates for proposal and ‘final adoption of
nissiân limits,
3. Date forthe identification of’sources who will be doing fluid
modeling and a schedule for completion of this work. The schedule should
Include date’s for proposal and final adoption of emission limits.
4.’ Date by which the State will complete the review of its. stack
height rules for consistency with EPA’s regulation. Where the existing
State rules are not consistent, a schedule for, proposal and final revised
Stata’ruies isrequired. - . . ‘ . ..
Regional Contact . . ‘. . ‘ .. .
‘Finally, please designate a contact ‘person to communicate directly
with Sharon Reinders.at 629—5526 concerning the Action Plansor any
questions that may arise concerning implementation.. •.
Conferenc al ]
We Ut4 like to hold a conference call during the week of August 19.
Please notify Sharon of your availability.
-------
oS/25/95 10:20 2024011617 EPA OGC MAD 029.
TP % \ J1.
STATES N.VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACEN( V
o A r Qu iity PIafl( nQ ñd Sta
- Tr;ae gIe ffark, NO(t CarcI na
Sepce ber.19, 1985
S BJZ ! Guidar ce on. fl utd Model Demonstrations fo* Decerrnioin GIP
Steck neigh: in Co p1ax Terrain
:oseph ?.. T i a t, Chief
• Source Receptor Analysis Branch, MDAD
T3 David $tonefield,. Chief
?olicy Deve1op erLt Sec ion, CP
The recent’.y p t’ .u1;ated s:ack height re5ulecio requires that asoijrcc
:1 at jshes t racei ’e credit for the effects of wakes, eddies and do wash
cad y ea: y :ez:air. for the purpose calculatiog GZP £cack height
: ; .ccn uct & fluid nodal d onstratiQn or a field study. Recent i dance
ror ilu±d o aling :hes terrain eE ect is cor tained in Section 3.6 of the
‘ Guidel ne for Dste rinE.tion of CEP Stack Rg( evised), EPA . 50/4—80—023R,
,.une. l S3,.availab1e OZ WEIS: as PB &5—22 24l.. n additi-o , the report
fluid Modeling Deterninatiön of Good Engir.eeting ?tactice Sta Ecight in
Co ple Terrain:’ EPA 600/3—85—022, available frcn NTIS PB 85—203—107,
:o ides an actual case of how £PA conth cted a C!?deter ination , short of
?erfor the axcessive concerttrat .On. criteria test4 Re ueits to conduct
f e1d stud ea in lieu.of, fluid modeliogd,a on tratiOAS vi i i. be eva1 ata4 on.
a case—by—case basis; refer to pp. 6 47 of the CE? uideUne..
Previously, .EPA published three documents which for .the basis for
conducting. !luid model d onstrations, particularly in flat terrain.
situations:. (1) Guideline for Fluid Modeling of A ospheric DiZfusion,
600/8—f 009, rii 1981, available .fra NTIS as P88i 201—4lQ; (2)
Cuideli$for sa ofFluidNodeling to ce ine Good Engineering Practice
S:a R $ t,’ EPk 450/4—81—003, July 1981, available from NTIS as PB 82—145—
327; an 3) Determinat1Ofl o Good—Engineering—Practice Stack lieighc: A
!1I.t 4 y.o .bemous:ratiori Study for a Power P1ant, EPA 600/3-83—024, April
1983, avai1 b1è ho TIS as PB 83—207407 .
T stly , EPA conducted a 4—day vot shop on fliuid modeling and. GE?
deterrnination at. the Fltid Modeling Patility at aIP Ln Pebruary 1981.,
attended by;5 caff from e t .Règional 0ffi e.’ Although some attendees ate
no ln ge: v th t’ e cc , we be1 eve at least one person .n each Region
t - 4 s s .:1 c: hoard , axcept for Regions II and Viii, and could
*:ve as a esource cr.. 7r the Regional Workshop on the Stack Eeight
egu1ation next otth, e gill poll the attendees concerning the need fox
-------
03b
:EpAOGC AD
10:21 20240116 17,
•htr fluid :ódaling wor shop ’forP egiOn1l Office and State tecb .tcai
stae . If a need is e pt*SSe4 * ‘4 £pecif1{ attt 4ees can be identified, wg
will re ua$: the Kezeo ology and Assass ent Divisions ‘ASR L, to present such
& cr’ s oP at RTP within th. next fey DOLttiS.
The above documents together with staff that ‘ha.ve some owledgg of
fluid n 4eling should enabis moat Regions to pro ride initi&1. tecbnical
asststanc to the States and enable the States to incr ss their otin ievel\
of eXpertise. t ote that document (2) contains a report checklist in Secti n
S,outlining what a tluidnodel’repàrt should contain. Additional it s
explicitly related to complex terrain ;tudies eay be t. uir d on a case—by—
case aais, especially after reviewing E P A ’s ex le study refu.lly. )iore
detailed procedures for implenenting the excessive concentration criteria
cal mlations, using data frá afluid aadei dencnatratiou,are being developed
nd will, be provided at the upcoa.ing Regional Wor shcp.
Should tecimicaib qutetious arise regardl.ng GEP determinations or fluid
model 4e onstrations, please, contact Jim Diek.e or Dan Wilson f y staff,
ITS 629— 68l. eass e the Regional Office staffs will, at.tenpc a first—cut
r.sol.utioc of technical issues before requesting our assistance
cc:”S, lainders
tboads
1. Scbiermeiet
D Wilson
-------
05/25/95 10:16 2O24011617
EPA OGC MAD
o19
C M 1 L
UNFTED STATES ENV ONMENTAL PROTECTION AG2N C V
Offict of Air Quality P1annin a d Standards
Research Triar’g e Pa’k, North CaroIi 27711
OCT.10 19S5•
M0RANDUM
SUB4ECT: Questions and ’Answe.rS Ofl Imp1 Tent1flg ’ the
Revised Stack I4e1 ht Regulitlon
FR 4 (3. T. Heims, Chief
-. Control Progri S Operations Branch ‘( V—i5)
TO: Chief, Air Branch, Reions t.X
A n ber of questions have arisen in several areas of the revised
stack beight regulatlon since Its pr sulgition.on July 8. The fotlowing
ans rs have bean developed in response. The queStions and answers’ are
arranged under theguneral topic headings of Interpretation of the regula.
ti on, State lmple ientatf on plan (SIP) requiresents, and modeling analyses.
Please continue to call Sharon Relnder’s at 629-5526lf you have further
c ents or addltlønal questions.
InterpretatiOn of the Requlatlon
1. Q:. What criteria shQuld be used, to determine when a stack was Vj
ixistence 1 with respect to the various’ grandfatherlng dates In ti’ie
‘rgu ation?
A: The recent pr• i1 gatloñ of revIsiqns to the stack height r.gul avion
did not change the deflnltlon.of ‘in existence, 4 Th. definitIon Is ptovlded
in 40 CFR 5i.L.(gg) and Includes either the .conrencenent. of continuous.
constrvctlon on the stack’ or enteringinto a binding contract for stack.
enstnj’tion, the cancellation of whiçh• u1d re ult In substahtial
lou to the source o ier or operator, The definition of what constitutes
a •Si rtWt1i1 losSM will be. the subject of future guidance.
a. Q ,.v.’sourc.” definition should, be used In determining whéthertit.
Ins to grandfathured stacks Should be permitted or prohibited?
A: Tht tern dsource in this instancemeans a single itt1n.g unit.
Thus, credit for tying a single post-1970 unit(S) Into a grandfathered
stack serving a nunber of old units Is prohibited under the regulation.
-------
05/25/95 10:15 t2024011611 EPs occ:flD
3. Q: What Is nè nt in t e r gul tion by ‘facilitf?
A: For purposesof M is regulation, the definitloncontained in
£3 CFR 5 1.30 1(6) should be used. That definition essenti ally defines the
rn a% tt’e entire co plex -of emitting activities on ’ one property or
‘:32ti;n Js proØerties contr&fled.bya single owner or designee.
4. Q: Must good engIneering practice (GER) stack height be established
separately for each pollutant?. If not, how should It be determined?
A:. ft s not necessary to calculate a separate GEP stack height for
.nch pollutant. Since “SE? ” is.dafined by Settion 123 of the Cle’an Air
Act a the height necessary to ensureagainst excessive conCentrations of
any air pollutant. It follows that GEP should be established for each
source based on the pollutant requiring the greatest height to avoid
excessive concentrations. :
S. .0: Maw should “reliance” on t e 2.54 formula be determined?
- A; First 1 “reliance” on the 2.SN formula applies only to stacks in
C x 3t iCC before ian.uary 1!, 1979. Creditfor “reliance” on t e 2.SH :
for nula can ,e granted n er the followlng cases: (a).whcre the stack
: actually bufl-t t; a’heiçht less than or equal tc 2.SH; (b) Where the
suck built taller than 2.SH and the rission limitation reflects the
use of 2.5K in the SIP modelinganalysis; or Cc) Where’e 4dence is provided
to show “reliance’,’ as discussed in the following paragraph.. If no modelin
wis. used to set the ernission limitation for the source, then it cannot be
argued that there wa tPreliancet on the formula, since EPA ’s guidance was
specifically aimed, at using stack height credit in establishing emission
,li t1tations. Once it is dttermined that the estission limitation was In
‘ t act based on estimates of’i spersion from the stack, then the source can
be Said to have properly “‘-. ied ’ on the 2.54 f Ormula, In the event that
it cartnot be det%?rTnined thai. the’enission limit is base6 On “reliance’ t on
the 2.5H- formula, than the reflnid. K t• 1.5L fornula must be used.
Where a clear relLtio,nsbip between a 2.54 stack height and the
emission lim!tation cinnot be shown, where the enission limitation was
‘iot calc ilated based precisely on ‘the 2.5K height, ort whérethe stack
height’ usS.in modeting cannot be verified, then additional evidence will
e naededc’ Preferred would be writtEn docunentatlort, such as copies of
the original engineering calculations or correspondence between the State
or the eiilsslon source owner and EPA indicating that the 2 .SH fo rmul a
should béusid to derive the àniOlon limitation. However, recognizing
that such evidence is. often not retained for more than a few years,
“reconstructed” documentation may be cons’idere ; but should only be used
as a last resort.: This evidence should include explanations by those
ittdtgtdualswho were in olved in designing the facility, calculating
e ission rates, aid who represented the facility, in dealings with the
-------
05/25/95 10:16 V2024011617 EPA OGC NAD O2T -
—3—
State and EPA on how the eifss on limit was derived,lnclud.ing a discussion
c ow tne formula was originally used in deriving the scurc emission
1iffltat on, a discussion of the analytical method applied, and a listing
0,’ a y ontactS.Or dis;ussiorts with EPA during that period. This listing
d1l aid ?A in searching its own files to find any records of cot munlcation
•c- rrespn e e that . ay 5ear on the issue.
!n no’ case should a’ source be allowed after January 12, ‘1979, to
oDtain a relaxation in the emission limitation by arguing that it SlrèlledJI
‘i-. E A ; ‘n:. endo s1n the 2 ..SH for’nula. In cases where a relaxation a—
d f rm la he1 ht’is sought in the future, the reftned N + 1.SL
f r. ia nUSZ e used.
6. Q: The prea!nblá specifically discusses cooling towers as structures to
which the formula should not be applied. Will the Office f AirQuality
‘Planning and Standards be specifying other st uctures that are, not well
represented Sy the ’formula?
The discussion in the pre& ble and GEP guideline is not intended to
e 1l—ir4c1usive; ju ien: should 5e used in detemining when fluid
i el1ng should be used to estimate the effects of structures with rounded,
or tapered shapes. ‘ 4ater towers and storage t’anks are additional
e . les of such struct ’jres.’ As additional information becomes avaIlable
on the aerodynamic effects of specific building shapes and configurations,
we :1ll evaluate th need t revise the GEP guidance. HoWever, at’present,
t .ere are io is to 531;C “1 au.id y list” of strjctures to which the
r. ulas do rot a pl’y.
SI? , ecuirements
7. Q: Snould a compliance averaging time be explicitly stated In a
Si? revision for sulfur dioxide ‘(SO 2 ) n1ss1on limits that are revIsed ,t .,
meat the stack height regulation? S
‘A: At npl1ance averaging time need not be specified as au enforceable
SIP provlsion.:as long asa stack test compifance method is in place In the
u erlylng .federaily approved SIP. EPA t .s current national policy requires”
that SIP’s and permits contain enforceable hlshort_tertnu emission limits
sat to li t.j ’axinnjm emissions to a level which ensures protect1or of the
•short—term ’atiànal ambient air qüallty’standards (NAAQS) and prevention
of signific nt deterioratioq (PSD) increments. PA relies upon a short.term
•stac test provision in the SIP as the method of’determining compliance
with the’ emission limits. In lieu of a stack test, EPA has accepted fuel
sa pllng and analysis and continuous emission in-stack monitors (CEI4’s).
hen compliance Is to be. determined from information obtained by fuel
sa;npimng and analysis and CEMs, short-terTn’averaglng times should e
• :‘ :i .f e . . ‘ ‘
-------
05/25/93 10:17 2024O11617 EPA OGC lAD
-4-
8. Q: Are all States required co have ustack height regulations”?
A: Limitations on creditable stack height and dispersio technigues
impact the SIP program In two areas-—SIP;aidssion limits for existing
jr es and SIP provisions covering new source review (NSR)/PSD pemitting
• cr exls:.iri sources, State regulations linitlng credit for
s tack height and other dispersion techniques (stack hèi.yht regul atiorts)
-are not necessary as long as the SIP nission limits are not affected In
any manner by so much df the stack height as exceeds GEP, or any other
1 ’ persion tec rniqu . Where a State has stack ght regulations, those
reg 1ations must e consistent with EPA ’s ri;ulàtion. :Where a SIP contains
regulations that are Inconsistent with PA s regulation., the State must
• either adopt a stack height r gu1ation that Is consistent with EPA’S or
incorporate the EPA regulation by reference.
For the NSR/PSD programs, it is essenti l that the plan Contain..
limitations n the amount of creditable stack height and other d1 perslon
techniques. The following cases have been eveloped to illustrate what
actlon s) may be required of the State since promulgation of the stack
height regul ation.
CASE A 1): A fully or p rtia)lydele ated P50 program that ef r.ences but
does not 1n SEP where the ae egatlon agre nent does not .contaI,
a date to define which version of the PSD ’rule is being 2 T egated.
. CTIC : Notify the State that all permits Issued henceforth must. be
consistent witn EPA’s stack height regulation. Afl permits
previously issued must be reviewed and revised as necessary
within rnonths.
CASE A(2): A full ’ or partially delegated PSD program that references
but does not define GEP where the.delegatlon agres1 er2t.
does contain a date todeflne which version ‘of the P 50 rule
is being delegated.
ACTION: Update the delegation agre nentto reflect agreement with EPA’s
stack height regulation as of July , 1985. Notify the State
that all permits issued henceforth must be consistent with
EPA S stack height regulation. All permits :previously Issued
must be reiie. ied and revised as necessary within 9 months,
CASE B: ‘‘The current ?e ’erali.yapprovedSIP for NSR/PSD dàes not
contain a reference to GEP or dispersion techniques, i.€.,..
provisi.ns. assuring that emission. I ftnitatlonts ‘will not be
affecteo :y stack haight in exces5 f GE or any prohibited
disp rs1on techniques do not exist ‘ current SIP.
-------
05/25/95 10:17 2024011617 EPA OGC MAD O2-3
—5—
• Notify the State that such provisions must •be adopted arid
submitted as a 5I..P revision within 9 months. Thi.s can be
acccompllsheU by adopting stack he ght regulations at the
State level pr by adopting the appropriate reference and
co ri 1itment to conply ith EPA ’s stack height regulatjon as
ro.milgat o July 8,’198 , Interim permitting should be
consistent with EPA’s stack height regulation.è*
CASE C: The current’ federally approved SIP for NSR/PSD contains
rer nces t• ,5ut does not define, ‘G P or dispersion techniqu s
CTI : Notify the State that a commitment to comply with EPA’s stack,
height re9ulatiçn as promulgated on July 8, 198S, is required.
If a State is unable to tnake.such a commitment, St ’ate..r gulations
must be revised to be consistent and submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision within 9 months and interim permitting should be
consistent. with EPA’s stack height regulation. No “grace
period”. will, be allowed for sources receiving permits between
July 1985 and April 1986.4* . .
The cuIrent federally approved SIP for NSR/PSD contains stack
eig it règ lations that areinconsisten: with EPA’s regulst on.
ACTION:. N ti.ry theState that such regulati.ons’must.be revised to be
corisfstent and submitted as a SIP revision within 9 months
and that interim per nitting should be ons1stént with EPA’s
stack height regulation.*
C. SE ECi): A ‘SI’ for ‘NS /PSD has been submitted ‘to EPA., or.will. be
submtted.to EPA befbre the due date for stack height revisions.
The submittal contains provisions t’het conflict with EPA’s
stack height regulation. “
ACTION: Notify the State.tha.t EPA cannot approve the submittal’:unti1.
it’ is revised pursuant to EPA’s July 8. 1985, regu1at1on
7 r• . ,
**In the. event.that a State does not havelegal authority to comply’.with
EPA’s regulation in th.e interim (e.g..,because It must enforce State
rules th&t are inconsistent with EPA’S regulation) and is compelled to
issue a’perrnit that does not meet the requir nents of the EPA revised
stack height regul ation, then EPA should notify the State that such
p e’r its do riot constit te authority under the Clean Air Act to commence
ccn tructior.. • .
-------
Q5/25/95 10:18 ‘ 2024011617’ EPA OGC lAD 02t
‘-6-
CASE E(2): M in Case E(1) , a siP for F4SR/PSD has been submitted to EPA
• or will be su itted to EPA before the due date for stack
height revisions. The submittal’ is not inconsistent with
EPA’s stack height regu}ation, but portiofls of the existinj
ap ov $IPth t relate to the sub iitta’1 rare inconststent.
ACTION: Approve the SIP” submittal based on a commitn ent by the State
to correct the. inconsistencies in its existing SIP to comport
-with EPA’s July 8 regulation and subit it the corrections asa
SIP r vi’sion. :1t ln.9 months, ir1t. rim permitting s u1d be
consistent witn EPA’s stack height re ulation.*,* If the exls ’ t—
i S 12 1 s, bi ; us, I .e., the SIP refere :es but does not
fine terns ralating to GEP or dispersiort ‘echn.lques, the
cti n steps outlined in Case C above shoui be followed.
CASE F: In non’attainment areas, emI’ssioi limits or permits do not always
include modeling, but rather are based on lowest acMevable
Bilisslon rate (LAER) and offsets.
,ACT1:J : if no r od el1ng i s ‘used’in the’issuan:e of a permit, the emission
re 1rements for the source are n ”t “affected” by stack heights
or 1Spersion ta:hn1Q es, and no action is neédcd. However, if
r ode1ing ‘was used in the process of preparing and is uing a
permit, such as ‘cases,where offsets were obtained offsi’te, that
modeling must be revi2wed for consistency with’ ‘the. stack height
regUlati rL ‘ ‘ ‘
9. Q: What must all States do now that EPP ’s stack height regulation is
r:mulgated? - ‘
A: States must review and revise their 5P’s as ne essary to include.or
revise provisions to limit stack hel ht credits and dispersion t chniqués
to’ comport with the revised regulations, and, in addition, revieW aid
revise all emission Itmitations that are affected by stack height credit
above GEP’ or any”other dispersion techniques. In accordance with Section
‘406(d) (2) of the Clean Air Act) States have 9 months from promulgation to
su mit the revised SIP’s and revised SIP emission lunitatioris to EPA.
In ah’ Migust 7, 1985, memo titled “Implenentatlon of the Revised
Stack ! e ghtRegul ation— — equest for In’ientory and Action Plan to Revise
SiP’s,” Relónal Offices were requested tobegin working wfth each of
their States-to develop States’ Action Plans. Each Action Plan should
include the following: (1) An inventory of (‘a) all stacks greater than
65 meters (rn) ,: (b) stacks at sources which exceed 5,000 tons per year’
t3tai allowable SO 2 emiss orts; and (2) A reasonable schedule of dates f r
si 1ficant State ac.tlons’ to conform both State stack :‘ ght’ rules and
iIss1cw li uii ’tati ns to EP? s stack height regulation. chedu1es should
icT wd,e:jncrë.nents of progress. Regional Offices shou be satisfied
i at ech of th :ir States provide schedules ,for completion of the tasks
-------
05/25/95 10:18 ‘2024011617 EPA C CC AD 025
-.
as ou:lthed.th the August io and report the status of schedule com it ents
to tr. on a monthly basis. Regicial Offices ,have been asked to for mrd
r n: ly statuS reports to t e Control Prograr s Develop. ent Division on
: e States’ rdgress to meet ch dul9d cornl’trnents and also .report the
r sutS of oflowup w1 t e States on schethiles th’at are not ‘met. ‘in
o : r t cjl1t’ te tr ; i ; the States ‘rnonthly progress, guida c on a
.szán ardizec fo t will oeissued shortly.
od l ng Ana yses ’
Q: is tnare ar r :riction or prohibition against, or d or.stration
or,’r ir ai xist1ng or replac ng) stack up to 65 m?
A: N , as lang as prohibited’ dispersion techniques are not employed’.
11, Q: Are flares considered to be’ stacks?
A: No, flares are excluded from the regulation.
2. : iat lo J sh 1d 5e used for a fluid modeling denonstratlon?
A: 9ne hundred percent load should’ generally be used ‘unless there
a c ipeflhig ar;u tent otherwise. ‘ ‘
13. Q: Can new or modified sources who have agreed toa casa.by—case
best available control technology (BACT) nission rate be required to use
t! iS r tC’ ror f1ulC mo 1 g rather than a ss strir gent new s rce
erform nce standard (NSPS) emission’r,ate? ‘
A: As set forth in 43 CER 51.1 (kk), the aIláwabl’e iss1on rate to’
DC uS2d in ‘maKing de onstrat1ons under this part shall be prescribed by
the ZSPS that is ap 1lcableto the source.category unless the owner or
operator demonstrates that this emission rate is infeasible.
14.. ‘Q: Must the exceedance of NAAQS or PSD increment due to downwash, wakes,’
or eddies occur at a location meeting the definition of’ ambient air?
A: Q the:exce’edance may. occur at’ any location 1 Including that’ to
whiCh the’ gáñera1 public does not have access.
15. Q fi t source that meets N$PS or BACI emission limits subject to
restrictiOns on plume merg lng? ‘ ‘ ‘
A: Yes,’ However, in a majority of such cases, there will be no practical
effect since BACTor NSPS limits will hesufficient to assure attainment
withOut, credit for plu ie rise enhanc ent.
-------
05/25/95 10:19 2024011617 EPA OGC AD
-8-
Q: what stack pa cters re to e used in model’thg when the ‘actual
stack height IS greater th r GEP height?
:A: Where It is necessary t3 reduce stack height cr dit below hat•is in
‘existence, for mc ll ;p rposes, use existing stack gas exit pa aieters —
t perature and flow rate--arid existing stack top diai ter and model., at
EP heignt.
17. Q: How should a stack that Is less than GEP height be modeled when
dls2ersiCri.. t’echni u s cre.er loyed?
A: Li order t st llsh ,an 2?propriata e ssi n liTnitatiOn where a
source desires to construct less •t,han a GEP stack but use dIspersion
technIques to make up the difference in plLL’nerlse, two cases shoul,d be
tested.. First, conduct., a modeling, analysis inputting the GEP stack
‘height without enhanced dispersion parameters, then conduct a second
analysis inputting the less.than GEP stack he9 ght with the Increased.
plume rise 1 The more stringent eriiission,limltation. resulting from each
of the two runs should be the one specified as the enforceable limitetion.
.& Q: Mow are the effects of prohibitea dispersion techniques to be excluded
for modeling purposes? ‘ .
A: Where prohibited dispersion techniques have been used, modeling to
exclude their effects on the enission limitation,will be accomplished by
using the te perature and flow rates as the gas stream enters the ‘stack,’ and
recalculating stack para neters toexclu e the prohi3 ’ited techniques
(e.g., calculate stack’ diameter without t restrictiors in p1 ace, determine
exit gas temperat res before the use of prohibited reheaters, etc.).
19. Q:’ Now are single flued merged stack,s ardrnultlflued stacks to be
treated in a modeling analysis?
A: This is.a multistep process. First, sources with allowable
erni ssions: below 5,000 tons/year may be modeled accounting for any plume
merging that has been employed. For larger sources, multi flued stacks
arc consider d ‘as pr3hlbited dispersion techniques ‘in the saxne way as
single flued r et ged gas streams unless one of the three allowaole conditions
has been,,,met; I.e., (1) th source owner or operator demonstrates that
the faciltty was originally desigr ed and constructed ith such merged gas
streams :(2):’after date of promulgation. dei onstrate that such ffierging is
associated with a change l operation at the facility that includes the
installation of pollution controls and results in a net reduction in the
al’lowable iissions of the pollutant for which’ credit is sought;or (3)’
‘before date ‘of romulgatlon, de ’nonstrate that such merging did not result
In any increase in the a lowable emissions (or, In the event that no
emission limit existed, actual emission level) and was associated with a
c iange in’ operation at :he facility that included the’lnstallation ‘of
-------
05/25/95 10:19 2024011617 EPA OGC ILAD 027
-9-
e issions control equipment or was carried .out forsound economic or
er ;1neering reasons, as.demonstrated to EPA. Guidelines ‘on what Constitutes
so . rtd economic or en9ineering justificationwill’.bC issued shortly.
tf plume mc gingfr3m m )tjflued stacks is not allowable, then each
.fl ieflin r rnust io el d as a separate source and the combined inpact’
cetermined. ‘ For single flued merged stacks where cre lt is not allowed,
each unit should be 3deled ‘as a separ&te stack located at the same
point. The exit parameters, i.e. velocity and t iipe’rature, wOuld be the
3a as the xistir. rged stack CQflditir3flS nd the olume flow rate’
fl ap i a c f th flow frb: t in 1 i ua1 units.
20. Q: What stack heiyht fo poiñt sources should be Input to air quality
dispersion modeling for the urpose of dei o strating protection of the’
t MQS arid PS 1ncrei ents? ‘
A: A discussIon o ’the maximum stack hetght credit to be used In modeling’
analyses is provided in the uGuideline , for Oeterr ination of Good Engineering
Practice Stack Height” and provides that the, GEP stack height should be
sed as input t3t’ e : iOdel assessment, If a source is operating with a
ess than GEP’ stack ight, then the actual stack height should be, ii put
to the mçdel . , - ‘ ‘ .,
21. Q: What stack hei ht shouI be used for background sources’ in
iod ling analyses?
: The GE? stack height for each ackgrou d s i ce shoui
e input t the model assessment, If a background source is operating
a less than GEP stack height,.then the actual stack height .sh uld be
input to the model, ‘ ‘
22. Q: Can credit for plume merging due to in.stall tion.of control
equipment for total ‘Suspended particulate ( 4 SP.) matter be allowed when
setting the SO limit? ‘, ‘ S
A:’ To state the question another way, the concern is what Impact
the merg1 g and installation of’ control equipment have on the iss1on
limit f3 4 Other pollutant, and whether the merging occurred before or
after ’Juiy ’8, ’ 1985. After July 8, 1985,any exclusion from ‘the definition
of “disp.rslon techniques” apphes only to the emission limitation for
‘the poll utint affected by such change in operatlon’andis accompanied, by
anet reduction In allo. able enissions of the pollutant. For’examplâ, a
source tears down two old stacks and builds on’e new GEP stack’with an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). This results in a net reduction ir TSP
nission,s. This Source could model using stack gas characteristics
res ul’t*ng from mer;ing the two gas stroams n’settlng the TSP emission
l1 mi t,, bu.t may not so r ’odel and receive the credit for stack merging when
al uatirtg the S) — ‘ ‘i llrn’ t, ‘
-------
05/25/95 10:20, V202 O11617’ EPA OGC L D o s
-10-
Sefore July 8, 1935, installation Of TSP pollution control equipment
generally justifies the merging ‘of the stacks for TSP, However, if a’
source’s emission limitation for 502 increased a ’fter the merging, then
credit would. generally not be allowed Since It is presurned that the
rg ’ was’t increase dispersion 1 ’.
. so r:e wi: n previous emission limit that merges stacks and
Installs an ESP for TSP control may consider the effects of merging on
corn?liarTce with the ’TSP AAQS but may not. use merging tojustify setting
anSO emission limit less stringent than its actual emission rate before
. .
.23 , ’ Q: If., after d t rtiin1ng GEP stack height by fluid modeling,
dispersion modeling under other than “downwash meteorological conditions
‘shows that a lower emission limit, than that from the, fluid model GEP
analysis is rtece sary to meet ambient air quality, constraints, should a
new stack height be defined for the source?
A: Uo. GEP.stack, height ls.set. hi bient air qual1 ty problems.
orecictec by dispersion modeling at the fluid modeled height iearis that a
more stri ent aiiission il;nit, Is necessary,. , , .
24. . • D e intend to issue additional guidan.ceon fluid modeling
.nstrat1 ns? , . .
A: S e the attached rna io from Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief, Source
e 2p r ‘d’ n•alrs1s tc David Stonefield, Chief, Policy Developrnent
S cti3n, on guidance for. a discuss . of existing nd additional guidance
on fluid r odei d or r t1ons. .
At ta r nent
cc: Stack Height ‘Contacts
Gerald £i ison
Ron Campbel:l
B.-J’ , Steigerw ld
-------
EPA OGC. MAD
OL6:
05/25/95 10:14 ‘ 2024011617
UN TEO STATES ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY
Officg cf A r ualiW Ptanning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Catolina 27711
• OCT 28 1S85
I MORAN0UM
Su8JEci Determining Stack Heights Exist e’ 8efore Decwiber3l, 1970
FR Darryl 0 Tyler,Dlrector 4 s i ’
Control Prograns Developm nt D ’slon(MO45)
TO: Director, Air Mar ag nent Division
Regions I-X
The fofl i ng guidance is provided tTo describe h the def I nition of
• ‘in existence’ flould be Implement ed and to assist States and emission
source owners and operators In providing appropriate •vldence of co mnibi ent$
to undertake stack construction on or before December 31, 1970. Please
noti at this Is guidance; States may submit alternative demonstrations
• in support of grandfatherlng claims, If they feel the cIrcw tances
warrant.. ••
We intend to rely on. the gënaral provtsl @ns.af this guidance to
detevirlne eligibility far grandfatherlng ex 7 tions free certain other
provisions of the revised stack height regulations: restrictions on the
use of GEP formul aó for cool I ng towers, use of the ref I ned GEP formal a,
fluid modeling to ,justify GE? formula stack hsight, Credit for merged
stacks, credit for new sources tiedinto grandfathered stacks, and credit
for stacks raised to GE? f.or la height.
Sectfcr 123 of the Clean Mr Act, as aitended, cofltaln$ a grandfather
cliiaseintend*d.ta exe t Stack heights and techniques for pollutant
dispersion that were In existence on or before Oec nber 31, 1970, fr
genera1 Ørov1s1onS of Section 123 restrictIng the degree to wh1ch emission
limitatiOi uly biaffected by dispersiOn. When EPA pro malgated stack
height litlons pursuant toSection 123 in 1982, It adopted a definition
of ‘sta*h$ights In existence b f0r. December 31, 1970.’ ThIs definition
alloWodths çrandfstherlng of stacks on which construction had not yet
cämienced, but for which binding cont ’acts had been ignd that coUld not
be modified or cancelled witP Out substantial loss to the owner or operator.
The EPA ’s dsfin t1on was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. -
Clrcuit:ln Sierra Club v, EPA , 719 F.24 436, and has not been modified In
JJIY way by th rule rev isTor s promulgated on u y 8, 1985, except to
restrict its. applicability t f cllitces thai ; ve not undertaken jor.
mo4 itftcatici ns or reconstruction, and have rL&t ductad the effluent gas
strea from post49lO units into pre4971 stacks.
-------
LYA U 3’- lAl)
u I Jf LUL
2.
Subsequent to the recent revisions, qUestions have been raiTsed about
how’the definition, should be implemented, I.e., what EPA should consider
to be a binding contract, and what should constitute a “substantial loss”
for determining whether a stack should be grandfathered. S,
General ovisions
The. burden of proof for showing that a stack is eligible for
grandfathering exemption lies with either the State or the source’owneror
operator, as appropriate, and documenta 1on in support of exemptions must
be made available fgr public review during the rulemaking process. . In the
event that no case for exemption under this provision is made, or that
satisfactory support for such a request is, not provided, the° stack s
presii ed not to be’ grandfatt ered, and therefore subject to -the reg -ements
of SectIon 123 and the stack nelght regulat ons promulgated by EP .
• Grandfathering exemptIons may be supported in one of th ee ways: by
showing that the stack was completed or was physically in exfstence Ørior
to Deca ber 31, 1970; by showing that actual: on-site continuous stack
construction activities began’on or before December 31, 1970; or’by showing
that a binding contract for stack constructionwas executed on or before
that date, •• . S ‘ S
Documántlng Stack Construction
where a stack was completed prior to December 31, 1970, the
State maymake a sumnary determination ‘that.the’ stack Is grandfathered.
but must provide an explanation of the reasons for its determination.
One way in which’it can be documented that the stack, was physically in
place before Decønber 31,’ 1970, is to provide a copy of the 1970 Federal
Power’C nm1ss1on report F m 67, which Includes stack height, uong other
Information. Evidence t t may be submitted to support the date’of
coimnencement of stack construction can Include virtually any contemporaneous
documentationthat’clearly Indicates that Construction activttles were under
way as of. December 31, 197O This could consist of building Inspection
records, construction materials delivery receipts, correspondence,
inter-office memoranda, photographic records, or news.cllppings. ‘ In the’
event that documentatiän is lacking, or weak, EPA will consider affidavits
‘which Include detailed descriptions-of efforts that were undertaken to
obtain cont orãneou,s supporting documentation 1
The date of signature ona contract for stack constructIon will be
acceptable for applying grandfathering . exemptions if the contract Itself
meets certain minimum qualifications.. A “binding contract, under the
‘previously-discussed prov1slon . Is considered to be one that commits the
snurctcwner or operator finan lly to undertake -stack construction and
that: d±d not: have in effect on cember 31, 19) O, an ‘“escape” provision
that allows, cancellation ,b t ’ wner or operator without penalty.’
-------
.05/25/95 10:15 ‘2024011617 EP! 0
tn the event that a cãntract contains provisions for assessing
penalties for modification or cancellation by the.owner Or operator, and
those Provisions were in effect on Dece ber 31, 1970, then the provisions
must bs•revfewad to determine whether the penalties and other costs of
cancellation uld hayä Imposed a “substantial loss on the owner or
operator. For new facilities, EPA will presune that a substantial l ss .
uld have resulted where the penalties exceed ten percent of the project
cost. Where the project Involves only stack construction or replacenent,
EPAwill reviel claims o.n a case4y case basis.
If a contract does not contain provlslons which impose financial
obligations on the owner or operator for contractmodtficatlon or
cancellation, then any determinations o•f whether liability to the owner
or operator resulting from such modification uld constitute substantial
losses must be made on a case.by case basis. In general, E?A’s rule of
thunb’.relying on ten percent of the project cost wilibe u ed.
If ou have any questions ‘regard1ngi plicat1on of this guidance in
specific Instances, please contact Eric Ginsburg at (FIS) 5295540 or
Sharon Reinders and (FTS) .629-5526.
-------
05/25/95 10:13 V2O240118 7 EPA C CC AD
UNITED STATES ENViRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
j 7 Office of AAr Quality Planning an Startàrds
R**øirch Triangle Park. North Caro ina 2771 1
QC Z8 1$83
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Impleee’ntatlon ‘of Stack Height egulatlons • Presuiiptive MSPS
Emission Limit for Fluid I g.St 7 bove Formula GEP Het ñt
FRQ1: Darryl 0.’ Tyler, Director
Control Programs Develop nt DiviSion (MD—iS)
DirectOr, Air Managsuent.Div. sion
Regions 14
The following guidance is provided to expLain the general eni sion
control requiresents for sources conducting fluId modeling to justify stack’
height in excess of’that provided’ by the SEP formulae. While some of the
diicusslon and ‘exa eples contained herein ‘focus on utility sources, the
procedures outlined in this m orandum are generally applicable to all
stationary sOurce Categories. PlOse’ rate that this is guidance. States
may present any other desonstratlons that they may feel are’ warranted in
Individual clrcia tanceS.. ‘
The revised stack height’ regulations publishedon July 8,1985, define
three n thods for determining good engineering practice (GEP) stack
height’. These methods include:
1.A6S meter L n1 s SEP height;.
2- the height determined by using an applicable fbrmuli based on the
dimensions of nearby buildings; and
3øthe hilght necessary to avoid excesslya cot entratIons due to
:dó$***h U ShOwn using a field study or fluid modelIng
dasnetrat lon. ‘
‘As thipreamblé to the reguLations poiritsCut, the revised definition
of Rexcesslve,conCentrat lOflSss a 40.percsnt Increase tn concentrations
due to downwash resulting In a NAAQS or PSD increnent exceedance,
necessitates that an enisslon rate e spécif led for purpqses øf evaluating
fluid modeling. The regulations require that a presueptive niss1on rate,
equivalent to the new source performance standards (NSPS) be established’,
for the source in question before modeling nay be conducted to determine
-------
O5/25/9 10:13 20240116t1 EP OGCXAD
2
stack h ight eded to avoid excessive concentrations due to downwash.’
This niss1on rate is described as prest.znptive” because it Is EPA s
presumption that ailsources seeking to justify stack heights exceeding
those provided by the GEP: formulae are capable of controlling their
n1ssions to lISPS levels However, th regulations also allow source
owners or operators to rebut this pres iptión,’ establishing an alternative
n1ssfofl rate that represents the most stringent level of control that
can feasibly be met by that source In excess of the NSPS level. In the
pre uble to the regulations, EPA Indicated that it will rely on the
0 Guldelines for Determination of Best Avallable.Retrofit Technology for
Coal—Fired Power Plants and other Existi iig Stationary Facilities,,
EPA-450/380-009b” (SARI Guidelines) when. reviewing these.rebuttals.
tf It is •lnfeaslbl ’efor a source to c ntrol its emissions to NSPS
levels, then an alternative limit representing the lowest feasible emission
limit must be met before obtaining credit fo” stack height In excess-of
GEP formula height. Sources may consider such factors as. r naining plant
lifa and the cost of modifying existing equi nent when determining lISPS
feasibility.
Procedures
The general procedure that ls described in the BART Guidelines for
analy2iny. control alternatives should be followed to Identify and evaluate
alternatives for sources seeking credit for stack heights In excess’ of
those produced by the applicable GEP formul e. Because the guidelines
were originally written to address visibility’ impairment, however, not all
of the analytical steps or applicability criteria——such as analysis cf
visibility impairment or ex nptions for power plants below 750 mega :ts——
will be appropriate, an4 need not be. addressed.
General steps In the analysis descr ed In Section 2.0 of the
guidelines can be si nmarized as follows.
• 1.’ Identify a range. of control alternatives, including both pre— and
post combust on controls In.this regard, several fuel substitution and
alternative fuel blends shouldbe considered, as well astechnological
alternatlve s such as coal cleaning and flue gas desulfurization.
-
2. t’i u ate the cast, emissions, and other envirorinental and energy
Impacts o Ue alternatives (Including those neeting lISPS objectives).
3, S Tàct the alternative that represents the most stringent level
of emissipns control feasible.
-
* ere the lISPS has been subject to revisiOn, and the source in
quest on Is not subject to the revised lISPS, the earliest standard will be’
applied; e.g., fOr power plants a rate of .1.2 lb/rrari3tu would be used..
-------
O15 :
05/25/95 10:14- 2O24011617 EPA u ’
3
tn. prforming these analyses, it Is Important to keep.’ in mind that
EPA’.s ‘re u t1 Is that the NSPS emiSsion lImit Is
j When carryIng out evaluationS, source owners or
opçretó!Sm(Y consider such factors as, remaining useful plant life, the
renainlng’Ufe of any equi nent affected by revised emission rates
(including any control e u1pment), the cost of modifying boilers, control
equlpunt, and fual handling facIlities, nd tha cost of modifying or
cancelling existing fuel supply contracts (remaining useful plant life,
If a significant factor In determi ning NSPS feasibility, may necessitate
rastrictions on the period of applicabliltyof’ Ie s stringent enisslon
limits)., Finally, it is important to analyze, not only a range of alter.
native controls,’ but several combinations of alternatives, since such
combinations may yield i greater and more cost-effective degree of
emissions control.
Since determinatIons of the adequacy of, any rebuttals of the NSPS’
emiSSiOn limit and the reaSQflaDleness of cofltrol alternatives onsidered
must be made on a caseuby-casa basl$, and will be subject to public’ review
and c rent during the rulemaking process, all technical and economiC
analyses, as well as any claims of infeasiblilty,. must be fully doc sented
and’supported by any informatfon’that may be’ va1lab,le. ..
If you have any ‘questions regarding the’applicatIOfl f this guidance
In a partidular set of c1rcu tanC$S, please contact Eric Ginsburg at
(FIS) 629—5540 or Sharon Reinders at (FIS) 629—5526.
-------
05/25/95 10:10. e202401161 7 EPA OGCL D O06’
• UNITED STATES ENVIRON MENTAL PROTEC11ON AGENCY
I Office of Atr Qualiry Pl nç,jn r d 5 ar dards
Research Triangle Park. North Cato)ina 27711
4 • It t”
OcT 2
MEMO!ANOUM
SU8 ECT: lmplenentatloncf Stack Keig Regulat1o s • Exceptions Fran
Restrictions on Credit for . red S9z51
Darryl D. r 7 ler, Director
Control ProgramS Dev.lo n t f 1on (M045)
TO: Director,. Air Mani9 int Division
Regions I. X . .
This guidance has. been prepared to address two Issues pertaining to
credit for merged stacks prior to July 8, t985. It e tab1ishts a procedure
that should be used to prepare and to review Justifications for merging gés
streams for economic or engineering reasons, and to address tht pres mt1on
that merging was significantly motivated by an intent to gain credit for
increased dispersion... Please note that this is guidance; Statas may submit
alternative da Onstrat1ons 1 support of merged stack ‘exeflptloñs if they
feel the jndividualcfrcumstance s warrant.
Recent re isioflS to EPA’s stack height regulations place certain
restrictions on.the degree to which stationary sources may rely on the
affects of dispersion techniques when calculating allowable enlsslons.
One such restriction is provided for the merging of gas streams, or
combining of stacks. Several ezeaptions have been provided 1 .ths regula-
tion, however. More SpecIfically, 40 CFR Part 511(hh)(2)(li) allows
c edft under clrcumstances ere: . •.. .
A. The source owner or operator de,onstrates that the facility was
or1g1na13,y das gnad and constructed with such merged gas streams;
8.i AfIr July 8 1985. such merging Is partof a change. in operation
at the f i:1ity that includes the installationof pollution controls and Is
acco anied b a net reduction in the allowable snlsslOns.of. a
This exclusiOn from the definition of dlsperslon techniques shall apply
only to the .amlssion limitation for the pollutant affected by such change
in øperatlon; or • .. •
C. 8e.fore July 8, 1985, such inerging’wss part of a change in operation
at the facility that included the in tallatlon of n1ss1 n control equip.
• ment or was carried out for sound ec nom1c or engineering reasons. Where
there was an increase in the federa ily.aPPr3ved e 1ss1on limitation for any
-------
007.:
05125/95 10:10 - 2024011617 EPA OGCIAD.
pollutant or, in the event that no emission limitation was.ln existence
prior to themerging, an-increase in the quantity of any pollutants actually
-emitted from.exlsting Units prior to the merging, the reviewing agency
shall pres ine that merging was significantly motivated by an intent to gain
em1ssior s credit for greater dispersion. Absent a demonstration by the
source owner Or operator that merging was not significantly motivated by,
such an Intent, the’ reviewing agency shall deny credit for the effects of
suth merging in ca1culatIn the allowable emissions for the source.
General Regu1r en
Figure ] illustrates franework for evaluating clalms,for merged
stack credit. Because merged gas strea ns are generally regarded as prohibited
dispersion techniques under the regulations) it IS incumbent on the State
or. the source owr’er or operator to demonstrate that such merging was conducted
•for sound economic or engineering reasons, and was not significantly motivated
• by an Intent to avoid emission controls’.’ Consequently, the’first step
should entail a review of State and EPA files to determine the existence of
any evidence of intent on the part of the source owner or operator.
Information showing that merging was conducted specifically ‘to. increase
final exhaust gas plum. rise serves as. a demonstration of dispersion intent
that Justifies a denial’of credit for merged gas streams. Deinonstratl ’ons’that
mergin9 was carried out for sound economic or engineering reasons are
expected to shøw that either the benefits of merging due to reduced
construction and maintenance costs outweigh the benefits relating to lower
emission control costs or that relevant eng1neer n.g’ considerations showed
the merging to be clearly superior to other configurations.’
Demo nstr atl o n Re i rements
Several exemptions, from prohibitions n ga5 strewn merging are provided’
• for existing sources.lfl the stack height regulatio t : -
1. where’sourcas constructed their stacks before December 31, 1970,’
2 .wher,e the total fac1l1ty w1de emissions from the source do not
exceed 5,000 tons per year . ‘
• ‘ ‘ 3 wher . .tfle facility was originally designed and constructed -
with merged 9u streams , and
4’ where’th&mer’glng was part of a change in facility operation that
Included the: lfl ,stallation of pollution control equipment and resulted in
no increase in the ‘allowable emissions of any pollutant.* Where’ there
‘was an increasein emissions In conjunctionwith the merging and installation
of control equipment, the regulations require that source owners alsa make
an àf ,fl:rmatlve demonstration that the merging’ was not motivated by dispersive
Intent. ‘
•Where•thev’e’ as no federally-approved emission limit priorto merglng
gis: streams, there must be no Increase in the actual emissions of ‘any ,
pollutant. Moreover, it is incumbent on theState to demonstrate that’there
was a logical relationship between the mei ging df existing gas streams’ and
the instaflatj9n of controls., ‘ ‘ ‘
-------
oo8
O5125/9 10:11 20240116h7 EPA OGC lAD
3
Sources that are not’ covered underthese criteria may stilT qualify for
eie t1on if theycan show that merging was onductid for sound economic
r engineering reasons. Such d onstratlons.should Include Justifications
for having replaced existing stacks. Th1 may be done, fOr instance, by
doc .nn nt1ng through maintenance records, corrasponder7ce, or other
:eontenporaneous evidence, that the axisting stack.s had reached the end of
their useful life, were presaturely corroded, had sustained, other d age•
making them unservicable, were of a height less’ than that regarded as
good engineering practice, thereby aus1ng downwash probl ns, ’or that the
add t1on of new units at the facility necessitated additional stacks and
insufficient land was available. The absence of any evidence supporting
the need for stack repl&cement,create s a strong prgs g tion that merging
was carried out ‘specifically to avoid the installation of pollution
controls, I.e., was slgnlflcantl,y motivated by an Intent to gain emissions
credit for increased 4lspersioñ.
No Increase In Allowable Emissions
Once this ‘init1 l criterion Is satisfied, d noflstrat1Ofls may show
that merging was based either on sound econo n1c or sound engineering
reasons. Clai,ns based on strict engineering justifications may be more
difficult to show, sinCe the’ezistence of more than one. reasonable -
ertglneering olutian generally.leads to a decision based on eco, m1eS.
However, tf It can be docisnented tnat the merged itack configuration was
clearly superior to other stack’configur tiOnS for purely ’.englneering
reasonS, without consideration of Cost, then credit for merging may be
granted. ‘ . ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ . . . .
In order to most reliably lmpleeent the prov s1 nS of the.regulatlons
regarding the merging of gas ‘stre fls f r sound economic reasons, it uld
be necessary to ascertain the actual. Intent of ‘the source owner or operator
at the time the’declslon wIS made ‘to merge gas Stremas. Recognizing that
the difficulty of doing so was th. basis for £PA’s rejection of an 9 ’ntent
test’ In the rule, the following apprgach provides a surrogate d anstration
of intent. This approach Is sj,rarlzed in Figure 2.
Because the.potentlal sayings attributable to the avoidance of
pollut1o t controls can significantly Influence decisions tomerge stacks,
one w&yt0 show the absence of dispersion ‘;lnttrtt Is to Conduct an analysis
of the ai*aallzed .capital and malntSn*nce osts, for merged stacks nd for
individü*I .*taCks, end co are the rtsult tothe compllance.costs (fuel
.end op*ritlón and maintenance of any ccntrol equI ent) calculated based on
the emissIOn limitations d rived.with end withoutmerged stack credit. If,
when the difference In capital and maintenance costs Is compared with th*
difference 3, , compliance costs aver the period of capital asórtlZatlon, the
capital and maintenance cost saving Is greater than the compliance cost
savtng, then mergIr 4 can be accepted as ha lng asound economic basis.
In:e tablish,1ng t s rule of thuitb, we are. aware that a benef it of as
littie as L040’percent could be considered “significant’ in thC context of
the court’s holding on this matter., .r.I .e.,SUCh a benefit could have been
con idered to be a re’evant factor in dt 1Si0US tO construct merged stacks.
-------
05/25195 10:11 ‘e2024011617
EPA o AD
.4
However, recognizlng ’.thatdocumentatlori of cost anal ses after an extended.
period of. time—-up to 15 years..islikely to be limited, we believe that
the 50 ‘pevcent test articulated above would constitute a more reasonable
basis for Initial determinations (that:is, a level at which we believe that
there w s -likely a significant incentive to merge stacks to avoid control
requirements).
Affirmative Demonstrati onsof Nor di s persion Intent .
In some instances, a State or emission source, owner may not be ableto
make a.dendnstration as described above, or believe that Sound economic
reasons existed for merging stacks, regardless of the relationship between
financial savings attributable to reduced emission control requirements
versus lower stack construction cost . in such cases, an opportunity should
be provided to affirmatively demonstrate that merged stacks .were not
usignificantly motivated by an intent to obtain emissions credit for -
Increased d1spersion. The burden f proof. rásts solely with source bwners
or operators attempting to make this showing.
Demonstrations may rely on any relevant. evidence, Indluding but not
limited to the following:
— construction permits, or permits to operate from pollution control
agencies . . . . ‘
co respo ’ndence between the source owner or operator and goverrment
agencies
engineering reports relating to the’ facility
— facility records
— affidayits’ -
- any other relevant materials
For Instance, such a deno.nstratl.on could ’be made by submitting
documentary or other evidence ‘(e.g., Internal compafly m noranda presenting
the a ternative construction opportunities available to the ‘company) that
indicates the intent of the source owner or operator and shows that
consideration of.dispersion advantages was conspicuously absent..
Alternit vely ”, ft,ni:ght be shown that either action by. the State in
approving tr vIsed emission limit followed actual merging sufficiently
later in tt s to suggest that dispersion credit was not _ cqnsideretbv the
ffiergI thestate approved omit was unrelated to
the mergiflg ” ‘
In attetflptlng to make demonstrations’, ‘source owners or operators
should present as much evidence as can be locat d, with the understanding
that demonstratlon.s based on any single category of evidence (such as’
affidavits) presented’ in Isolation are less likely to- coñst1tute acceptable
showings than. demonstrations b ased on cumul t1ve bodies of evidence.
As-discussed bel.ow,affirmatlve showings 1li be required of. sources.
whose merged stacks were associated with an increase in allowable emissions
as well as some sources whose mergers were not associated with such
-------
05/25/95 10:12 e2024011617 EPA OGCXAD
5..
lncrsaus However, £PA’expects sources whose n1sS 1 on limits increased
subsequent to the merging to present stronger showings than those with no
Increase, since the regulatory definitiOn of”disperslon techniquew views
such.increase$ as an explicit indication that the merged stackswere
significantl.y tivated by an Intent to gain credit for Increased t3isper.
sion. Sources who GO not Increase the1r ii sSions, but Who hdy€ difficulty
making other deI onstrations, such as the Installation of pollution controls,
or merging for sound economIc or engineering reasãns convey a more implicit
Indleatlon of dispersion Intent that must be rebutted; for such sources,
however, the presJnptlon of Intent Is not as .c pElling.
Increases In Aflowable Emissions
As stited above, In. cases where the allowable n1u1on* of
pollutant increased In conjunction with the merging of gas’streams, such
an increase provides even stronger circ n tant1al evidence that mergti g
was not carried aut for sound economiC or engineering reasons, but was
lsignlf lcantly motivated by an lrtterrt tog a1n anissions credit for greater
dispersion. 1 This presuntiOn may. be rebutted by making one of the
following danonstrations 1 . . .
1— by showing that the cost savings associated Ith reduced c npl lance
costs for. merged stacks are lees than 50 percent of the total savinqs due Co
merged st4cks (I.e., annual c plhance savings pla.ts armualized capital
and maintenance savings), and bymaking an affirmative showing, as described
above, that there.was no significant motivation to gain credit for the
increased dispersion provided by merged stacks; or .
• 2— by showing that lternat1ves to stack merqlng were reasonably.
precluded strictly for engiMering reasons, and by affirmatively denon.’
stratlng.the absence of significant dispersion Intent, asr ote4 above.
In the absence øf such a showIng, ft should be preslinèd that avo 1 dance
of enlsslofls control was a signiticint factor inthe decision toinerga gas
stre s, and credit should be denied. .
If you or your’ staff haie any questions regarding, the application. Qf
this gutdance In specific Instances, please contact Eric Ginsburg at
(FTS) 62$.5540 or Sharon Reinders at (FT.Z) 529—5526. .
Att acPasñts
-------
t2 024011817
FIGURE 1
m c i
- Credit
05/25/95 10:12
3 .
01.11.
•1
-------
05,25/95 10:13 2Q24O11617 EPA OG AD
Figure a
£conomic •JuStificati
.fQr Merged Stacks
5 1 ’i f jS due to AvoliTanci
of More Stringent
Emission Limit
.
No Inci’sase
In Emissions
Increase
In £mission
Less than 50% of TOt&T
SavingS ue to Merged .
Stack Construction
Credit
Grante4
..
—
Affjrmatjye
Showing
.
---
Exceed 50% of TotaL .• .
Savings due to Merged
Stack Construction
Affirmative .
Showing
.
.—
No
Credit
,..
-------
-‘05/25/95 10:09 2024011617 EP OGC AD 004
, tQ S’.,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
‘m
MEMORANDUM ’
SUBJECT: lariflcation of Existing Guidance on Dispersion’
Modeling Requirements for Pla sWith “Tall Stack ”
and Other Prohibited Dlspar i Tec ’ ue$
FROM: Darryl 0. Tyier. Oirector
Control Programs Development o qi 1on (MD—IS)
TO: Director, Air Division,. Regions 14
The purpo se of this m o Is to clarify EPA’; guidance on the dtspers on
analysis require ients that are necessary to 1mpl nent t1 e revised stack
helght.regulations (see EPA’s Stack Height Workshop Manual dated October
1985) and, second, to respond to questions on whether dispersion modeling
is requlr d in the contezt of checking for prohibited dispersion credit
If a source s emission limitation was not developed by means of a case-
specific dispersion analysis.
• In cases where stack ’helght credit and/or dispersioncredit changes
and a dispersion analysis has been performed many context, that
‘ ana1 sls mus.t to be reviewed to determine if the model inputS røfl act
credit for tack .heig.ht(s) above gooø engineering practice (G P) or any
otfler prohibited dispersion techn gue(s) . (Review of the model inputs
ap fes to both the ‘specific sour e sj for which the analysis is conducted
and nearby point sources as performed for anew.or renewed-permit, a new
source revtew/ preventlonof significant deterioration national ambient
air quality standard attainment or increment analysis 1 a State plan to
propos revision of Its federally, apprQv,ed State implementation plan
(SLp) em1 ’ssion limitations, ju tif1catlon of the current SIP limitations,
or any attainment/nonattainment redesignatlon(s) 1 etc.)
• S .t•r e analysis reflects credit for, prohibited •dispersion techniques,
then the’ source(s) need to be remod&ed without tne prOhibited credit(s)
and revised, emission limitation established In the event that the analysis
Showsan attainment or Increniertt problem. If a source’s emlssio ,n limi,t
was established by ambient air quality considerations suc) as rollback,
modelIng’ is requ r d to demonstrate consistency with the stac ’height
-------
jv;i.v - T U 4v.&.LuA1
.X 4I U LW
. IIu _..
—
regulation because credit for prohibited dispersion techniques is reflected
in the ie6riitoi’ed value. If a source has never been analyzed for dispersion,
then It ts’.not necessary to conduct a dispersion analysis now.
It Is a State responsibility to deirnnstrate (1) that the SIP limit
does not’tonsider the results of dispersion analyses, (2) that the source
has never been evaluated for dispersion credit, or(3) that existing or new
analyses are conSiStánt with guidance. Regions, are encouraged to provide
assistance to States in this endeavor if the impacted agency so desires.
It I always’ appropriate’ for an individual State or Region to request or
initiate a modeling analysis where one does not exist if there.is reason
to believe that a source t s emission limitation is inconsistent with,the”
•stack height regulations. However, EPA is not callir g ‘for an across the
board modeling analysis from every source.
‘Please pass this information along to yuur States. If you have any
questions on impl TIenting thi guidance, pláase call Sharon Reinders at
FTS 629.55Z6 or rlc Ginsburg at FT5629’-5540.
cc: Regional Administrator, egions 14 ‘ L •Emi son
Chief, Air Branch,. Region I-X T Helms
Regional Stick Height Contact, Regions .X 0. RPioads
R. Brenner ‘ , ‘ 8. J. Steigerwald
R. Campbell J. Tikvart
C. Carter P. Wyckoff’
C. El’kins’
-------
05/25/95 10:08 2024011617 EPA OGC lAD
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
______ Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
‘p
JUN29 1992
MORANDtJM
SUBJECT: Creditfor Stack Height Increasjs ‘Due to the siting of
New, Nearby Structures ,‘,
FROM: John Calcagni,
Air Quality’ Management/b vision,V
,—. .-/
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and ToxTcs
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Taxies Division,
Region III , ‘
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region .V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Taxies Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and .Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, arid’ X
The purpose of this memorandum is to present a further’
interpretation of the stack height regulations to account for
those’ situations in which an existing source is iThpacted by the
siting of a new, nearby structure. Specifically, we believe that
in such a situation, it will, generally be reasonable for a source
seeking. credit for additional stack height to recalculate its
good engineering’practice (GEP) formula height due to the Siting
of a nearby structure, without the need to justify the increase
through fluid modeling.
ItT1.. .be helpful to reiterate the’historicalbasis for the
demonstrat ion requirement: in the 1982 stack he].ght suit, i r a
ub v. A,• 7.19 F. 2d 436, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit charged EPA with demonstratinq that the GEP formula
is so reliable that it. may be used to establish stack height
credit’in lieu of a’ specific demonstration. For reasons
eiplained in its 1985 rulemaking notice ( O FR 27892 July’a,
19853, EPA indicated that it was unable to do so and thus adopted
a demonstration requirement to support credit for sta4 height
increases up to formula height. .
-------
05/25/95 10:09 2024011617 EP.t OGC MAD.
2
However, in the event of the s tingof a new,.nearby
structure, we believe that the exietence of such a structure
falls outside of the presumption that the original stack height
be regarded as GE? unless provenotherwise, as discussed above.jn
Sierrat lubv EPA . This presumption should not apply to stacks
affected by the later construotion of upwind obstacles since such
construction could generally not have been anticipated.
Consequently, we believe that fluid modeling demonstrations or
nuisance showings are -necessary only in the context of less-than—
formula stacks where there has. been no subsequent siting of
upwind obstacles.
Permitting the ‘source owner to rec 1culate GE? does not
provide automatic credit for increased tack height. Rather,
recalculating GEP allows the source owner an opportunity to
receive stack height credit and to ‘calculate an emissiOn rate
which reflects accuratesource parameters. Likewise, permitting
a limited number of sources to recalculate GEP formula height’
does not represent a new opportunity or a substantive change for
the regulated community. The opportunity to recalculate GEP is
already available to sources which conduct a fluid modeling study
to demonstrate a downwash problem or which, demonstrate the
existence of a downwash-reletéd nuisance. Eliminating the
necessity to fluid model in a limited number of cases merely
lessens the burden and administrative delay associated with such
a study. . At the sane time, States and EPA retain the authority
to require fluid modeling to justify stack height increases in
thosG situations where they believe such a study is warranted.
Any comments or questions regarding this memorandum should
be addressed to Gwen Jacobs at (919)541-5295.
cc: Dennis Atkinson, ‘140-14
Gary Blais, MD-15
Tom Eagles, OPAR
t.-? tricia Embrey, OGC.
• Eric Ginsburg, MD—15
Gwerz ’Jacobs, MD-15
Joe ,Paisie, MD—iS
Stack Height Contacts, Regions I X
-------
U. Stage i :
-------
U. Stage II
U.1. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation plans; Illinois
(Final Rule) 58 FR 3841 (Jan. 12, 1993)
U.2. Impact of the Recent Onboard Decision on Stage II
Requirements in Moderate Nonattainment Areas - - June 23, 1993
memo from John S. Seitz
U.3. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Wisconsin
(Final Rule) 58 FR 43081 (Aug. 13, 1993)
U 4.. Impact of the Onboard yapor Recovery Rules on the Stage II
or Comparable Measure Requirement for the Northeast Ozone
Transport Region (OTR) - - Sept. 21, 1993 memo from John S. Seitz
U.5. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation plans; Louisiana
Stage II Program (Final Rule) 59 FR 14112 (Mar. 25, 1994)
U.6. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan Texas Stage
II Program (Final Rule) 59 FR 17040 (Apr. 15’, 1994)
U.7. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana
(Final Rule) 59 FR 21942 (Apr. 28, 1994)
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 7 / Tuesday,. january 12; 1993 I Rules and Regulations
(-It
3841-
nart of the person or persons having an
st in obtaining the waiver; and
Collection of such indebtedness
d be against equity and good
science..
* •••* * *
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5302 (b) and (c)).
4. In § 1.965, the introductory text of
paragraph b and paragraph (b)(2) are
revised, and an authority citation is
added at the end of thosection to road
as follows: .. .
• § 1.965- ApplIcation of atandard.
a -a * * *
• (b) In applying this single standard for
all areas of indebtedn ss . the following
elements will be considered, any
indication of which,-if found, will
precludo the grantingof waiver:
(2) Bad Faith. This term generally
describes unfair or deceptive dealing by
oiie who seeks to gdin thereby at
another’s expense. Thus, a debtor’s
conduct in connection with a debt
arising from participation in a VA
benefits/services program exhibits bad
:181th if suchconduct, although not . -
undertaken with actual fraudulent
intent, if undertaken with intent to seek
• an unfair advantage, -with knowledge of
kely consequences..end results in
to the government.-
a * * *
thority: 38 U.S.C. 5302(c)). • -
i Doc. 93—S6lFiIedl-1i—93; 8: ami
• MWHO CODE $32O- : - -
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation ptans;llilnoIs--
‘AGENCY: United States Enviroj mental
-Protection Agency (USEPA).
- AC11ON: Final -rulö: ..‘ .‘
SUMMARY: .USEPA- Is taking action (0
:approvo a revision to parts 218 and 219
of title 35 of the Illinois Administrative
Code (35 IAC) as revisions to the State
ImplomentationP1an (SIP) for ozone.
- U5EPA’s action is based upon a revision
‘-request-which was submitted by the
-State to satisfy the requirements of
‘sectioh 182(b)(3) of the Clean Air Act as -
:amended in 1990 (CAA), which requires
ne nonattainnient areas classified
derate or-worse o require
led gasoline dispensing facilities
: stall and operate State II vapor
‘very equipment. In Illinois, subject.
areas include the Chicago ozone
nonattainment area (Cook, DuPage,
Kane, Lake, McHenry, Will Counties
and Aux Sable and Goose Lake
Townships in Grundy County and
Oswego Township in Kendall County)
and the Illinois portion of the East St.
Louis ozone nonattoinmont area
(Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair
Counties). USEPA ’s action is being
taken with no prior proposal.
DATES: This action will be effective
March 15, 1993 unless notice is received
within 30 daysof publication that
adverse or critical comments will be
submitted. If the effective date is
delayed ’timeIy notice will be published
in the Federal-Register. - S
ADDRESSES: Copies of the requested SIP
revision, technical support documents
and public comments received are
available at the following address:-
U.S. Environmental Protection- Agenóy,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division.
Regulation Development Branch, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
- Illinois 60604. - - . -
Comments on this rulemaking should
be- addressed to: - - - - - . -
- J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation- -
Development Section, Regulation -
Development Branch (5AR—18J). - - -
United States Environmental
Protection Agency. Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
.60604. -
• FOR FURTHER INFORMATION cONTACT: - -.
• - - Francisco,j. Acevedo, Environmental
= Engineer, Regulation Development
Section, Regulation Development
- Branch (5AR—18J), United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
- Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard.
-- Chicago. Illinois 60604. (312)886—6061.
Anyone wishing to come to Region 5-
offices should contact Francisco J. -
- Acevedo flrsl -- - . - -
- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
- I. BackgroundiSummazy of State•
- Submittal — . . —
On September 30, 1992, the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA) submitted to USEPA Stage II
Vapor Recovery Rules: Amendments to
35 ILL. ADM.. CODE PARTS 215, 218-.
-• AND 219 (R91—30). The rules were
adopted by the Illinois Pollution Control
Board (IPCB) on August 13. 1992. The
rules became effective on August 24, -
1992. The State submitted these rules-to
satisfy the section 182(b)(3)
• requirements of the AA which is
applicable to the Chicago and East St.
Louis ozone nonattainment areas. .The
information presented below -
- summarizes the requested SIP revision
and USEPA’s action on it. A more
detailed analysis of the State’s submittal
is contained in a technical support
document dated September 3. 1992. -
which is available from the Region 5
office listed abovo.
Illinois regulations specify that Stage
II vapor recovery systems arc required at
gasoline dispensing facilities (hat
dispense more than 10,000 gallons per
- month. Private fueling facilities such as--
government and company fleet fueling
facilities as well as retailers are subjoct
to the Stage II requirements. The - -
regulations specify the use of California
Air Resource Board certified Stage II -
systems, which have been demonstrated
to achieve at least 95 percent control of
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) -
emissions. The rules also mandate the
proper installation and operation of - - -
such systems, to be-achieved by
- requiring the installed systems to be -
tested for proper installation and
requiring the State to perform all
- necessary enforcement. -
The rules mandate Stage II vapor
recovery systems to be:implemented
pursuant to the following phase-in -
schedule: - - -. - . -
(1) Facilities that commenced -
construction afterNovember 1, 1990, -
must comply by May 1. 1993; - - -
- (2) Facilities that cOmmenced
cOnstruction before November 1, 1990.
and dispense an average monthly
volume of more than 100.000 gallons of
motor fuel per- month, must.comply by
November 1, 1993; :and -
(3) All other. facilities must comply by
November 1, 1994.
II. Review criteria - -
USEPA reviewed the submittal
against the requirements of section - -
182(b)(3) of the CAA, as interpreted in
the General Preamble for the
Implementation of title! of the Clean -
Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR -
13498, 13513 (April 16, 1992)), and two
USEPA documents entitled Technical
Guidance—Stage II Vapor Recovery -
Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling
-Emissions at Gasoline Dispensing
Facilities (Technical Guidance) and the
Enforcement Guidance for Stage II
Vehicle-Refueling Control Programs
(Enforcement Guidance). Specifically
seven general criteria need to be met for
a Stage II vapor recovery regulation to
be acceptable. The egulátion must
fulfill the following requirements:
(1) Installation-of Stage II Controls
and Dote minatioO of Regulated
Facilities. Facilities that dispense more
than 10,000 gallons per month must -
install andoperate Stage II controls. FOr
gasoline dispensing facilities that are
owned and operated by an independent
-------
1 ’i’Z..,Federa Register .1 .VOI. 58, NO. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 1903 / Rules and Regulations
small business marketer, the Stale may and a Leak Test which me sures the III. Results of USEPA Review
establish a i ut-point as high as 50.000 vapor tightness of the Stage ll.system. - USEPA reviewed th lllinoi
gallons’permo,nth.’ln’the General - The Enforcement Guidance also states . 0 ,0
• •. . - . . . suomitta’ to oetermrno if criteria for
i-reamule,.USEPA indicated that (he “. ‘,that a facility should recertify the . ,‘
suggested method for.calcülating the. . functions of the Stage ll’equipment at’ . JP PI I , avo ueefl met. The results of
gallons per month.dispeñsed by affected . least every 5 years, dr upon m8jor S ro iew are as ,o,iows.
facilities is determined by calculating . facility modification (75 percent or more (1) Instollatioui of stage ii Gontrol and
the average, volume of product. ‘ . equipment change), whichever comes DetC,7niflation of Regulated Facilities
dispensed per month forthe 2-year. . first (See April 16,1992 57 FR 13514)’ Illinois’ submittal mandates the
period prior to the adoption of the rule. ,‘ Federal Register, and; Enforcement. ‘ . requirement of Stage 11 vapor recover
by the State. (S o General Preamble, 57, , Guidance, Sec. 8.2.) . .“‘‘ ‘ s stems on an ‘ a Ii ‘ d
FRat l35l4JTheEnforcemeflt . . ‘ . . , ‘ yg so no ispensing
Guidance stiggests”that.if sufficient data Recordkeeping and Reporting. In , ‘facility that dispenses a monthly,
is not avàilablefor a full 2-year neriod ‘the, Enforcement Guidance, USEPA’ , average volume of 10,000 gallons or
‘then the actu 6 l months àf ’neia on ‘ “identifies various records that the’State’ more. The submittal also includes a
d’uring that 2-year periOd sI uld be ‘ should ro ulré faciliti s to k ep, and to requirement that affected facilities be
use4to calculate’th’e facility’s average ‘make available upon r quest. USEPA.’ ‘idantified by calculating the average
gallons per month (See Enforcement believes that these documents must be volume of product dispensed per month
‘Guidance Sec. 3 2) ‘‘‘ ‘“ -‘‘ ‘ ‘ available in’order tomake the Stage ‘‘ for the 2 year penod prior tQ adoption
(2) Establishment of a Time Schedule requirement enforceable These of the rule by the State USEPA finds
for Installation of Stage II Control documents include (a) A license/permit this acceptable because it directly
Equipment Section 182(b)(3)(B) of the to install and operate the Stage 11 addresses the Federal requirement
CAA establishes three standard system, (b) verification of passing (2) Establishment of a Time Schedule
deadlines for the installation and functional tests after installation of for Instaflotion of Stage 11 Cor ’trol
• application’ofStage 11 controls, aftOr ‘ . equipment; this includes the Liquid’ Equipment . ‘ . ‘ -:
• adoption by’the State 61 the Stage II .“ Blockage Test, Leak Test, all shütof1/ . ‘ ‘. ‘ . . . .
requirements The phase-in schedule flow prohibiting device testing, (c) The time schedule stated in the
given in the CAA is the following general station file containing initial Illinois rule mandates installation of the
(a) 6 months Sft r adoption for all .“ station Information such Os motor •:. Stage II control equipment by (1) May 1,
• facilities commencing construction after chicle l throughput’information; (d) 1993. for facilities that started
November 15, 1990, equipment maintenance and construction after November 1, 1990, (2)
(b) 1 year for all facilities which compliance file log containing November 1, l993 for facilities which
dispense 100,000 gallons ,or more of verification that proper maintenance has startcd construction before Novewber 1,
gasoline per month, and been conducted in accordance with i990,.and dispense more than 100,000
(c) 2 years for all other facilities manufacturer’s specifications and gallons of motor fuel per month, and, (3)
e 9 uired to be regu1ate i requirements, (e) Iraining certification November 1, 1994, for facilities which
t3) System Certification An approved files (See Enforcement Guidance, Sec have started construction before
• .system should be tested and certified so . 8:o.) ‘. -. •‘;‘:‘ , :‘ --: - .November 1, 1990 and dispense less..
as to meet a minimum requirement of 95 ,, ... than 100,000 gallons of motor fuel per
percent emission reduction efficiency (6; Periodic Inspection of Regulated month Under section 812(b)(3) (B) and
USEPA believes ,that’.this efficiency rate Facility. fho State POA should conduct (C), the’state must ‘establish a twoyear
-has been demonstrated to be feasible. As 8 miflifliUrn Of 1comphqnce inspection:’ time table for source implementation of
• .stàted In the General Preamble, the ,. per facility per year with mandatory “ .. - Stage II. The Act provides’that’ this time
•States may achieve this.by utilizing one : oliow- tt t 0i S. -t,able must run from the date,of adoption
of the following three altern 6 tives . (a) A ..US A eheves such ii .sp dions ar ,. •: of the Stage II.rüles and then defines
• method tested and approvéd.by ,, •:. nOCessap’ to ensure that. f cil ties ,a e .. - adoption to mean thedate the State
California Air Resources Board ARB) complying with the Stage 11 adopts the requirements for installation
past, current or future recognized st . requirements. This is neces ary not.only and operation of fiji Stage U equipment.
• methods, or (b) aii equivalent testing”’ ‘: ‘. for n orce entct,iori but to notify ,. ‘.. Although’ Illinois adopted its Stage II
program adopted by the State, sources that are violating the Stage regulations on August 13, 1991, USEPA
conducted by the Program Oversight. reqmrements so they’can make ‘!- • • believes’that it can interpret the .‘
Agency (POA) orby.a thir4 party -. ‘necess iy adjustrnents.to come p o , • ,ladoption datO tobe NovembOr 1, 1992
recognized by. the POA, and. submitted ‘ compliance. The compliance inspection under the limited circumstances
and approved by USEPA for ‘ should cons st of a’visual inspection 01 . ‘presented in this submittal.
incorporation in ‘the sip,’ or c) a system - the required paperwork, and Stage W’. USEPA is proposing to approve the
approved byCARB. (See Enforcement ‘equipment. In addition to the vrsual , submitted time tabl6 ‘run 6 ing from:
Guidance, Sec. 4.2.) ‘ ,. - inspec(ion.a functional inspection to , November 1, 1992 for three reasons. -
- ‘(4) Facility Verification Of the Proper ‘determine if the factlity ,s Stage I I ‘ First, USEPA recognizesthat the date
Installation and Function of Stage 11 equipment is functioning properly must selected by Illinois precedes the date by
Vapor Control Systems The General also be performed (See Enforcement which the State as required to submit
I Preamble indicates in order for, the State ‘Guidance, Sec. 5.2(d).) • ‘: ‘ •‘. ‘the Stage II regulations’ to USEPA. Thus
Stage 11 requirement to be enforceable, . , (7) Requirement to ensure regulated .•,. Illinois could have waited to adopt the
the State must require the regulated facility compliance with program Stage ii regulations on 14o iember 1,
facility to verify proper installation and requirements through enforcement 1992, and still have met the November
function of the Stage II equipment. The ‘ mechanisms,’and a penalty schedule- , ‘ 15, 1992 submIttal date.Second; the
Enforcement Guidance specifies that establishes appropriate penalties for time table initiation date established by
performing a Liquid Blockage Test facilities violating the Stage II the State—November 1, 1992—began
which determines if there is an requirements (See Enforcement shortly after adoption of the -regulation
unacceptable low point in the piping, Guidance, Sec. 5.2(e).) , ‘, ‘::, ‘ Third, the State would have a limited
-------
Federal. Register I Vol. 58, No. 7 / l 4 uesday, January 12, 1993 I Rules and Regulations
3843.
: dispensed, and the JQcation (including revision and anticipates no adverse
contact person’s name, address, and comments. This action will be effective’:
telephone number) of other records and March 15, 1993 unless, within 30 days
reports required by the rule. Other of its publication, notice is received that
records and reports required by the rule adverse or critical comments will be
to be kept on fileby the owner or . submitted. If such notice is received,.
operator and which need to be made this action will be withdrawn before the.
available to the POA upon request effective date by publishing two
include: Proof that a certified Stage II subsequent notices. One notice will.
system has been installed and tested to withdraw the final action and another
verify its performance according to its will begin a new rulemaking by
specifications; records that show that announcing a proposal of the action and
proper maintenance has been cOnducted esi blishing a comment period. If no
according to manufacturer such comments are received, the public.
specifications; records that show time is advised that this action will be
periods and duration of all malfunctions effective March 15. .1993.
of the Stage II system; motor vehicle fuel Nothing in this action should be
throughput information for each construed as permitting or allowing or
calendar mOnth of the previous year; establishing a precedent for any future
and proof of employee training . request for revision to any SIP. Each
certification. After discussions between request for revision to the SIP shall be
IEPA and USEPA regarding the .. considered separntely in light of specific
rccordkeeping requirements, the above technical, economic, and environmental
format was agreed to byUSEPA factors and In relation to relevant
meeting Stage II Enforcement Guidance .. . statutory and. regulatory requirements.
requ lrements . . . USEPA has submitted a request for a.
permanent waiver for Table 2 and Table
(6) Periodic Inspection Requirements. ... 3 SIP revisions. 0MB has agreed to
The IEPA has committed to adhere to continue the temporary waiver until
Enforcement Guidance that specifies such time as it rules on USEPA’s
annual inspections for the facilities or request.
the development of an inspection .. This action has been classified as a•
schedule approved by USEPA through .. Table 2 actiOn by the Regional
JEPA’s inspection program plan. . Administrator under the procedures
published in the Federal Register on
(7) Regulated Facility Compliance with January 19, 1989, (54 FR 214- .2225). On
Program Requirements . January 6, 1989, the Office of
The illinois Environmental Protection Management and Budget (0MB) waived
Act (Act). section 42(a), states that any . . Table 2 and 3 SIP revisIons (54 FR 2222)
person that violates any provision of . from the requirements of sectiori 3 Of.
this Act or any regulation adopted by Executive Order 12291 for a pOrlod bf 2
the IPCB, or any permit orteñn years. :..: .....
condition thereof, or that violated any.: Ur der the Regulatory.Flexibility Act;
determination or Order Of the IPCB. . . 5 U.S.C. 600 et..se ..USEPA must.
pursuant to this Act, shall be liable to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis
a civil penalty. not to exceed $50,000 for assessing theimpact ofany proposed:Or...
the violation and anädditional$10.000 final rule on small entities. 51J.S.C. 603
for each day for which the. violation and 604. Alternatively,USEPA may.
continues. In that thissubmittal is a . ‘ certify that the rule.will not have a
regulation adopted by the IPCB, a ‘ significant impact on a substantial
• violationof which subjects the violator number of small entities. Small entities
to penalties under section 42(a). the include small businesses, small not-for-
submittal is consistent with the policy profit enterprises, and government
established by USEPA in its entities with jurisdiction over
Enforcement Guidance. .. populations of less than 50,000.
• SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I. part D of the CAA do not
• USEPA approves 35 Ill. Adm. Code . create any new requirements. but
§ 218.586(a)—(h) and 219.586(a)—(h) as simply approve requirements that the
a revision to the Illinois Ozone SIP. . State is already imposing. Therefore,
because the submittal meets all the .‘ because the federal SIP-approval does
criteria required for approvability as’ not impose any new requirements, I
cited above. The Stage II vapor recovery certify that it does not have a significant
SIP revision for the Chicago and East St: impact on any small Ontities affected.
ozone nonattainment areas Will be Mereover, due to the nature of the
complete following today’s action. . federal-state relationship underthe
USEPA is publis’hing (his action CAA, preparation of a regulatory
without prior proposal because the . flexibiliiy analysis would constitute
USEPA views this as a noncontroversial . federal inquiry (nto the economic.
.,ility to remedy this deficiency. To the
extent the State could amend the
lementatIon date, many sources
hin the State would not have the
d time intended bythe statute to
,stall and operate thesystein. If the
State chose to withdraw and readopt
their Stage II requirement, 1 iotentially
the time table could run from a date
later than November 15, 1992; this
would further delay implementation of
Stage II. Finally, the Illinois rule
otherwise fulfills the Stage II
requirements and USEPA believes it
will provide substantial air quality
benefits to the regulated. areas.
Therefore, USEPA believes it is in the
public interest to approve and make
enforceable this requirement at the
earliest time feasible.. In the limited
circumstances described above, USEPA
believes that it is not inconsistent to
Interpret (hO adoption date to be
November 1, 1992. :
(3) System Certifit ation
The adopted rules mafi date that all
Stage II vapor control systems used be
certified by CARB to meet 95 percent
etnission reductionefficiency. Use of
CARB-certifIed systems is acceptable to
USEPA. USEPA has specified in its
guidance documents that it believes that
- . RB approved Stage II systems meet
CAA requirement with no additional
ciency testing required: Therefore;
..,EPA believes the specified system
drtification In the Illinois submittal is
acceptable. .
(4) In st allot ioz of Stage II Vapor Control
Systerns :. .... . . . .
The Illinois rule mandates that proper
tests be. performed to:verifyproper
installation:and function of the Stage II
systems. and requires systems to be
retested aftermajor.facility .
modification. USEPA believes the
testing procedures specified:hélp make
the rule enforceable and, therefore, are
consistent with the CAA requirements.
(5) Record Oping and Reporting
Illinois Isexempting any facility•
subject to Stage II.requirement from the
air pollution control permit requirement
applicable to regulated sources under Rulemaking Action
the SIP. The exemption is allowed
provided that the affected facilities
‘provide a registration of their Stage II
equipment. The Illinois rule requires
thatregistration material be kept on site.
It also requires that, at a. minimum, the
registration information includes: the
facility name and address, signature of
nor or operator, the GARB Executive
1er Number for the Stage II system
id, number of nozzles used, the
nthly average volume .of gasoline
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 7 I. Tuesday, January 12, .1993 I. Rules and Regulations
reasonableness of state action. The CAA. Material Emission Standards and .‘ . its State Implementation Plan to provide
forbids USEPA to base its actions - Limitations for the Chicago Area, for the regulation of fine particulate
concerning SIPs on such grounds subpart Y Gasoline Distnbution mafter, known as PM—b The revision
Union Electric Co;iv. US.: E.P.A., 427 .... § 218.583 Gasoline Dispensing. : establishes a PM—la ‘air quality
U.S. 246, 256—66 (S.,’Ct, 1976); 42’.U.SC. . Facilities—Storage Tank Filling . standard, revises particulate matter
‘410(a)(2). :‘ - . . Operations, amended at 16 Illinois• episode rules, and revises two rules
• Undersection 307(b)(1) of the Clean Register 13864 effective August24,. . pertaining to particulate matter
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 1992, and; § 218.586 Gasoline . . emissions from iron and steelmaking’
this action must be ‘filed in the,United Dispensing Facilities—Motor Vehicle facilities. The purpose of the SIP
States Court of Appeals for’tho .: S Fueling Operations, added at 16 ll!inois revision is to satisfy Federal
appropriate circuit by:March.15, 1993. Register 13864, effective August 24,. ‘ requirements under the Clean Air Act
Filing a petitidn.for reconsideration by 1992: . .“ . .‘ S• ‘ . . . (Act), as amended, for an approvable
the Administrator of this final rule does (B) Illinois’ Administrative Code, title PM—la SIP in Illinois. .
not affect the finality, of this rule, for the 35 Environmental Protection, subtitle B: DATES: This action will ho effective
purposes of judicial review nor does it Air Pollution, hapterl: Pollution . ‘March 15, 1993, unless notice is
extend the time within which a petition’ Control Board, part 219,: Organic received within 30 days that someone
for judicial review ‘may be filed, and , Material Emission Standards and ‘ ‘ “ wishes to submit adverse or critical.
shall not postpone the effectiveness of limitations for the East St. Louis Area; “comments. If the effective date is
such rule or action. This action may not Subpart Y:. Gasoline Distribution; ‘ delayed, timely notice will be published
be challenged-later. in’ proceedings to . § 219.583 Gasoline Dispensing “ in the Federal Reeister.’
enforce requirements. (See section ‘ Facilities—Storage Tank Filling : ‘‘ ‘ .
307(b)(2)) . ‘ “ “ •. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Operations amended at 16 illinois ‘ ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision
Register 13883 effective August 24’ request and USEPA’s analysis Pare
LiM of.Sub ects in 40.cFR Part 52 , ., 1992. Section 219.586 Gasoline ‘ ‘ available for inspection attho following
‘ Air pollution control, H drocarbons,’ Dispensing Facilities- -Motor Vehicle ‘‘ address (It is recomm nded that ‘ou
.Incorporationb y reference, ,.‘ , FuelingOperations, added at 16 illinois telephone Gustavo Felix at (312) 353-.
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, ‘ ‘ Register 13883, effective August 24 6009, before visiting the Region V
Reporting and ie’cordkeeping ‘ ‘“ ‘.‘ .‘ ‘.‘,‘- - ‘.• .,‘‘ - : Office.) U.S. Envuonrnen(al’Protection
‘requirernerits, Volatile organic ‘ - . (ii) Additional materials. ‘ ‘ . . : . ‘Agency, Region V, Air and Radiation
compounds (A) Stage II Vapor Recovery SIP Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
ProgramflescriptiondatedSeptember ‘ Chicago Illinois 60604. -.-, 5’
ote— .ncor ora1ion uy reference OL ulO ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘‘ “U
9 1992 •‘ - ‘ ‘ ‘“. ‘ vnLten comments suouiu ue sentto:
State Implementation Plan for the State of ‘ ‘ ‘. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘‘ :.. . ‘.
Ilhnois was approved by the Director of the 3 Section 52 726 is amended by J Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation
Federal Register on July 1 1982 — adding paragraph (1) to read as follows Development Section, Regulation
• ‘ ‘ • ‘‘ ‘ “ • Development Branch (5AR—18J), U.S.’.’
uaLu. i’ .ovemuer 13, 1992., ‘ “ ‘ ‘r r’l .v , ‘ t . . • •.
V ‘Id “d , . . -‘ • - . OfluOu u ;egy. zone.: • ‘ Environmental Protection’Agency, 77
a as . amr .w, ,,,, ,,,, - . • . , * ‘ . : ‘ • ‘. ‘“: West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
.eg onolAdnunisiroLor.: ‘... ,“ : , ,‘ , ‘(1) On September 30, 1992. the ‘State illinois 60604. ‘ :
For.the reasons set out ‘in the •‘, ‘ .‘ - submitted rules regulating volatile ‘ .‘ . , Acopy of today’s revision to the
preamble,, part 52 of.chapter I, title 40 ,: organic compound emissiónsfiom: ,‘: S Illinois SIP is available for inspection it:
of the Code.of Federal Regulatióiis’is . gasoline dispensing failities’jnotor •‘ “ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
amende,d as follows:’ ‘ . -. - vehicle fuel operations (Stage Ilvapor - Public Information Reference’Unit, 401
recovery rules) in the Chicag O and East: M Street, SW., Washington,’DC 20460.
St. Louis Ozone nonattainment areas. “:‘ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT•’
The Illinois Environmental Protection’ ‘ . ‘ .‘
• “ ‘ . , ‘:“., . . • Gustavo Felix, Regulation Development
‘Agency Bureau of Air must as part of
• . ‘ • , ‘ .‘ . Branch, Regulation Development.
the program conduct in spections of ‘• Section (5AR—18fl,’ U.S: Environmental
‘facilities subject to this rule to ensu ro.:’ . ‘V
th’th’l ’ hi . . ro ec on gency, gion , .. . . icago,.
comp iancewi ,eapp ica eru es.. “Illinois 60604 312 353—6009
• “ • These inspections will be conductèd’on” ‘ . ‘ . ‘ ‘ -
an, annual-basis or an alternative ,“ ‘ ‘ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
schedule as approved in the USEPA of State Submittal
Fiscal Year Inspection Program Plan.’ , ‘ . ‘ J
(FR Doc.93—479 Filed 1—11—93; 8:45 aml’,
BlUiNG CODS 65 O-5O-M’”” .,.
PART 52—APPROVAL AND,
PROMULGATION OF: S
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
‘L The authority citation for part’52
continues to read as follows
Authority 7401—7671q
Subpart 0—illinois
‘2. Section 52.720 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(93)’to read as’
follows: ‘5’ ‘ -.: :‘ ‘- ‘:
‘
§ 52.720 IdentIfication of plan
A * * * *
(c) * * *
(93) On September 30, 1992, the State
submitted liLies regulating volatile : ‘.
organic compound emissiOns’from’ , .
gasoline dispensing facilities’ metor
vehicle fuel operations.
(i) Incorporation ‘by reference
(A) Illinois Administrative Code, title
35 Environmental Protection, subtitle B
Air Pollution, chapter I Pollution
ntrol Board part :218: Organic , -‘
,, ,,
. 0 .rn ra,i 52
[ IL 37-1—5397, FRL—4529—8]
‘ . ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ . ,
‘Approval and Promulgation of. ‘.
Implementation Plans, Illinois
AGENCY United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA)
ACTION Final rule
SUMMARY The USEPA is approving a
request by the State of Il)inois.to eviso
‘
“ The SIP revision approved today;
among other things, replaces Ilhnois
TSP air quality standards with PM—la
air quality standards On July 1, 1987,
USEPA revised the National Ambient
Air Quality Standard for particulate
matter, replacing total suspended
, particulate (TSP) as the indicstor with a
‘ s Indicator that Included only those
particles with an aerodynanuc diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10
mici ons (PM—jo) The 24 hour PM—la
standard Is set at 150 micrograms per
cubic meter (jig/rn 3 ) and the annual PM—
10 standard at 50 tg/m 3 See 52 FR
‘ 24634.,’ ‘ ‘‘ .
-------
j UNIT O STATES ENVIRONM€NTAL PRO ECTIO ’N AGENCY
• RESE CH TRI NGL PAPk. NC 2771 1
. C1t
O6 ICE
1 q QUALIIY PLANPIU G
AP STANDA OS
JUN 23 1 .
ORANDUM
SUBJECT: Impact of the Recent Onboard Decision on Stage II
Requirements in Moderate .N ttaininent e
FROM . Quality
TO D irector, Air, Pesticide nd Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Regiän II ,
Director, Air, ‘Radiation and2Toxics Division,’
Region III “
Director, Mr and Radiation D VI5jOflr
Region V
Director, Air, Pestlcides ,and Toxic Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions v i i, VIII, ‘IX , and X
As you are probably aware, on January 22,’ 1993, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the, District of Columbia circuit,he1d.tha t
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under section
2’02(a)(6 ’) of the Act, has ‘a mandatory duty to issue regulations•
requiring installation of onboard refueling ,vapor recovery (ORVR)
systems on light duty’ motor vehicles ( Natural. Resources Delense
iincil v. Reilly , 983 F.2d 259). The EPA has since entered’into
a proposed settlement agreement (subject to the section. 113(g)
public càmment process) under which the Agency would promulgate
final oRw’ ;:S .an4ards by January 22, 1994.
In i iernorandurn dated March 9, 1993, 1 addre sed the issue
of how the r ew court opinion related to potential legal
obligations under section 182(b)(3) to install vehicle refueling
(StagetI) controls in xnoderate ozone nonattainxnent.ateas. I
indicated there that the opinion would not abrogate such Stage, II
requirements since the requirements remain until EPA actually
promulgates ORVR standards. ‘In light of the more recent’
developments noted above, I would now like •to supplement my
-------
2
earlier memorandum, particularly.w•ith. respect to the issue of
whether EP&.jntends to invoke. sanctions- for State implementation
plans which fail in some manner to implement the Stage II
requirement contained in the Act.
s I indicated in my March 9 memorandum, EPA has started the
18-month time clock for mandatory sanctions for failure tosubmit
Stage Ii programs in about 20 moderate ozone nonattainment areas.
This would result inthe first sanction being imposed in July
1994. However, since EPA plans to promulgate ORVR rules by -
January 1994, mandatory sanctions in these moderate areas would.
not be:imposed.. The EPA alto has the authorityto implement
sanctions earlier than 18 months from issuance of a findings
letter; however,. given our plans to promulgate ‘ORVR rules; EPA
does not intend to impose such sanctions for .a State’s failure to
adopt or im 1ement Stage II’ programs in moderate. ozone areas.
The Office .of General Counsel. has previously communicated this
information to the :industry petitioners (see attached) .‘.
I note that States may still need to require, installation of
Stage II for reasons independentof’sectiofl.182(b)(3).- One
possible reason, as explained in my’March 9in morandum , would be
to meet the 15 percent’volatilé organic compounds (VOC) reduction
requirements in seCt&on 182:(b)(l). Asecond reason would be the
need to include Stage II in a maintenanceplan’to.e ,flsure
maintenance of the standard. (‘EPA, of course, is not promising -
that it would not invoke discretionary, sanctions.for failure,to
carry out the 15 percent voc reduction requirements.)
I would appreciate your sending copies of this memorandum
to all State air program directors in ‘States in’ your Region that
contain moderate ozone rionattainment areas as well as to’ any
State ai,r program director otherwise lnt.er?sted in ‘this issue.
Attachment
cc: ,M. Shapiro
0. Wilson’
-------
43OBO :- .Federal’•Re te . / Vol. 58, No. 155 1 Friday,August 13,::1993.tRules and Regulations
• The PBGC has also determined that
this amendment Is not a “major rule”
within the meaning of Executive Order
.12291 because It will not have an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more; or create a major
increase In costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, or
geographic regions; or have significant
adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, or innovation,
or on the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises In domestic or export
market&
PART2676—VALUATION OF PLAN
BENEFITS AND PLAN ASSETS
FOLLOWiNG MASS WITHDRAWAL
1. The authority citatlon forPait 2876
continues to read as follows:
Aherlty 29 U.S.C. §5 1302(bX3),
1399(CXIXD), and 1441(bXi). .
L1stofSub ctsIn Z9CFRPart2e7e 2. 1n 52876. 15,paragraph(c)is
Employee benefit plans and pensions - iided by adding to the end of the
In consideration of the foregoing, Part table of Interest rates the new entries to
2676 of Subchapter H of Chapter XXVI is follows -
of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations,
is amended as follow : . . * . . . .
(cUn Rates.
• For Ii*d .Muoxuu . : .. .
$ h I 1. h :. ..iii Is, I I ) . $14 ‘ ,
• . . •.
SaØeeter 1993 ._.... .056 .05376 .0525 .05125 • .05 .0475 .0476 .0475 .0475 .04Th -.045 • .046 .045 .045 .045 .04
• Issued at Wnihing*on, DC.. • CT1VE DATE: This actk n will .‘ ‘ bJef the Implementation of
.of August 1993. •. •.. •. effective October 12, 1993, unions ñot1 ‘fltle I of the Clean Air Act Amendnieiits
Miitiii State, • • : - Is received by Septembé 13; 993. that if 1990” (General Preamble) 57 FR
s -Erecutht.or,P .nsjon BeI*fltQZ&W ity adverse or critical comments will be 13498). The guidance documents and
. submitted. If the effective date is .the General Prethnble int” ret the
(FR Doc. 93-19499 Filed 8-12-93. 8A5 em) delayed, timely notice will be published ii statutory req 1rement an mdicat
In the Yederal Register (FR) what USF2A believes a State submittal
ADDRESSES Written comments should jieeda to include to meet the
be addressed to Canton T Nash, Chief, visin n .
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Regulation Development SectioncAlr ‘. - . .• . .•• .•. ••• • ••.
AGENCY . •. -TOXICS and Radiation Branch(5AT-48fl, . . :Th COimties In Wisconsin that are
United States mental dosignatedinoderate nonattainment for
4O ... Agency 1 egfon 5 77 west Jackson 4o )ne are Kewaunee, Manitowoc and
A2 -oi-4i•FRL e 83-7J •. .. ... - Boülvard ,, Chica 0, II inols 60604. :. :: sheboygen.mo counties designated as
- .• .. . • .• •. • • Copies of the recn iested SiP. revision, ... ; • .$OV TB ozone nonattainment areas &e
Approva l end Promulgation of • - - tethnical support ocument md public : 0sha, Milwaukee, Ozaukée 1 Raane,
Implementation PIans Wlacnsln • • comments received are available at the . Washington and Waukesha (56 FR
. •• • •... foll ngaddres U.& vimnméntal 5 894,Novémber16 , 1 91).t d8r
-AGENCY. U iteuStaesEnvI onrnentaI Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and -Section :182(b)(3) of the leati Air Act
on i . gency Radiation Division, Air Toxics and (CAA), 42133 C 7511a(b)(3), Wisconsin
ACTION: Final rule. • • Radiation Branch (AT-18fl, 77 west. - wOs required to submit Stage II vapor H
SUMMARY USEPA Is taking action Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,Illinois recovery rules for these areas by
approve a revision to the Wisconsin 60604 “NOV 1 15,1992. On November18,
State Implementat ion Plan (SIP), FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT’ 1992,tbe Wisconsin Department of
• Sections NR420, 425,439,484 and 494, AngelaT Bandemehr, Regulation . . 4atur l Resources (WDNR) submlttedto
Wisconsin Administrative Code, • Development Section, Air Toxics and. USEPA Stage II vapor recovery ••
• pertaining to lmolemtsntation of the • Radiation Branch (5AT-18J), united- • ;- that had been’ approved by the NRB mi
S lge l lGasolineVaporRecovery ‘ . States ‘ umentalP rotection :: July 29, 1992,end adoptedon August
Program. This revision was approved by Agency, Region 5,77 West Jackson -.. 20.1992. The.iules became effective on
• the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board Boulevard, Chicago,lilinols 60604, -. . .Febi uary .1, 1993,-after they were
(NRB) Order AM-i5-92 On November (312)886-6858 pUblished hi the Wisconsm
- 18, 1992,-WisconsinsUbmltted a SIP • - NTARY O TION linder. i -Admln1stratlve Code in January 1993.-
ievislon.request to USEPA, to latisfy the Section 182(bX3), USEPA was required --s “With.thIsnolice-of nal.nilemáking ,
requirement of section 182(b)(3) of to Issue guidance as to the eff ctiveness US PA is taking action to approve this
Clean Air Act (CAA), which requires all of these Stage U systems. In November submittal USEPA has reviewed the
ozone nosiatlainment areas d*u iRed as • 1991, USEPA issued technical and ‘. ‘Stato .submlttal igainst the stat tàzy.
moderate or above to require owners - eMorcement guidance to meet this - - réqu1remnentsand for conSistency with
and operators of gasoline dispensing - requirement.’ In addition, on April 16,- USEPA guidanco.A summary of
facilit ies to mstall and operate Stage II 1992, USEPA published the ‘Ceneral USEPA’s analysts is prov.ded below, in
vepoc recovery equipment. This revision • . . • • - : . • • • : - additiOn a more detailed analysis the
applies to the countuas of Kenosha, ° ° ‘° ‘ M State submittal is contained in a
Kewaunee,. Mamtowoc Milwaukee, Technical Su pport Document (TSD),
(izaukee, Racine, Sheboygan, . dated March 4,1993, which is available
Washington and Waukesha - • r Stage flVehIcle RefueHng comml Progr n& ’ from the RegIon 5 office listed above.
-------
• Federa1 Register I Vol 58. No 155 /\FrIday August 13,, 1993 1 Rules and Regulations 4 O8i
I Applicability - - .. requirements for installation and the State, conducted by the Program’
I’ 1ti f3 of the ‘ A • operation of the Stage ii equipment. For Oversight Agency (POA) or by a third
£U . uj a11 facilities, these compliance dates party recognized by the POA; and
S 75h1 b)(3),Stat were caIcuIatedfrom thetimeofState submitted and approved.byUSEPA
requireu to auopl reguiations.uy adoption of.ihe regulation, are: (1) 6 .. incorpo tion into the SIP, or (3) 0
15. 1992. requinng owners or months for facilities for which ‘ ‘ ‘ system approved by CARB.Enforcerñent’
operators of gasoline dispensing systems construction began after November 15 Guidance at Section 4 2 The State is
in moderate and above ozone 1990 (2) 1 year for facilities that requiring sources to use a vapor
nonattainment areas to install vapor dispense greater than 100,000 gallons of recovery system that is certified by the
recovery equipment at their facilities gasoline per mo ith, and (3) 2 years for CARB to achieve 95 percent vapor
i’he CAA specifies (h!t.these State rules all other facilities. TheWisbonsin Stage recovery.Sincé’àllcornpónents ôfth ,
• must apply to any facility that dispenses 11 rule time schedulesetscompliance StageU system- niu%t be CARBcertified, ‘
more than 10,000 gallons of gasoline per -dates of May 15, 1993, November15, USEPA believès ’thatthii requirement,:
month or, in the case of an independent 1993, and November 15. 1994, combined with the annual tests listed
small business marketer USBM), any respectively for the above three - ‘ ‘ below , i sufficient.1O eñsiire-ihat majOr;
facility that dispenses more that 50.000 •: deadlines (Section NR 425.035(3), Wis. rnodificationsachieve 95’ percent vapor
gallons of gasoline per month. SeCtion Admin. Code). The State has adopted. recovery. The State requireisources to
324 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7625, defines - this schedulefOrálI affectedfacilities, perform initial cOmp}iance ,te ts • ,• .•
• an 1SBM.•The State has adopted 8 - including tho e olned or operated by thnsisting of a Leak.Test on the’
general apphcabilityrequirement 0 - -: ISBMs. Although Wisconsin adopted its complete vapor recovery system and a
- 10,000 galions permonth and has - Stage H rej lations on August 20, 1993.:’ .tiquid Blockage Test on each vapor
provided an applicability requirement USEPA believes it is appropriate to :. recovery nozzle. A LeakTest anda -
of 50,000 gallons per month for ISBMs. interpret the adoption date to be ‘‘- -Dynamic Backpressur’eTestare required
Asmore fully dtscussed Ui USE!’A - ‘February 1, 1993. ‘ - annually. Every 5 years a Leak Test,’
‘Enforce ient Guidance for Stage , .USEPA is.proposing to approve the Liquid Blockage Test’and Onarhic .
Vehicle Refueling Control Programs submitted time table for the following Backpressure Test are required
(Enforcement Guidance) and General reasons First, the Act states that the With respect to recordkeeping, the
‘Preamble (57FR at 13514), the State has adoptiOn date must be used to calculate.’ State has adopted those items, -
provided that the gallons of gasoline the comphance schedule for Stage II recommended in USEPA’ Enfor en ent
dispensed per month will be calculated implementation at facilities In this case, Guidance The State has provided that *
as the average volume dispensed per USEPA defines the adoption date to be -sources must maintain records on the
month for the 2-year period prior to the date after which a rule becomes facility premises fore minimum of 3
- State adoption of the regulation in effective in a State Based on this years and must make thOm available
addition,the State has specified that the definition of adoption date USEPA upon request to an authorized WDNF
Stage 11 requirements apply to all accepts the February 1, 1993, rule representative The records to be
gasoline dispensing facilities, including publication date as the adoption date maintained are (a) Any and all WI)
retail outlets and fleet fueling facilities from which the compliance schedule is approvals or permits which iire
The State has adopted the Statutory calculated Second, the compliance necessary for the operation of th
definition of .ISBMm its regulations A u deadlines triggered by this date begin facility or the vapor recovery system (b)
ISBM is a’person engaged in the • - - - within the time schedule specified by a thaintenan ’and•ins e&ion’lo ; (c)
marketing of gasoline who would be the CAA Third remedying this results of the compliance tests, (d) all
required to pay for the installation and deficiency by amending the compliance , cOmpliance records, iticluding warnings
operation of Stage II equipment There schedule would cause further delay in and notices of violation, issued by the
are four exceptions to this definition the implementation of Stage II in WDNR, (e) a permanent record
e , four groups that cannot be ISBMs) Wisconsin Finally, the Wisconsin rule demonstrating required employee
(1) A reflner (2) a person who controls otherwise fulfills the Stage II training and (0 the quantity of gasoline
is controlled by or isunder common •• •: requirements and USEPA believes it. dispensed at the facility ona monthly
control with a refiner (3) a person who will provide substantial air quality basis The last record is not required to
is otherwise directly or indirectly benefits to the regulated areas be maintained on the facility premises
affiliated with a refiner or a person ho Therefore, USEPA believes it is in the but shall be made available to the State_.
controls Is controlled by or is under public interest to approve and make within 15 days of a WDNR request to -
common control with a refiner (unless enforceable this requirement at the view them —
the sole affiliation is by means of a earliest time feasible In the limited The State plans to perform facility —
supply contrOct Or an agreOment or • - circumstances above, USEPA believes inspections on au annual basis as was’:
contract to use a tradernOrk, trade nàme •that it is not inconsistent to interpret the . shown in the SIP submittal Inaiiscal ,
service mark or other identifying symbol adoption date to be February 1 1993 estimate that provides for funds to fulfill
or àamO owned by su refiner or any - . - • ‘. ‘- ;- : - . ‘, •staffing’needs’ofS .OFTEper year for
such person, or (4) a person who ilL Auuitionai rw Ldul iwijuirements inspections The State will conduct
eceives lOssthaa 50perceñt of his or . - ‘ Consistentwith USEPA’s , - . . . :. -followuP inspOctiàhsre ultlng’from
her’innüáL Income from refining or : . . • - nforcement Guidance, the State • ‘-:• IdentifIcati6n of violàtioñs iiivapor-
marketing of gasoline Tequires that Stage II systems be tested recovery systems and subsequent
— and certified to meet a 95 percent equipment repair veruficabon by the
IL b Iei øiation of Stage fl emission reduction efficiency USEPA department as wel} as on-site
1 C&A specifies that the time has indicated three acceptable methods discussions i uth owners review and
period n ’instaItatton and operation of of demonstrating a 95 percent emission evaluatuon of r’ecordkeep ng and
1he ageileqwpment shall run from reduction efficiency (1) A !nethod equipment certific tion review
the e adoption date of the Stage II -tested and approved by the California - To enforce ‘violations aftlieStag
iv e. The Act adoption to mean Air Resources Board (CARB), (2) an requirements the State has an —
jbo athe State adopts the . .. equivalent testing program adopted bj? enforcement-system, whereby 4 the”
-------
43082 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 155 it-FrIday, August: 13, 1993./ Rules,.and Regulations - I
7DNR refers any violations to the CAA, preparation ole regulatory •Deflnitions,.Sedions NR 420.02 8m)..
lisconsin Department of Justice flexibility analysi! wOuld constitute (24m), (32m), (38m), (39m); Section NR
Visconsin DOJ). Under Sections NR Federal inquiry into the economic 420.045 Motor Vehicle Refueling;
•i44.98, 144.99.144.423, and 144.426, reasonableness of State action. The CAA published in Wis. Admin. Code In
Wis. Admin. Code the Wisconsin DOJ forbids USEPA to base its actions january 1903, and took effect on
has the authority to enforce penalties concerning SIPs on such g ounds. February 1,1993.
and violatiOns relating to air pollution. Union Electric Co. v. USEPA, 427 U.S. • • i . .. ••
‘)A 6 t4tV7 &. A) ,, 1 isconsin iwmlnijuutive
RUlemakingAction ‘ . “ “ ‘ “ “ “ “ . “° ‘ Chapter NR 425Cornpliahce Schedules,
Because SEPA boheves that the This action has been classified as a cap OflS, on an erra
State has adopted a Stage II regulation Table 2 action by the Regional for Organic Compound Emissions
in acxórdance with the CAA, as Administrator under the procedures SOWt S In Chapters 419 to 424; SectIon
int rpreted in USEPA’s guidance; . published iii the Federal Register on .425.035 Throughput Reporting and
USEPA is proposing to approve the Jan ry 19, 1 89 (54 FR 221 fl* Compliance Schedules for Motor
regulation as a direct final actio n. January 8,1989, the Office of ... Vehicle .Refueling published in Wis.
USEPA Is publishing thiS action Management and Budget (0MB) wai ’ed. ‘Admin. Code -in January 1993 and took
without pnor proposal because the - Table 2 and Table 3 SIP revisions from effect on February 1,1993.
USEPA views this as a noncontroversial the requirements of Section 3 of C) Wisconsin Administrative Code
reyn an nticipates Executive Order12291 for a peiiod of 2 Chapter NR 439 Reporting,
comments. LUI S action wi . 11 e 11 ethve . L - .
Odober. 12, 1993, unless, by September : Y° ” ”, ” . E.zt% uaS P ’ idk iug, Testing, Inspection and
13 .1993 notice is received that adverse su . ..itte a ieqUeSt or a permanent Denation.pfCo mpI i n c e
.watverforTable2andTable3 SIP . •..v ,.. p.ip -Ann. r’it i.
or critical comments will be submitted. ‘. .1 . .. . equ .reinen . ., on
if such noticeis teceived, this action revisions. vw u S agree o n nue - Section NR 439.06(3)11); published In
w11 1 be withdrawn before the effective suL.u time as the Wlsc..Admin. Code ln.January 1993,
date by publishing two subsequent . it rweson, S request. . .. end took effect on Pebruary 1,1993;
notices. One notice will withdraw the . List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 - (I)) w s nsin Administrative Code.
final action and another will egin 8 AIr pollution control, Hydrocaibons. Chapter NR 484 Incorporation by
new, rulemaking by announcing a Incorporatioii by reference. : S lIofl484.05(1) Test
proposal of the action and establishing ‘ t ove ntsi relations, Ozone, •-. Method 21 iáippendixA of 40 CFR
!.commen . t peno . if no uch comilients Reporting and’recordkeeping ‘1:: 601s Incorporated byreference
re recelveo. the public is advised that requirements, Volatile organic Section NR 484 06(2) Other Materials
Is action wih euective OctOLi 12 compounds. (introduction); Section NR 484 06(2) (u)
! ot1iin Inthlsactionshouldbe ‘ Nótefl)rat iOubYTthT 0ftht and(v)we recreetodtoiOco rporateSafl.
-. tt o allowin or tptu1 te0f ., DiegoA i rPo l luti o nCon t rOl.DiStrict Test
i.u i . ‘ Wisconsin was approved by the Director of , Procedures TP-91-4-aiid TP—01--2;.
a pi eni or 8flY -. the FederaiR tar an July 1,1982.. in porateclby rëfriOncOifl Wig.
e uest for revision ‘to a SIP shall be t e ‘ 9.. . ... . Adnun. code In January 1993, and took
considered in l,ght of specific technical, Vsldu V ‘ m ’ effect on February 1, 1993 -
conomlc, and environmental factors Sb0b01 1!t01 . - . -‘ -.‘ (E)WisconsiO AdOiiñistiative Code,
and inielatlon to relevant statutory and Part 52. chapter L title 40 of the Code’ chapter?a 494 nfOràemeut and
reato mem iits. .. . ofFederalRegulationsisarnend edaS . penalties forViolatlon-of AirPollutlon
Regulatory follows Control Provisions, renumbered
PART 52—’AMENDED’ . .. ‘ SCCtIOOSNR 494.025 end 494.03 to NR
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, J 494.03 and 494.05, Section NR 49404
S’s I Theeuthoritycitationforpart52 TaggmgCasohneDispen ’ng
th impa ’ of any p opose i or continues to read as foliows Equipment, published in the Wisc.
final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C 603 Authority: 42 U.S.C 7401-7671q. .Admiii. Code in January 1993 and took
.i CflA Ale . I T TCtO & - - . ... - .: - . .,. - - .. effect Oil February 1,1993.-
enu wiemauveay, ie. ’ .i ifl8jr e vv WI - : . . -
certify that the rule will not have a “ ‘ “ ‘‘“ “ ‘ ‘- (ii) Additional materials
signiflca t Impact on a substantial - 2. Section 52.2570 s amended by ‘ (A)StageflVa r RáOVWY SIP
number of small entities. Small entities adding paragraph (c)(69) to read as . - . Proc ‘iJ ripiJoii dated Novembei
include small businesses, cmi lI not-for- follows. I - 15,1992.
e fl 5thCI -*52.2570 IdentlflcaUonol ptsn .(H Letter Skein WDNR dated March
populations of less than 50,000 * • l * * ‘ 29,4993, Utiug State authOiity under
-. 1Pipprova1sunderSectIon ilOand . (c) • .. .. . - :Sødjc NR344.9s;.144.99,144 423,
subchapter!, part D of the CAA do not (69) On November18, 1992, the State md 144426, Wis. Mnun tode, to
eata iy. new requirements. but submitted rules regulating volatile ... enforte. the Stage H program. . -
- thnply epproverequirements that the organic compound.emissions, from - . . (C) Pa et àf public Odücation
is already impasmg Therefore, gasoline dispensing facilities’ motor materials on Stage U distributed by
be ss the Federal SIP approval does vehicle fuel operations
nSW requirements. I . . -(i) Incorporation by reference. - -. -- . - .• - . - - -,
utify that itcloes not have a significant (A) Wisconsin Administrétive Code; 1FR Doc 93-19497 FUed842-93; 8:45 eml
ipact ini any small entities affected. Chapter NR 420 Control of Orgamc miw’iacooe iMOes-P
:Mo , v d . , Otóthènitumof the • - : -Co inpoundEmIséionsfróthPe!.leum . 1’
Federal State relatloniihlp underthe and Gasoline Sources Sedioi 420 02
-------
11/2:/94 4 13:52 “ 919 541 0824 .‘ EPA-OZOJ EC0 0CC-DC O02.
Ott .
dD - -
IJNITEQ STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality f’tarrning and Standards
• Researth Triangle Park. North Carolina 2771 1
SEP 211993
$ MORAND1Thi
SUB3ECT: Impact of the C’nboard Vapor Recovery Rules on the
Stage II or Comparable Measure -Requiremint for the.
Northeast.. Ozone Transport
PROM: John S.. Seitz, ’Directór
Office of Air Quality Plai (MD—i.0)
TO: irector, Air Pesticides and .Toxics -
Management Division , Region .1
Director 1 Air and Waste Management bivision,.
Region II
• Director, Air, Radiation and. Toxics Divjsion ,
Region III - -
-. - - As you are aware, or January 22, 1993., the United Sta es
Court of Appeals for the District of Coluithia Circuit ruled that
-the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’S) previous decision
not to require onboard vapor recovery. controls be set aside and -
onboard standards be promulgated pursuant to section 202(a) (6) of.
the Clean Air Act - (Act) .- - As a result of this ‘decision,. EPA has-
reinitiated development f t ie onboard, vapor recovery standards
and expects to finalize the action by January 22, ‘1994. -.
• This memOrandum provides guidance on hOw -the -onboard - -
rulemaking will affect ‘tbi3 section .184(b) (2) requirement that
areas in the .OTR- must adopt Stage II or a comparable lneasure.L
As I discussed in prev’ious memorandums, upon promulgation. of the.
onboard rules, the section 182(b) (3) Stage II requirement no
longer applies to oderati Ozone nonattainment areas. 2 However,
in the OTR, all areas, in 1uding moderate areas, will still be
subject to the separate’ Stage.II or comparable measure -
requirement under section .184(b) (2). Note that onboard vapor,
recovery cannot be considered as a potential’comparable measure
because it is’ already speci ical1y required by the Act. - -
• Th,is guidance was first set forth in the “General .pream 1e -
for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act, Amendments
of 1990,” at’57 FR 13528 t:April 16,1992). -: ,. ,,
• 2 See memorandums dated March 9, 1993 and June 23,- 1993 both -
entitled, ‘lnpact of the Recent Onboard -Decision on Stage II
-Requirements in Moderate Nonattainment Areas.,”
-------
,j 1 3:53 919 541 0824
EPA-OZONE-CO
4- 4 0CC-DC
I J 003
2
Comparable measures mu t be in ‘excess of the Act requirements.
Because of the widespread confusion regarding this entire issue,
a detailed discussion of.the Stage II or comparable measure
requirement in the OTR is presented ,i n the ollowing paragraphs.
Pursuant to section 184 (b) (2)., EPA is to complete a study
(section 184 study)’ by I ovember 15, 1993 identifying control
measures capable of achieving emissions reductions comparable to
those achievable by Stage II vehiole.refueling.controls (as
contained in section 182(b) (3)) in the OTR. Within 1 year of
completion of this section 184 study, areas in the OTR must
revise their State implementation plans to implement either Stage
II or a comparable measure identified in the study. The EPA is
presently conducting the section 184 study and has established a
work group which include!; members of your Staff. We expect to
have the draft report conpieted in October.
Currently, moderate, serious, .and severe ozone nonattainment
areas in the 0Th are subject to the Stage II or comparable
measur .requirement under section 184(b) (2) and also the Stage II,
requirement, for moderate and above areas under section 182 (b) (3).
As mentioned previously, section 202(a) (6) provides-that, upon
promulgation of the onboard ‘vapor recovery rules, the Stage II
requirement under section 182(b) (3) shall no longer apply to
areas classified as moderate., (Serious, severe, and extreme
areas must continue to i plement Stage II .-) However, the
exemption and waivçr provision of section -202(a) (6) refers only
to the section 182(b) (3) .Stage II .requirement’and not-to the - -
section 184(b) (2) requirement to adopt ‘Stage II or’a comparable
measure- in the OTR. ‘Therefore, promulg tion.’of the onboard vapor
recovery rules’ does not release any areas in the OTR, including
moderate areas, from the section 184 (b) (2) Stage 11 or comparable
measure requirement. S
After the EPA onboard vapor recOvery rules axe p oinulgated,
States located in the 0Th with moderate nonattaininent areas that
wish to withdraw their Stage II rules should examine the section
184 study to determine if comparable measures have been -
identified for their particular areas. . If comparable -measures
are available, the State may adopt a comparable measure in place
of Stage II. However, if the section 184. study results show that
there; are no alternative msasures that could achieve equivalent
emissions reductions to S aqe XI.in a given area, the State would.
then have to’ continue to implement Stage II in that.’ area. S
Marginal ‘and incomp1 te data nonattaininent areas, as well as
attainment areas of the O R, are also subject to the Stage Ii or
comparable’ measure requirement wider section 184 (b) (2). These
areas were never subject to the Stage II requirement under
3 Also ‘commonly known as the Stage II -Cornparability Study -.
-------
13:54 ‘ ‘919 541 0824 EPA-OZONE-CO OGC—DC OO4
3
section 182(b)(3). As wi th moderate areas,prozuulgation of
onboard vapor recovery rules does not affect the obligation of
these areas to adopt either Stage II or a comparable measure.
Again, OTR- States with m irgina1, incomplete data, and attainment
areas should examine the section 184 study when it is released to
determine if emission control options other than Stage II have
been identified for their aróas. If comparable measures exist
for any area, the State may. choose to adopt either these measures
or Stage II . If the section 184 study sI ows that no alternative
measures could achieve re ductions equivalent to Stage II jn a
given area, the State must adopt and implement Stage II for that
area.
If your staff have any questions regarding the Stage ‘U or
comparable measure requirement in the OTR, or woula ike’
information on the section 184 Study, they may -contact Carla
O].dham of my staff at (919) 541—3347.
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I, II and III
K. Berry ‘
B. Carhart, OTC
J. Hainbright, MAR
A. l4arin, NESCAUN
14. Shapiro
D. Wilson
-------
14112 Federal Register I Vol. 59,No. 58 I Friday, March 25, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
• This action involvesonly one source, coating line .on or after July i, 1991, (e)(2) of this section shall operate said
EMIl EMD is not a small entity. unless the owner or operator has coating line on orafter March 25, iggs,’
Therefore, the USEPA certifies that this complied with, and continues to comply unless the owner or operator has
disapproval action does not have a• with, paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(6)(ii) of complied with, and continues to comply
signiflcan impact ona substantial this section. with, paragraphs (ë)(2) and (e)(6)(iv) of
number of small entities. (iii) No owner or operator of a coating this section:
Under Executive Order 12866, this line complying by means of paragraph * * * * *
action is not “Major.” It has been (e)(1)(ii) of this section shall operate (z) Rules stayed. Not withstanding
submitted to the Office of Management said coating line on or after July 1, 1991, any other provision of this subpart, the
and Budget for review. . unless the owner or operator has effectiveness of the following rules is
complied with, and continues to comply . . 1 .
List of Subiects in 40 CFR Part 52 .. ... su ayeu as lnulcateu ueiOW.
with, paragraphs (e)(1)(u) and (e)(6)(in) (1) The following rules are stayed
Environmental protection, Air of this section. • T 1 1 1991 til USEPA
pollution control, Hydrocarbons, •. (iv) No owner or operator of a coating complet s’ its reconsideration as
Incorporation by reference, line complying by means of paragraph di
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone. e 0 S sec on s a peru e sai md din 40 “c ” 2 7 A1 I fA
coating line on or afterJuly 1, 1991, an
Dateu:Mar ..u 17, 1994. . unless the owner or operator has LvJL 4 J Ofl Y a appueu to Visiuise•
Carol M. Browner, . complied with and continues to comnlv Corporation s cellulose food casing
Administrator. ••• • . ‘.. with paracmrnhs (e)(2) and (e)(6)(iv) -‘ manufacturing facility In Bedford Park,
For the reasons set out In the •.. this ,ectio r - Illinois; and (ii) 40 CFR 54.741(u),
preamble, part 52, chapter I, title 40 of * . * * * * •. . iflC1tidi1i 49 CFR52.741(u)(4). only as
the Code of Federal Regulations is (7) Compliance èchedule for diesel .. applied to Alisteel, Inco orated’s
,l ,i ..•• . . . . adhesive lines at its met furniture
electric locomotive coatings.
manufacturing operations m Kane
flA . J1 . •. . . Notwithstanding any other provision of Co • Thin •
U IUU ““i : • this subpart, the compliance date for the “ ‘ .
1. .The authority ci atiàn for part 52 emission limitations and standards for * * * :
continues to read as follows: “topcoat” and “final repair coat” .-IFRDoc. 94—7057 Filed 3—24—94; 8:45 aml
. ope lions only as applied to General BIWNO CODE 656 .. - ‘
AuthonLy 42 US C. 74o1—7671q Motors Corporation at their diesel
s b it o.—ini i •. .. electric locomotivecoating lines in • • .
u pa flO S Cook County, Illinois, codified at 40 40 CFR Pail 52
2 Section 52741 is amended by CFR 52 741(e)(1)(i)(M) (2) and (3) is FRL-4840-4J
revising paragraphs (e)(5) and (z)(1), and specified in. this paragraph (e)(7) . . ,. . • . . .
addmg paragraph (e)(7) to read as Compliance with the requirements of Approval and Promulgation of
follows paragraph (e)(1), (e)(2) or (e)(3) of this Implementation Plans, Louisiana Stage
section and paragraph (e)(6) of this II Program
§ 52.741: Control strategy. Ozone control section must be in accordance with the
measures for Cook, DuPage Kane, Lake, : li h d i •- A0ENCY Envlrànmental Protection.
c enrY • es. • • specified in paragraph (e)(7)(i),(ii),(liI) 1 Agency (EPA). :
* : . • or (iv) of this section. • . .. ‘ ‘ACT1ONFLn8 Irule. .. .
(e) (i) No owner or operator of a coating
(5) Compliance schedule. Except as line which is exempt from the . SUMMARY. The EPA is taking action to
specified in paragraph (e)(7) o•f.this . limitations of paragraph (e)(1) of this approve the Louisiana Stage II State
section, every owner or operator of a. . :sectjon becatise of the criteria in • . Implementation Plan (SIP), which
coating line (of a type included Within paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section shall: indudes a SIP. Supplement dated
paragraph. (e)(l)(i) of this section) shall operate said coating line on or after . - .. November 15, 1992, and State . .
comply with the requirements of March 25,1995, unless the owner or regulations (title 33, chapter 21 Control
paragraph (e)(1),(e)(2) or.(e)(3) of.this . • operatorhas compliedwith, and • . of Emission of Organic Compounds,
iection and paragraph (e)(6) of this • continues to comply with, paragraph -: section 2132 Stage U VaporRecovery
;ection in accordance with the . • . • (e)(6)(i) of this section. Systems for Control of VehicleRefueling
ippiopriate.compliance chedu1e as - . (ii) No owner or operator of a coating • Emissions at Gasoline Dispensing
;pecified in paiagraph.(e)(5)(i),(ii),(iii) • line complying by means of paragraph Facilities, and section.6523. Fee
r (iv) of this section.’; • . : . (e)ffl(i) of this section shall operate said ScheduleL Listing), as a revision to the.
(i) No owner Or operator of a coating coating line on or after March 25, 1995,. Louisiana SIP for ozone; On November
Line which is exempt from the •. unless the owner or operator has . . 10, 1992, Louisianasübmitted a SIP. . -
Limitations of paragraph (e)( -1)of this. - complied with, and continues to comply revision requestto the EPA to satisfy the
section because of the cntena in with, paragraph (e)(1)(i) and (e)(6)(h) of requirement of section 182(b)(3) of the
paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section shall this section Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of
Dperate said coating line on or after July (iii) No owner or operator of a coating 1990 This SIP revision requires owners
1,1991, unless the owner or operator line complying by means of paragraph and operators of gasoline dispensing
has complied with, and continues to (e)(1)(ii) of this section shall operate faghties to install and operate Stage II
comply with, paragraph (e)(6)(i) of this said coating line on or after March 25, vapor recovery equipment in the
section Wood furmture coating lines 1995, unless the owner or operator has Louisiana ozone nonntti lnment areas
are not subject to paragraph (e)(6)(i) of complied with and continues to comply classified as moderate or worse This
this section - with, paragraphs (e)(1)(u) and (e)(6)(m) revision applies to the Louisiana
(ii) No owner or operator of a coating of this section parishes of Ascension, East Baton
line complying by means of paragraph - (iv) No owner or operator of a coating Rouge, West Baton Rouge, Iberville,
(e)(1)(i) of this section shall operate said line complying by means of paragraph Livingston, and Pointe Coupee
•
-------
Federal Register I Vol 59, No 58 I Friday, March 25, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 14113
DATES: This final rule will be effective codified in the Code of Federal applicability requirements in the
May 24, 1994, unless notice is received Regulations (CFR). See 56 FR 56694 Louisiana.Stage II rule to be acceptable._
by April 25, 1994 that adverse or (November 6 1991) and 57 FR 56762
Implementation of Stage II
critical comments will be submitted. If (November 30, 1992), codified at 40CFR
the effective date is delayed, timely 81.300 through 81.437. Under section The CAAA specifies the time by
notice will be publisEed in the Federal 182(b)(3) ofthe CAAA, Louisiana was which certain facilities must comply
Register (FR). required to submit Stage II vapor with the State regulation. For facilities
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to recovery rules for the Baton Rouge that are not owned or operated by an
James F. Davis at USEPA, Region 6 (6T— nonattainment area by November 15, independent small business marketer,
AP), 1445 Ross Avenue, suite 1200, 1992. On November 10, 1992, Governor these times, calculated from the time of
Dallas, Texas 75202—2733. The State Edwin W. Edwards submitted to the State adoption of the regulation, are: (1)
submittal and the techiiiçal support. . EPA, Stage II vapoE recovery rules and .. Six months for facilities for which
document (TSD) are ävailabld for public, a SIP SupplementdatedNoverñber 15, .• construction began after November 15,:
review at the above address and at the 1992, which were adopted by the State -. 1990; (2) one year.for facilities that
Louisiana Department of Environmental on November 10, 1992, and were •. dispense at least 100,000 gallons of
Quality, H.B. Garlock Building, 7290. published in the Louisiana Register on gasoline per month; and (3) two years
Bluebonnet, Baton Rouge, Louisiana November 20, 1992. By today’s action, for all other facilities. The Louisiana
.70810. Interested persons wanting to the EPA is approving this submittal. The Stage II rule time schedule sets a
examine these documents should make EPA has reviewed the State submittal compliance schedule of sixmonths after
an appointment with the appropriate . against the statutory requirements and State rule prornulgation,.one year after
• office at least 24 hours before the . for consistency with EPA guidance..A State rule promulgation. and.two y ars
visitino day •: . summary of the EPA’s analysis is -after Staterule promulgation,...
provided below In addition, a more respectively for the above three
A -detailedanalysisoftheStatesubmittal .. ea nes. orm epen entsina
tames r. , .javis ai . - . iS . • I
r . • • . is contained in a TSD, dated September . uuSifle5S mar te ,-sec on 3 24La, o wC
• °P Oi 1 tOuay s isionto use . ouisiana 24, 1993, which is available from the• .CAAA provides th t the time periods
0 1P is aiso avaisause or inspection at. . . 1. . 1 r ,t.
1 TW - EPA Region 6 Office, listed above.. • may ue. ,,1., 33 percent o we aci ities
Air uui .icet 6102, u i nvironmentai - .. .; .: owned.by an independent small
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW Applicability business marketer by the end of theiIrst
Washington, DC 20460 Under section 182(b)(3) of the CAAA, year after the regulations take effect, (2)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Under States were required by November 15, 66 percent of such facihties by the end
section 182(b)(3) of the CAAA, the EPA 1992, to adopt regulations requiring of the second year, and (3) 100 percent
was required to issue guidance as to the owners or operators of gasoline of such facilities after the third year
effectiveness of.Stage II systems. The. -. dispensing systems toin tàlland • . : .. Although Loulsianü promulgated its•,
EPA issued technical guidance in operate vapor recovery equipment at Stage II regulations on November 20,
November 1991 and enforcement their facilities The CAAA specifies that 1992, five days after the SIP was
guidance in December 1991 to meet this these State rules must apply to any required to be submitted, the EPA
requirement.’ ‘In addition, on April 16, • facility that dispenses more than 10,000 believes it is appropriate to accept the
1992, the EPA pubhshed the “General gallons of gasoline per month or, in the State’s compliance schedule
Preamble for the Implementation of .. case of an independent small business . . The EPA is-approving-the, submitted
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments marketer, any facility that dispenses . timetable for the following reasons.
of 1990 ‘(General Preamble) (57 FR more than 50,000 gallons of gasoline per First, the CAAA states that the adoption
13498) The guidance documents and month Section 324 of the CAAA date must be used to calculate the
the General Preamble interpret the Stage defines an independent small busmesi compliance schedule for Stage II
II statutory requirement and indicate marketer, which is fully set forth in the implementation at facihties In this case
what the EPA believes a State submittal TSD The State has adopted the the EPA accepts Louisiana’s approach of
needs to mclude to meet that statutory definition of Independent triggering compliance dates from the
requirement small business marketer in its date when the regulations were
The EPA has designated the Baton regulations promulgated The compliance deadlines
.Rouge and Lake Charles areas as ozone . The State has adopteda general ,. .. triggered by this date begin only five
nonattaniment in the State of Louisiana applicability requirement of 10,000 days after the time schedule specified
The Baton Rouge nonattaniment area is gallons per month The State has also by the CAAA The EPA considers an
classified as senous and contains the chosen to exempt independent small additional five days to be of minimal
following six parishes Ascension, East business marketers dispensing under impact and will have no adverse impact
Baton Rouge, West Baton Rouge. 50,000 gallons per month on the integrity of the program Also,
Iberville, Livingston, and Pomte As more fully discussed in the EPA’& the timetable irntiution date established
Coupee The Lake Charles ozone Enforcement Guidance and the General by the State on November 20, 1992,
nonattaininent area is classified as Preamble (57 FR 13514), the State has began shortly after adoption of the
marginal and therefore is not required to provided that the gallons of gasoline regulations Secondly, remedying this
implement a Stage Uprograni The dispensed per month will be based on deficiency by amending the compliance
designations for ozone were published the av,prage gasoline throughput for the schedule would cause further delay in
in the FR on November 6, 1991, and most recent two year period without the implementation of Stage II in
November 30, 1992, and have been facility shutdown, and calculated Louisiana, in that a State revision to the
monthly If two year data is not Stage II rule could establish a new and
‘These two documents are entitled Technical available, the calculation is based on the later adoption date and hence later
Guidance—Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for monthly average for the most recent 12 compliance deadlines Lastly, the
ontrOlrV;hi e 1 Refu ltngEmi,ss1onsatGasohne calendar months (mcluding only those Louisiana rule otherwise fulfills the
Enforcement Guidance for Stage II Vehicle months for which the facility was Stage II requirements, and the EPA
Refueling control Programs operating) The EPA finds the believes it will provide substantial a
-------
14114 Federal, Register I Vol. ‘59, No. 58 1 Friday, March 25,..1994 ‘ .1 Rules and’ Regulations
‘üality benefits to the regulated’area. visual inspection of the Stage II”: create any new I equirements, but
ierefore, the EPA believes it is in the equipment and of the required records simply approve requirements that the
Lbhc interest to approve and make and a functional test of the Stage II State is already imposing. Therefore,
forceable this requirement at the equipment. According to the because the Federal SIP approval does
earliest time feasible. Supplement, the State shall inspect each not impose any new requirements, I
facility at least one time per year. certify that it does not have a significant
Additional Program Requirements Fihally, the State has established impact on any small entities affected.
The State requires that Stage II procedures for enforcing violations of: Moreover, due, to the nature of the
systems be tested and cert fled to meet the Stage II requirements. Civil penalties Féderal-State.relationship under the
a 95 percent emission reduction may be assessed of up to $25,000 per CAAA, preparation of a regtilatory
efficiency. The EPA has indicated three day per violation. The EPA finds the flexibility analysis would constitute :
acceptable methods of demonstrating a State’s program for implementation and - Federal ’inquiry.lnto the economic
95 percent emission reduction enforcement of the Stage II program to, - reasonableness of State action. The
efficiency: (1) A method tested and be consistent with the EPA guidelines. “‘ CAAA foibids the EPA to base Its;
approved by the California Air 1 i • A actions concerning SIPs on such
1I’ADtILI •‘ Ruiemaz angtict3on - ‘ .
Resources DUdA ’U 2, a teswig - ‘ grounds (Union Electric Co. v. U.S.
program that is equivalent to-the CARB Since the EPA finds that the State has E;P.A., 427 u.s. 246,256—66 (S.Ct.
program, that will be conducted by the adopted a Stage II SIP in.accordance 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2))
Program Oversight Agenày (POA), or by ‘‘ with section 182(b)(3) of the CAAA. as : This hctionhas been classifiedasa
a third party recognized by the POA’, interpreted in the EPA’s guidance, the ‘table ‘twO action by -the Regional-’
and submitted and approved by the EPA EPA is,giving notice Of its intent to , ‘Adnilnistrator under the roceduies’
forincorporatioñ into the SIP; or (3) a approve the submittal is a direCt final published In the FRom january 19. 1989
system approved by the CARB. The’ action meeting the requirements of’ •. - (54 i ’ 22 i . 2225 ) On January 6, 1989,
State has choseq to use a system Section 182(b)(3). • . .‘ - ‘ the Office of Management and Budget -
approved by the CARB, or an equivalent ,. The EPA is publishing this action (0MB) ‘waived table two and table three.
certifiáation authority approved by .. without prior proposal because the EPA SIP i ’visioiis from the requirements of:
administrative aüthority*. The State views this as a noncontroversial, ‘‘‘ section threO’hf -Execütive Order 12291
regulations define the administrative .. .. revision and anticipates no adverse :--, -‘ fO’ ’ &ye (54 FR2222): .’.
authority* to Include both the State ‘• comments. This action will become ;“ .me A’has’ iibmitted.’a request for a’”
Department of Environmental Quality effective May 24, 1994, unless by April permanent waiver for table two and
and the EPA. Thus, equivalent system 25,1994 notice is received that adverse table three SIP revisions The 0MB has
certification authóritieswould have to ‘.or critical comments will be submitted; ‘a ed tO’continue the waiver until such.
bn formally approved by’the EPA and If such notice is received, this action’. . ,.- time as,Wrulesim the EPA’s request
aid be’incorporated’ into the SlP. will be withdrawn before thoeffective “This i e udst1i’s ‘ll’applicable tinder’
The State requires sources to verify date by publishing two subsequei t Executive Order 12666
proper installation and function of Stage documents One document will
II equipment through use of a hquid withdr*w the final action, and another List of Subjects In 40 CFR Part 52
blockage test and a. leak test prior to , will begin a new rulemaking by’, •‘ “En hental pr otéè t ion, Air
system operation and every five years or announcng a proposal of the action and ‘pollution cOntrOl, Hydrocarbons,
upon major modification of a facility’s establishing a,comment period. if no’ ‘Irporationby ference .
Stage II equipment (i.e., 75 percent’, or . ,such comments are received, the public Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
more Stage 11 equipment change). ‘ j advised that this action will,be :., Reporting and’ record eeping’.
With respect to recordkeeprng, the , effective May 24, 1994.’ ,‘ requirements,’Volatile organic
State has adopted those items Nothing in this action should be , comnounds. ‘.‘ ‘.
recommended in the EPA’s guidance construed as permitting or allowing or • ‘‘. : , - :‘ . ,
and specifies that sources subject to’’ establishing a precedent for any ..‘ ‘ ‘ No incorporation by. reference of the
1 t C 11 ‘ ... ‘ .‘ SIP for the State of Louisiana was approvu
Stage I I must m e we ioiiowmg , ‘request for revision to any SIP.-Each ‘: . ‘ ‘ ‘
- ‘ . . ‘ u) ’ wO . . . oro .e., ,
documents available upon request: (ij request for revision to a SIP shall be ‘ -‘ -“- - ‘
Application approval records and ‘‘ ‘considered in light of specific technlcal,:’
station operating license; (2) system’ ,‘ economical, and environmental factors . . “9’, ‘-c,: ,‘ “ -.
installation and testing results, (3) and in relation to relevant statutory and Jane N Saginaw,
equipment maintenance and’ - ‘ - . regulatory requirements. .-‘ ‘Re iona1Athnznistzutor.
compliance records, (4) training 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows
certification files; and (5) inspection ‘ Regulatory Process ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ “ ;‘ “‘ ‘ ‘‘ -“
records In addition, the State has under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, PART 52 —(AMENDED]
committed in its SIP supplement to 5 U.S C 600 et seq * the EPA must 1 The athorlty citation for part 52
maintain general station and prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis continues to read -as follows
enforcement files, includ ing information assessing the impact of any proposed or
such as facility name, address, phone final rule on small entities (5 U S C 603 Authonty 42 U.S C 7401-7671q
number, owner/operator names, a State and 604) Alternatively, the EPA may Sub rt T—Loulslana —
assigned reference number, date of - certify that the rule will not have a pa
initial compliance with the regulations, significant impact on a substantial 2 52970 is amended by adding
number of pumps, monthly gasoline number of small entities Small entities paragraph (c)(61) to read as follows
throughput, and State enforcement include small businesses, small not for- -
tions The State has also established profit enterprises, and government § 52.970 IdentIfication of plan.
i inspection function consistent with entities with jurisdiction over * * * * *
iat described in the EPA’s guidance populations of less than 50,000 — fc) * a
The State commits to conducting IP approvals under section 110 and (61) A revisidnto the Louisiana SIP te
inspections of facilities including a subchapter! part D of the CAAA do not include revi ions to LAC. Title 33,
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 58 I Friday, March 25, 1994 / Rules and Regulations . 14115
“Environmental Quality,” Part Ill. Air,
Chapter 21, Control’ f Emission of
Orgaaic Compounds, Section 2132—
Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for
Control of Vehicle Refuelling Emissions
at Gasolihe Dispensing Facilities
effective November 20. 1992, and
submitted by the Governor by cover
letter dated November 10. 1992.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Revisions to LAC, Title 33,
“Environmental Quality,” Part II I. Air,’
Chapter 21, Control of Emission of
• Organic Compouiids, Section 2132—
Stage H Vapor Recovery Systems for
Control of Vehicle Refuelling Emissions
• at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities,
effective November 20, 1992; and
Chapter 65, Section 6523—Fee Schedule
Listing, effective November 20, 1992.
iii) Additional materials.
• (A) November 15. 1993, narrative plan
addressing: legal authority, control
strategy, tompliance schedules, air
quality surveillance, public. notice,
• determination of.regulated universe,
• ‘Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality recordkeeping, facility
recordkeeping, annual in-us above
• ground inspections, program penalties,
training, 8nd benefits.
(FR Doc. 94—7056 Filed 3—24—94; 8:45 am)
BILLING DE 6560-60-P
40 CFR Parts 712 and 716
[ OPPTS—82041A; FRL-4768-2]
Preliminary Assessment Infàrmation
and Health and Safety Data.Repórtlng;
Addition of Chemicals; Stay of Certain
Reporting Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACT!ON: Final rule; stay.
SUMMARY: EPA is staying certain
provisions of a final rule which was
published in the Federal Register of
December 27, 1993, adding chemical
substances to two model information-
gathering rules: The Toxics Substances
Control. Act (TSCA) Section 8(a)
Preliminary Assessment Information
RUle (PAIR) and the TSCA Section 8(d)
Health.ánd Safety Data Reporting RUle.
EPA received correspondence
requesting clarificatián ofthe chemical
ideritities of certain propylene glycol’
• ethers and esters and the removal of.
certain other propylene’glycol ethers
and esters from the reporting
requ!rement. EPA is staying the final
• rule as it relates to chemical substances
under the category pràpyleneglycol
ethers.andCstersin ’ order to resolve
- .these issues and detérmine.those ’
chemical substances on which reporting
will be required. .
DATES: This stay is effective March 25,
1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan B. Hazen, Director,
Environmental Assistance Division
(7408), Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency,. Em. E—543B. 401M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Telephone:
(202) 554—1404, TDD: (202) 545—0551.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
• Federal Register of December 27, 1993
(58 FR 68311), EPA added 2.4 chemical
substances and two categories of
substances to both the PAIR and the
section 8(4) Health and Safety Data
• Reporting Rule. Any person believing
section 8(a) ór8(d) reporting required by
this rule to be unwarranted was given
opportunity to pi ovide EPA in detail the
reasons for that belief.
EPA received correspondence from
several chemical companies and the
Chemical Manufacturers Association’s
(CMA) Propylene Glycol Ether Panel
which:raised’questions concerning the•
appropriate identification of some•
• chemicals listed under the category
propylene glycol ethers and esters and
requested that certain chemical
substances n this category be removed
• from the rule. These substances were
among those recomméñded for testing
by the Interagency-Testing Committee
(ITC) and added to the section 4(e)
Priority List in its 3lstReport to the
EPA Administrator. Pursuant to 40 CFR
712.30(c) and 716.105(b), EPA routinely
adds substances to the TSCA 8(a) and
8(d) rules when the ITC addssubstances
to the section 4(e) Priority List.
To provide sufficient time for EPA
and ITC member agencies to eviéw
these issues, EPA is staying the
provisions, of the final rUle that relate to
the category propylene glycol ethers and
esters. EPA will announce, via notice in
the Federal Register, the final reporting
requirements for thiscategory when the
issues have been resolved.
a. The authoritycitation for part712
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2607(a).
§712.30 [ Amended)
b. Section 712.30(x) is amended by
staying the “propylene glycol ethers and
esters” category and all related dates.
PART 716—(AMENDED]
2.Inpart7l6: . . . -. •
a. The authority citation for part 716
continues to read as follows:
• Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2607(d).:
§716.120 [ Amendedl .. , .
b. Section 716.120(d) is amended by
staying the “piopyleneglycol ethers and,
esters” category and all related dates.
(FR Doc. 94-7093 Fi!ed 3-24—94; 8:45 am)
• BILLING CODE 6560-60-F • - -. . , •
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION 1. .1
47CFRPart99 -•
(GEN Docket No.90.414 • Docket.
Plo. 92—100; FCC 94.40] . ‘ ‘. .
Narrowband Personal . 1
Communications S i i .‘ .
AGENCY: ,I ’ederal Communications
Commission.
ACTiON: Final rule. ‘‘- • •
SUMMARY: This Memorandum Opinion
and Order (MO&O) finalizes the
spectrum allocation, service.rulès, and
pioneer’s preference decisions for the
narrowband personal communications
service (PCS) This action is taken.in’
response to eight petition for
reconsideration’ and clarification of the
First Report and Order (R&O):These
rules are intended to faster introduction
of this new service to thepublic,
contribute to development of the
national information infrastructure, and
List of Subjects in’40 CFR Parts 712 and• provide for ubiquitous wireless access
• 716 ‘ •“ • • . . • •‘ . to new voice and data services.
• • • • • •• . • . • “ • . Facilitating the in dudion of these
Environmental protecuon, Chemicals, ‘ services will create new jobs and
Hazardoussubstances, Health’and safety promote U.S. competitiveness in the
• data, Recordkeeping nd reporting, • global telecommunications market. .‘
• requirements.’ : • , • . • • . •. •. • • •
Dated March 21 1 EFFECTIVE DATE Apnl 25 19 4
Charles M Auer, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Tom
Director Chem.rco.l Control Division Q ’i Mooring Office of Engrneenng and
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Technology (202) 653—8114
Therefore, 40 CFR Chapter 1 iS SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION This is a
amended as follows synopsis of the Commission s MO&
PART 712 —IAMENDED1 GEN Docket No 90-314 and El’
No 92—100 adopted February 3 1
1 In part 712 and released March 4 1994 The
-------
Federal Register / Vol 59, No 13 / F .rIday ’ April 15 1994 / Rules and R g l t)0fl8
ml AmOIUIIIUmI$ to sections 3—1(d). Ihould make ar app titimeni with the ... ; ‘ idopled by the Slate on October 18.
3—1 11). 3—1(x)(7),3 .-J (ee)(3), 3—1(gg). 3— approprIate office at least 24 J ows 1992. By Lodeyl action, the EPA Is
1(hb), 3-.2(b)(2)(il). and 3—2(b)(3) were before the visiting day .. - approving this submittal The EPA has
pted by the Nashville Metropolitan’ von FURThER ORMATION CCNTACT . . reviewed the State submittal against the
rd of Health an December 8,1992. James P. DavIs at 1214)655—7584. A A’sta1utO1y requirements end for..
I ) Other materIal—none. .: ‘ . copy of this revision to the Texas SIP Is .. COnS1Stency with the EPA guldanoc . A
floc. 94-4970 Filed 4—14—94; &45 ami also available ior inspection at i .ir ‘ imma of ibe EPA’s analysis Is
mu oco s eer- a -r - Docket6 l o 2 .4O lMSt r egt.SW , prov ldedbelow.Inaddi tlon ,.more
.‘-‘ Washington DC 20460. ‘4 . : - detailed analysis ol the Stale submittal
- su tnA PIFORMATION: Is contained In a TSD, dated June 25,
40 CFR Part 52 “ Under section 1820,)(3) of the ci 1993. Wblth is available from the
AirAct(CAA) ,theEPAwasrequtredto b 1on5OThe,1lstedabove
Issite guldanoe as to the effectiveness of Applicability t
Approval and Promulgation of .- . •‘ Stage II systems. The EPA Issued Under sectiOn 1820,1(3) of the CM
Implementation Plan Texas Stage H technical guidance In November1991 were req ulred by November15.
Program . -. ... .. . I ‘ •: ‘ -. :and enforcement guidance in December . 1992, to adopt regulations requiring
- . . . 1991 to meet this requirement. I In .. .. f . .. . -
AGENCY:F wlronmenta1Protectlon . . addition, on AprIl18. 3992, theEPA ’’ . 5 r° ° °‘ 1 0 .ir
Agency (EPA). . b d the’ oral Preambi f 1 . .. 0 ng ys em en
ACTiON: Fine C. ‘. . ‘ ‘ Implementation of title I of the Clam their facilities. The mn leS -
SUMMARY: The EPA Is taking action Air Ac ,Amendments of 1990” specIflee that these State rules must’
approve the Texas Natural Resource Preamuie) 5?PR 13498). 7 OUIu 1 UC apply to any facility that dispenses more:
cc uOCtImBfltS Sflu wS .. .l, lem . ‘! “ . -. then tO,000 gallons of gasoline per’
Stage II State Implementation Plan (SIP), “ ) month or, in the case of an Independent
which includes a SIP Supplement dated TNJI&LL ’Cment eflu $IWCSIO TW % ‘ matI business marketer, any facility
September 30, 2992. and Regulation v. eL evAe8 a State s bm1ttal neods tO ‘ ‘: that d penees more than 50.000 gallons
)f i r’ A 115 241—115 249 COntrol of C.UuO to meet ...et raqui .v . . ena. . ofgasoline.per month. Section 324 of
r..j j ‘r . ... •. EPA baa designated four ‘. the CM defines en tridenOndeiit small
w5u1L O O.uC .ng as one . .4eu,a% ’ nonattainment In the State of . in
0 •
Facilities, ass revision to the Texas SIP . .
ozone nouatt ant area a. as “ “ ‘“ “t “f tO 000 II
for 02000. On November 13, 2902. Texas A . .i I Ii . . -‘:1
th as severe an.. wG .0 .sO .u3. - ‘-month and has not In uded a o r
EFAtoutlsfythaieq:lre ntof’ a .elglc tles:Brazora ,.aia±ubers .!ori ‘applicabIlity torlndependentimsfl.
kl ( % r &4 A. ‘ eslon. L baTty, - . business marketers. How . , -
o. a ... .ean -,.. . . , . . . . .
. . - , Lv&vut Ofli t , Sflu vvuuer. .uO . •, . Independent small business marketers
ienu . 4 . 4 e . rn i. - .
• A ‘ ‘ R8 8 WflOUWL- .flI ,i&uiur OZ.OflO . . . which dispense lesethan 50.000 ealleris
Ov ,5iOfl mqu .res owners an . . 8 i ‘ .a . .
. , . - none . .ent area . SswO .. . as . .- have a provision fox an extend
itors o gasowle w peu . wg . I ... u . .
Tt l,J ,OUS fiflu Conttuusi.ue .O . .OwiZlg uuw ‘compliance deadline.
wcluues to w LaJ.. flu opa etage counties: Hardln, Jefferson, arid Orange. As more fully discussed in the EPA’s
vapor recovery equ.pment . .e .0w. The El Piso ozone nonattaiflment area Is Enforcement Guidance and the General
Texas ozone nonettainment areas- classified as serious and contain the. .‘ PTeamblo (57 FR 13514), the Slate baa -
classified as moderate or worse. mis countynf El Paso. The Dallas/Foil ‘ provided that the gallons of gasoline
revision a piios to the Texas counties of Worth ozone nonattainment area Is - . dispensed per month wlU be based on ‘: -
Brazorla. ..nembers, COI1Iti, Dallas, classified .es moderate and contains the the gasoline throughput breach -
Denton, El Paso. Pirt Bend, Galveston. loll owln four’ counties; CoWin, Dallas, .. - calendar month beginning January 1.
}lardin, Hams, ,e ei -son, &wtTtY ‘ Denton, and Tenant. The designations ‘. 1991. The State Is Interpreting this . -
Men gomery, Orange, Tenant, and for ozone were published In the Federal requirement to mean that if a facility
Weller. On January 8, 2994, the EPA ‘. “ Register (FR) on November 8, 1991. and exceedi the throughput limits for Y’
publtshed.a notice of proposed . t ovember 30,1992, and bavebeen one month, the facility will be required’
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Texas. I1fled In the Code of Federal . . to Install Siege 11. WhIle the StMe Is not-
The NPR proposed approval of the Relatloni(CFR). See 56 FR 56694 - :‘ calculating the average volume of
Texas Stage 11Sf? suemittad by the ‘ (November 6.1991) and 57 FR 56762’ ‘gasoline dispensed per month fee the
State. No public comments were . - cr ovem 30,1992), codIfied at 40 CFR two year period preceding the adoption
received on the NPR; therefore, the EPA 81.300 througb.81.437. Under se tfoñ :ilate, the EPA beuleves.that the Stale’s —
Is publishing this final action. • - ‘2 (’ .))(3) of the amended CM, Texas’ • ‘- method will require wore gasoline -.
EFFECTIVE o*it: This final rule Will -. was required oeubrnit Stage Ii vapor . ,‘. dispensing facilities to ply with -
bócorne effective on May 16, 1994. - - recovery rules for these areas by- - - - ‘Stage U requirements., in addition, the --
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’s - - ‘. NOvember 15,1992. On November 13, ‘- - State has specified that the Stfige U -.
eubmittals and the EPA’s technical • - 1992, Governor Ann W. Richards .:: . - - requlrements.spply to all gasoline - -
support document TSD) are available submitted to the EPA Stage U vapor - -, - -‘ dispensing facilities, Including retell
for public review at U.S. Environmental recovery rules and a SW Supplement - -‘ outlets and fleet fueling facilities, with -
Protection Agency RegIon 6, (6T-AP), - dated September 30, 1992, which were - - thz ughput rates as defined above. ‘: -
t.44$Rnss Avenue. suite 700. Dallas. ‘ •‘. - - - - - - - - ‘ - However, the State has exempted -
Te s75203-V33. I ’addiriwi, Texas’ - gasoline dispensing equipment used • -‘
jiI.wi J is a ühibIs at theTNRCC , - Cuid nce.Ste fl Vepor Recovery Sy.lems - exc1u e1y for the fueling oI aircraft, - -
- . , -. c. .- Coñtre olVehide Rerucling En Ie . 1on , it oline iuarinc vessols ira 1 ents of -
- • ... i 224 ‘ (tpA-450/3-Qi-OZZl end - - ,or • p em -
iTew 7ft753. interested’ persons - cii . . kn s . u Vehtcie .-‘ - agriculture. ThoEPA has determined
rg,to examine these docvments - - aei .i ns C uto! !‘.. “ .- -:‘ -- :: : - . that these limited exeniptions ate I -..
-------
RCg 51CT 1 73 i ‘T d0Y April 94 1 Ul0S ai1d Rcgu1ühió 1 i794 I
acceptable In the Texas Stage U program inpIexneni tkn of Stage Il in Tes ‘ compliance tile logs indicaung
for the following roasons.}Hstorically,1 ., . ’ Lastly, the Texas rule otherwise fulfills compliance with manufeciurer s
the Stage U program was intended to,. V ’ ‘iha Stage Ii requirements,and the EPA ,. •spoc flcetlons and requirements; ‘(4 1:.’
reduce refueling emissions for on - believes it will provide substonual air training certification flies and (SI
road” motor vohicies. These limited quality benefits to the regulated arois.. jnsp flon end compliance reàurds: Jr
exemptions would not be consalorod to Theretoro, the EPA believes ills in the addition, the State hai commiUed In
ho on-road motor vehicles tJso , i ‘ public interest to approve end mako their Si? supplement to maintain a
reluchag sy lems of gasoline powered enfurcoeblo this requirement at the - general compliance file, Induding
vehicles such as aircraft, marine vcs cls, ‘earliest lime feasible Information such as facility name,
• and implements of agricuiturp are In the Texas program,Vindep ndent address, phone number, o*ner/openilur
normally designed with ‘ ‘“ small business marketers olgasoilne, For names, a State assigned ioferonco
nonstandardized equipment for whick.. which the monThly gasoline throughput V V numbor, date of initial cOmpliance with
Stage II systems designed for ón-road is less then 50 O00 gallons per month, VV• the regulations,numbor of pumps atid
vobiclo refueling facilities m y not be. ‘ may petition, no later than November V;•. monthly gasoline throughput. Tho Slate
compatible. The sccàpthbllity of those 15, 1993, the State ’s ExOcutItTo Director ‘ has also establisbedVan Inspection ‘
hauLed exemptions does not preclude for an extensipa of the compliance function consittent with that descrl *t
• the State from reqáfrtng refueling vapor:: deadline to December 22.1998, or until :• In the EPA’sguldimco. The Stale
recàvery systems at such facilities at a’:. one ormore of the facility’s gaso1Lnu . commits to conducting In pecth,ns vi
lalcr date ‘ Lorage tanks are replaced and/or . ‘ .‘ Iacthtlos Including a visual Inspection
Section 324 establishes a slatutory equipped with corrosive protection, of the Sta elJ equipment and of the
definition of en independent small ‘ ‘ which is required by the Texas Natural required records and a functional test of
business marketer, which is fully sot Resource Conservation CommIssi n. ;t •. the Stage Ii oqutpmenlAocordlng to the
forth in the TSD. The State has adopted V This extension provision forV: .. • ,!,; V V Supplement, the State shall Inipect each
the statutory deFuiltion of Independent Independent small business marketers V V facility at least one time per year with
small business marketer In Its ‘‘ of gasoline, for which the monthly * follow-up Inspections at noncomplying
regulations ‘ ‘ “ gasoline throughput Is loss then 50,000 facIlities Finally, the State has
• • The EPA Ends the ppllcabliily ... “. ‘ gallons permoath. isacccptable boç ause established pr ceduros for enforcing
requirements In tha Texe.s StageD rule the CAA does not require Stage II .. . .. violations of the Stage II requirements,
toboeccepteblo .. . syslemstobeinsialledonsuth ‘ ‘,‘., andbascommittodtoestabllsha
Implementation olStage 11 - “ facilities ‘ - penally icboduie In the SIP A detailed
The CM specifies the tune by which ’ Additional Program Requirements
certain facilities must comply with the,. .: COnsistent with the EPA a g uidance, : penatties may be ssosscd of up to. : V
Stale regulation For facilities that are t ‘the State requires that Stago II systems SiQ,dOO per any per violation and CiVil
not owncd or operated by an. - - “.. be tested and certified to meet a pori l ies of up to $25,000 per day per
independent small business marketer. . ‘ r percent omission reduction efficiency;.,. I it! Th EPA lIed tb Stst
these times, aiculated from the time of The EPA has indicated three acceptable for 1n nlömentatlon end.
Stateadoption orthe rcgu at1on, are: 11).,. methods oiilethonstratlng a 05 pcrcont enforcement àf’ihe StngoJI program Lu
Six months for facilities for which . . remission reduction efficiency: (1) .bo consistent with the EM guidolinos.
construction began after November 15,., method tested and approved by the . , • • ‘ ,•
• 1990; (2) one year for facilities that.. .- ‘ California ,\h Resources Board (CARl]); Response to Comments ..
dispense greater than,lO0,000 gallons of (2) a testing program that is equivalent ., On January (1, 1994(59 FR 707), tho
gasoline per month; and (33 two years . ‘- to the CARD progr am that will be . ‘; EPA publiShed a notice of proposed :•
(or all other facilities The Texas Stage conducted by the Program Oversight rulemaking (NPR) for the State olToxas
U rule lime schcdule sets compliance . .. Agency or by a third party recognized • The NPR proposed it,proval of the
dales of May 15, 1993, November 15 ,. . by the Program Oversight Agency, and Texàs Stage U SIP sut,mittod by the
j993, end November 15,1994, submitted and approved by the EPA (or State No public comments were
respectively for the above three Incorporotion Into the SIP, or (3) a received on the NPR.
deadlines. Although Texas adopted its . system approved by the CARD. The: •V ’• • . •. . • .• • V
Stage)! regulations on October 16, 1902, State has chosenlo use option thrOea..:..Fmflal Action..: ., . .• , •. • ••
the I PA believes It is.appro irI to to.: I , system approved by the CARD. The ; - ‘ Since the EPA finds that the Statà has
accept the adoption date to be • V . • .Stato requires sources to verify proper • adopted a Stage U. SIP In accordance
Nov mber 15, 1992. ‘ ‘‘ V • Installation a /id functlonof Stage 11 . .. with section 102(b)(3) of the CAA.as
The EPA is approving the submitted equipment through uso o le liquid ‘ Interpreted in EPA’s guldthico, the EPA
‘time table ror the following reasons - ‘ blockage test and • leak lest prior to,. Is epprovlng the submittal as meeting V
First, the CM states that the adoptlon ’ system operation, und at least cveiy five the requirements of section 1fl2(b)(3).
date must ho used to calculate the years or upon major modificOtIo f a . . • Nothing In this action should ho
compliance schedulefor Stage Ii’ • facility (i.o,, 15 percent or mere - • :.- :V onstruod as permitting or allowing or
iniplemontation at facilities. In this case, equipment change): • . ‘ ‘ àstabitshing a precedent for any Future
the EM defines the adoption dale to be With respect to rocordkooplug. the request for revision to any SiP. Ench
thodalo when the regulation am! tho - Stato has adopted those Itcms V ‘. i quest for revision to a SiP shall be
the SIP was required to bo • V• recommended in the 3 PA ’s guidance •. • considered In light ..oispecillc techuikal,
,bmiuedtotheEPA on November15, and specifies that sources s jbJoctth .:ccenomlcal. and environmental factors
Tb.ecothp liance .deadl ;nes - :‘ ‘.Stago II must make these documents’- and InVroiaUon to relevant statutory and
1z ezed:by this dale begin within the V V : available upon request; (ii A copy of the regulatory requirements. t
$iuiescbcdulo specified by.tho CAA. • •V CARD Executive Order for thu SpecifiC V As noted elsewhere in this action. the
& .d1y. icmmlying this deficiency, by “- .Stogo II vapor recovery system installed ‘EPA received no tidverse public
endingthacomplianee -schedulo ,at the facility; (2)tesults of verification .comment On the proposed action. Asa
ieoitfd cause further delay in tho tests, (3) equipment maintenance and direct result, the Regional Administrator
-------
17942 Federal Register tVól. 59, No. 73 / Priday,- April 15, 1994 I Rules end Regulations
h .is reclassified this action from Table . List oFSubjects In 40 CFR Part 52 4Q CER Part 52 - -
Two to Table Three under the ‘.
processing procedures published In ti Environmental protection. Air ‘ (VAI9-44268, FRL..48e0-4]
FR on January 19. 1989 (54 FR 2214), pollutIon control, Hydrocarbons, Approval and Promulgation of 41
and revisions to those procedures Issued incorPoration by reference, Quail” lmr4ementat)on Plans’
on October 4,1993. In an EPA . .intergovominental relations, Ozone, -; Commonv alth of VI mis—
memorandum entitled “Changes lo State. Reporting and iecordkoeplng • ? Oxur ,enated GasoRn ’ro ram
Implementation Plan (SIPJ Tables” requirements, Volatile organic ‘
compounds . .. AGENCY’ Eilvlronmenlal Protection -
Regulatory Process t - ‘ Note Incorporation by reference a! ti si Agency (EPA)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, for the State of Tsxu wee approved by the ACTION Final rule 2-
5 U.S C. 600 et seq . the EPA must • Director of the FR on July 1. 1?02 SUMMARY EPA Is approving a Stato
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis D* 1ud March 22.1994 Implomentation Plan (SIP) revision
assessing the Impact of any proposed or Joe D Winkle. i . ‘ ‘ submitted by the Commonwealth of .
final rub on small entitles (5 U S C. 603 Acfan R ionoIAdminIstmtor -. V - Vrrginia.ThIs revision establishes süd
and 604). Alternatively, the EPA may.. . ••.. .• . - . . . .* qWiOS the Imolementation of en
certify that the rule will not have a - 40 CFR part 52 Is amended as follows Oxygenated Ca olIno Program in one
significant Impact on a substantial control area which includes the
number of small entities Small entities PART 52 . .- (AMENDEDJ ‘- v1rg1n counties within the
Include smailbusinosses, small not-for- :‘ .. -. . s i gto , c Metropolitan Statistical
profit enterprises, and govornment 1. The authority citation for part 52 () ) consisting olArlington,
-entitles with Jurisdiction over continues to read as follows • Fairfax, loudoun, Prince William, and
populations of less than 50,0130. SIP S. .AUthOTW 42 U.S.. ? 4Oi—7&7iq.. ;. .. IStafford, and the Virginia cities within
epprovals under section 110 and . , the Washington, DCMSA consisting of
subchapter I, part D of thb CAA do not Subpart SS—Texas .. Alexandria, Fairfax. Falls Church,
create any new requirements. but - Manassas, and Manassas Park. The
simply approve requirements that the .2. Section 52.2270 is amended by , •.. lntOndod elfect of this action Is to
Stale Is already imposing. Therefore;- - adding paragraph (c)(81) toroad as.. • appr vo these rOgülattons to satisfy the
because the Federal SIP.approval does -follows: . , . -.. . .. , requiremont&of the Clean Air Mt as
not impose any new requirements, I * ‘ -amended by the Clean Air Act
certify that It does not have a significant 1d flU1IC8tlOIi of plan Amendments 011990 (the Act) This
Impact on any small entitles affected * * * actionis being taken under section 110
• Moreover, due to the nature of tho (c) - • . - . - .“ --‘,‘ . of i)io Clean Air Act :- . - . -.
Federal-State relationship under the : (61) A revision to the Texas SIP EFF CTIVE DATE: This final rule will
C /iA, preparation of a ro ulatory include revisions to Texas ReguietzonV, becOme effective on May 16, 1994
flexibility analysis woul constituto- . ADDRESSES: Copies of jho documents
o era inqu 17 ‘• .. . • • (QI ITI • -relevant to this action are availo Ic for
LI t ’ , , ‘ri. (‘A A vC .1C.O & OiuC.1n 5 1.MU, 55 iOflS % abe . ., a . • -
reasonau&encssol .flaioac lon. AILC u’t. i.• fl. nubhcinspoctlondur lngnormal -
i. ,. L • . o or vCi iC&O rUOi IJlspenslng .. (
jorulus tuO £.I I ’ to uasa its actions . L Dusinoss hours at the Air, Radiation,
• . •. raCintiCS nuOpicu vy uie , ‘talo on .- * .
concerning . S Ofl suc.. groun . . . L - . • and Toxics Division, U.S.
(Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 ‘ ,itouur 16, 1992, o iective overnucr En I I Protoctioñ A tnncy ,.
• U.S. 246, 256—66 (S.d. 1976); 42 u.s.c. - 16, 1992, and submittoa by the -. Region Ill. 841Chèstnut Building.
7410(aXz). --. : : - Governor by cover letter dated •‘, Philadelphla,Penrisylvanla 19107; Mr.:
This action has b en classiflod as a November 13, 1992 - and Radiation Docket & Information
TablcrTwo action by the Regional •. (i) Incorporation by xcforcnce.. . Center, Environmental Protection
Administrator under the procedures “ (A) Revisions to Texas Regulation v. Agency, 401 M Street, SW Washington.
published in the FR on January 19, 196 g. 21 TAC §. I I5.241—115 249—Control f- DC 20460; and Virginia-Department of’ -
(54FR 2214—2225), as revised by an - . Vehicle Refueling Emissions (Stage II) at Environmental Quality, 629 East Main
October 4, 1993, memorandum from - Motor Vehicle Fuel Dispensing -. Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219.
Michaàl H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Eacilitics, effective November 16, 1992. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: .- -
Administrator for Air and Radiation, A • ‘ Catherine I.. Magliocchettl, (215) 597— - -
(B) Texas Air Control Board Oroor No. - .. . 0
futurodocumentwillintormthogencrol- 92 ado ted October16 1992 6863. .. - : •. •‘ - -
public of these tables. On January 6, . , ‘ as p • . .. ‘.1 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMAr IoN: Oii
1969, the Office of Management and - • . - (ii) Additional materials. ‘: : : . October 26,1993, (56 FR 57573), EPA .
Budget (0MB) waived Table Two and ( ) September 30, 1992, narrative published a notice of proposed
Table Three.SIP revisions from the -• plan addressing general reqizlrenicnts; rulemaking (NPR) for the .-
requirements of section three of .. definitions, determination of regulated - -Commonwealth of Virginia. The NPR
Executive Order 12291 for two years.. . universe, cértificailon àf approved -- ‘proposed approval of an Oxygenated --
The EPA has submitted a request for a vapor recovery systems, training, public -.Casolifle Program In the Commonwealth
permanent waiver for.Table Two end inform3ti’on, recordkeeping. -. - ‘ of Virginia. The Commonwealth • -.
Thble Three SIP revisions.,Tho 0MB bii requirements for equipment installntion submitted aSIP revision for parallel
to curitinuc ti c aiver until such and testing annual In use above ground processing on November 13, 1992 The
tiza s ixruJesonthoi.PAsroquest; •,- • , ,. ‘ . forma lSlPrevis ionwassubni it tedby
• znspccions, program cn. . Ic , ,,. ‘
This reçaesi continues In cifect under • sow, s and benefits :. • • -- . -. . the Commonwealth of Virginia on
ExecutivoDrder 128&6 which • . ‘ - ‘ • • ‘ November 1, 3993 - -. . -
cup ’rscded Executive Order 12291 on t Filed 44494 8 45 oml Specific requirements of the
Sepiomber 30,1993 1 .UiIG CO 5O1O ’F -, Oxygenated Gasoline Program and tho
-------
21942 Federal Register / Vol. 59,:;No ; .61 / - Thursday, Apdl- 28, 1994 I Rules and egi4attons
0 CFR Part 52 Regioii 5, 77.West Jackson Boulevard, Facilities that commenced construction
F 7 Chicago, Illinois 60604. (312) 886—6061. after November 15, 1990, mus i comply
N29—I-6822, RL 5 • Anyone wishing to come to RegionS six months after promulgation of the
Approval and Promulgation offices should contact Francisco J. rules by the State; (2) facilitiesthat
Implementation Plans; Indiana Acevedo first and reference file lN29—1— commenced construction before
5822. November 15, 1990, and dispense an
AGENCY: Environmental Protection E a’verage monthly volume of more than
Agency. - SUPPLEM NTARY INFO MATION. 100.000gallcns of motor fuel per
ACTION: Final rule. I. BackgroundtSummaiy of State month, must comply by one year after
-Submittal promulgation of the rules by the State; -
SUMMAAY: The United States - On February 25, 1994, the Indiana - and (3) all other facilities must comply
Environmental Protection Agency Department of Environmental two years after promulgation of the rules
(USEPA) is taking action to approve a Management (IDEM) subbiitted to by the State. . :
requestadrevisiontothelndianaState ,,e-. n nip n . . .
Im I t t P1 (SIP) f r - e Yar i-A.atage a vapor rwt-uvery nines: 11. Review Crilena -
• US A’s action is ased upon a revi ion Amendments to 326 IAC’8—1-0.5 and The USEPA reviewed the submittal
- . . 326 IAC 8—4—6 as requested revisions to a. • & it
request which was submitted by the 1.. . • em a against use requiremen o section
- use niuiafla wr.’iue ruses were auopteu , n.u t a. A
State to satisfy the requirements of the . . • • r lO 2 tUJt 3 J O s wO nCt, as snterpreteu in
uy tue inulana Air Possution * untroa i. r i n . ia i t a.
Clean Air Act (Act), which requires tz&e nem tcamuie tor e
certain ozone nonattainment areas to Board (IAPCB)on July 21,1993. arid • Implementation ofTitle I of the Clean
were puuusueu in the Ind iana Register - - A a
‘equire specified gasoline dispensing - k i nirnct rniienurnentso 1990 57
acilitiestoinstallandonarateStanefi 011 s.nn.uJiiuvI £3 .J. &txeowte 13496, 13513 (Apnl-16,1992fl. and two
‘a ar rc coveruenuinme t The sut ect’ ,•,. submitted these rules to satisfy the Stage IJSEPA documents-entitled Technical
P .‘ ‘s r • - U vr”-tectve” 1oe-Iuirements of • - ,
ireas established in the SIP revision are - -•: . ‘ . 7 ‘ Guidance-Stage’ll -Vapor-Recovery
the India na portion of the Chicago . se on182(bfls) of the Act. The SIP Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling -
- . revisionsubmittedbytheStateof • tr if . -
none nonattainment area (Lake and T A’ - . . a it a. missions a so me ispensing
Porter Counties) and the Indiana OUt pi ures sor we Facilities (Technical Guidance) and the
of the Louisville, Kentucky ozone : . ‘ estawisament of a Stage U Vapor Enforcement Guldénce for Stage II
((j k fl - Recovery Program ln t ue ozone. Vehicle Refuelih Contzui Programs
Cot: E act n nonattainrnent counties of Lake Porter, (Enforcement Guidance) Specifically.
taken without crior nroposal. - :-‘ Clark;- an4 floyd. The Information the following-seven gaiters! criteria need’.-
.‘presentedbelow summaries the - f s’ i i
- . requested SIP revision and USEPA regulation to be approvable by USEPA:
June 27, 1994, unless notice Is received actionàn it. A more detailed analysis of - . •-‘ . •: .
by May 31, 1994, that someone wishes ‘. théStite ’s submittal is contained in (1) Installation of Stage IlControls and
to submit adverse comments If the c USEPA’s technical support documents Determination o1) egulated Facilities
effective dale is delayed tmiely notice dated March 23 1993 and March 31 Facilities that dispense more than
will be published intheFederal , , -1994,which are available from the - 10,000 gallons errnonth must install
Register. . . . ‘- . ‘ Regfon.’5 office listS above. , ‘ and operate Stage 11 controls. For
ADDRESSES: Copies of the requested SIP -: India na’s regulations specify that gasoline dispensing facilities that are
revision, technical support documents , ‘Stage II Vapor recovery systems are owned and opemt d-by.an 1 5 1 1MG, the
and public comments received are -, required ‘at gasoline dispensing’ facilities State may establish-a cut-point as high -
available at the following address: - , ‘- thatdispense more than 10 .000 gallons as 50,000 gallons per month; Section
United States Environmental Protection . per month,-and independent small ‘ 324(c) of the Ad establishes a definition
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation -;‘ business marketers ofgasoliñe (ISBMG) ‘ - of a 15 1 1MG as a person engaged in the
Division, Regulation Development .:-- that dispense an average mbnthly , ‘ marketing of gasoline who wouldbe
Branch, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,. - ‘ .volumé.ofmorIthan 50,000 gallons per requiied to payior,the installation and
Chicago Illinois 60604 month Private fueling facilities such as operation of Stage I I equipment There
- This, SIP revision is also available for: govern ment and company flOet fueling are four exemptions to this definition
inspection-at the Office of Air and - : - faciliileá, as well as retailers, are subject (i.e., four groupsthát will not be
Radiation (OAR) Docket and - ‘ - to the Stage U requirements. The ... considered ISB)JGs): (hA reflner’ (2) a
Administration Center (Air Docket regulations specify the use of California person who controls, Is controlled by or
6102), room MiSDO, U.S. Environmental : AirRésburce Board ‘(CARB) certified ‘ is under common’ control with a refiner,
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW :,. •. Stagilisystems, which have been ,• , (3) a person who otherwise is directly or
Washington DC 20460 (202) 260—7548 demonstrated to achieve at least 95 indirectly affiliated with a refiner or a
Comments on this rulemaking should perceilt control of Volatile Oiganic person who controls, is controlled by or
be addressed to J Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Compound (VOC) emissions during the is under common control with a refiner
Regulation Development Section, refueling of motor vehicles. The rules (unless the sole affihotion Is by means
Regulation Development Branch (5AR— also mandate that the proper installation of a supply contract or an agreement or
18J) United States Environmental and operation of such systems be contract to use trademark, trade name,
Protection Agency, Region 5,77 West achieved by requiring the Installed service mart, or other Identifying
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago Illinois — systems to be tested for proper symbol or name owned by such refiner
60604 installation and requiring the State to or any such person) or (4)a person who
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT perform all necessary enforcement of receives less than 50 percent of this
Francisco J Acevedo Environmental the rules - annual income from refining or
Engineer, Regulation Development —The rules mandate the Stage i i vapor marketing of gasoline In the General
Section Regulation Development recovery systems for nonexenipt Preamble, USEPA Indicated that the
Branch (5AR—i BJ), United States - facilities beimplemented pursuant to suggested method for calculating the
Environmental Protection Agency. the following phase-a schedule (1) gallons per month dispensed by affected
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 81 / Thursday. April 28, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 21943
facilitis is determined by calculating
the average volume of product
• dispensed per month for the 2-year
period prior t, the adoption of the rule
• by the State. (See General Preamble, 57
FR at 13514.) The Enforcement
Guidance suggests that if sufficient data
is not available for, a full 2-year period,
then the period should be extended to
include a total Of 24 months of activity,
or the actual months of operation during
that 2-year period should be used to
calculate the facility’s average gallons
per month. (See Enforcement Guidance,
Sec. 3.2.)’
• to be enforceable, the State must require
• the regulated facility to verify proper
installation and function of the Stage II
equipment. The Enforcement. Guidance
specifies performing a Liquid Blockage
Test which determines if there is an
unacceptable low point in the piping.
and a Leak Test which measures the
vapor tightness of the Stage II system.
The Enforcement Guidance also states
that a facility should recertify the
functions of the Stage II equipment as
• least every 5 years, or upon major
system replacement or facility
modification (75 percent or more of the
facility’s Stage II equipment), whichever
occurs first. (See April 16. 1992 (57 FR
13514) General Preamble, and;
• Enforcement Guidance, Sec. 8.2.)
also be performed. (See Enforcement
Guidance, Sec. 5.2(d).)
(7) Regulated Facility Compliance
The State is requIred to ensure
regulated facility compliance with
program requirements through
enforcement mechanisms, and a penalty
schedule that establishes appropriate
penalties for facilities, violating the
Stage II requirements. (See Enforcement
Sec. 5.2(e).)
Ill. Results of USEPA Review
The USEPA reviewed the Indiana
submittal to determine if criteria for.
approval have been met. The results of
USEPA’s review are as follows:
‘(2) Establishment of a Time Schedulö
for Installation of Stage II Control
Equipment . .• .
Section 182(b)(3)(B) of the Act . (1) Installation of Stage H Controls and
establishes three standard deadlines for ‘(5)ReCordkeepiflg and Reporting Determination of Regulated Facilities
• the installation and:application of Stage’ ‘ . . ‘. . .•‘ • Indiana’s submittal mandates the
• II controls, after adoption by the State of In the Enfo ceTnent Guidance, USEPA ‘requirement of Stage U vapor recovery
the Staee ii requirements. The phase-in . ientiflesvanous records that the State’ systems on’any gasoline dispensing’
schedule even in the Act is the ‘ . should require facihties to keep and to facility that dispenses a monthly
fàllowing: ‘(a) 6 months after adoptiOn ,.make available upon request. The average voluineof 10,000 gallons or
fOraitfacilities commencing . . USE!’A beh ves tl at these documents more, and on ISBMGs’who dispense
•consiructioñ after November 15, 1990; must be available in order to make the more than 50,000 gallons.’The submittal’
(b) l’yeOr after adoption for all facilities Stage U requirement enforceable. These also includes a r quirement that affected
whièh dispense 100.000 gallons or more do uments include: (a) A,hcense/ permit facilities be identified by calculating the
‘of gasoline per month; and (c) 2 years to install and operate the Stage II •‘ • ‘‘ average’voluznè Of product dispensed
after adOptiori for all’ other facilities ‘ system; (b) verification of passing ‘ •‘ per mOnth for the 2-year period prior to
“required to be regulated. For 1SBMGS, • functional tes ts fte I istal ation of,, , adoption of the rule by the.State..’
section 324(a) of the Act provides that equipment, ULIS 1n uues e Liquid Monthly averages are to include only
•the.phase in periods may be: (a) 33 • ‘Blockage Test, .LeakTest 1 and all ‘. • ‘those months when’ the facility was
‘percent of ‘the’facilities owned by ‘shutoff/flow prohibiting devise testing; operating. The uSEpA:finds this
•.ISBMGbythe end of the first year after (c) a general station file contauung acceptable’bOcause’if fully addresses
the regulatiàns take effect; (b) 66 percent init al station forinatio ri such a motor ‘Federal requiromeiit.”” •‘
1 •. •‘ vehicle fuel throughput information; (d) • • • • • • ‘• • -
ox suca racuxues ny me enu ox me • • . ‘. • •‘ • t • L1 I - -
• .1 •‘ ‘ • an equipment maintenance and. • 2j c stawisnment oj a Time Schedule
•r r ye ‘d percen oi su ..u compliance file log containing •, for Instaliation of Stoge’IlCoñtrol
aci iesa er e r year. • • • ‘verification that proper maintenance’has ‘Equipment •
• (3) System Certification ‘ ‘. • been conducted in accor4ance with’ • •, The Act specifies that the’time period
Aipprovedsystem should be tested • manufacturer’s spedfl ations and for installation and operation of the
and certified so as to meet’a minimum • requirements; and (e) training •‘ ‘ •, Stage U equipment shall run from the
requirement of 95 percent emission certification. files. (See Enforcement, State adoption date of the Stage U rule.
reduction efficiency The USEPA • .• Guidance; Sec. 8.0.) •“ , •‘ ‘ , • The Act defines adoption to mean the
believes that this efficiency rate has (6) Penodic Inspection of Regulated date the State adopts the requirements
been demonstrated to be feasible. As Facility • ‘ ‘ ‘ •, • • for installation and operation of the
stated in the General Preamble, the • “ , •• • • • • • • • • • • Stage U equipment. For all facilities,
• States may achieve this by utilizing one’ ‘ The State POA should conduct a these complianc dates, calculated from
of the following three alternatives: (a) A minimum of 1 oomphance.inspection’ the time of State adoption of the
‘method tested.and approved by per facility per year with mandatory • regülatioñ, are: {1) 6 months for
past, current or future recognized testing follow-up at stations with violations facilities for which construction began
‘.methods,or(b)en equivalent testing • USEPA believes such inspections are after November 15. 1990; (2) 1 year for
program adopted by the State necessary to ensure that facilities are facilities that dispense greater than
conducted by the Program oversight complying with the Stage II 100,000 gallons of gasoline per month,
Agency (POA) or by a third p y requirements. This is necessary not only and (3) 2 years for all other facilities.
recognized by’ the POA. and submitted .. for enforcement action but tO notify • ‘The Indiana Stage’ll rule time scbedule
and approved by USEPA for sources that are violatmg the Stage II sets compliance dates of June 1, 1994,
incorporation in the SIP; or (c) a system requirements so they can make the. . ‘ December 1, 1994,’ end December 1;
approved by GARB (See Enforcement necessary adjustments to come into 1995, respectively for the above three
Guidance, Sec. 42) compliance The compliance mspectlon deadlines based on”the December 1,
; -; ;‘•••• • ‘. .“ .. ‘ ,‘‘ • shouldconsistofa’visuálinspectienof , 1993,’ ublication date of therulein the
aci ty eri ication Oi o rioper the required paperwork and Stage land Indiana Register The State has adopted
wstauatiofl 8flu r wiction 01 stage II equipment in addition to the visual this schedule for all affected facilitr
vapor yfltTOL yStis inspection., a functional inspection to including those owned or operated
The General Preamble indicates in determine if the facility’s Stage U ISBMGs Although Indiana adopted
order for the State Stage II requirements equipment is functioning properly must regulations on July 21, 1993, USEP
-------
21944 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 81 I Thursday, April 28, 1994 I Rules arid’,Regulatiotis. .
believes it is appropriate to interpret the form of their Stage II equipment to accounts for various fact9rs in the
adoption date to be December 1, 1993. IDEM within forty-five days after the assessment of an appropriate civil
under the limited circumstances installation of the Stage H equipment. In penalty for noncompliance with IAPCB
presented in this submittal. addition, the rule requires that rules. Some factors accounted for
The USEPA is approving the registration material be kept onsite. It include: severity of the violation, intent,
submitted time table for the following also requires that, at a minimum, the frequency of violations, and other
reasons. First, the’Act states that the registration information includes: the factors.
adoption date must be used to calculate facility name and address, signature of
IV. Rulemaking Action
the compliance schedule for Stage II owner or operator, the GARB Executive
implementation at facilities. In this case, Order Number for the Stage II system The USEPA approves 326 JAG 6—1—
U’EPA defines the adoption date to be used, number of nozzles used, the 0.5 and 8—4—6 as revisions to the
the date after which a rule becomes monthly average volume of gasoline Indiana ozone SIP because the submittal
effective in a State. Based on this dispensed, and the location (including meets all the criteria required for
definition of adoption date USEPA contact person’s name, address, and approvability, as cited above. The Stage
accepts the December 1, 1993, rule telephone number) of other recOrds and II vapor recovery SIP revision for the
publication date as the adoption date ‘ reports required by the rule. Other Lake, Porter, Clark, and Floyd Counties .‘ -
from which the compliance schedule is records and reports required by the rule ozone nonattainment areas will’be
calculated. Second, the compliance , to be kept on file by the owner or complete following this action.
dead lines triggered by this date begin operator and which need to be made The USEPA is approving this action
within the time schedule specified by available to the POA upon request without prior proposal because the
the Act. Third, remedying this S include: proof that a certified Stage II USEPA views this as a noiicontroversial’
deficiency by amending the compliance system has been’instàlled and tested to revision, and anticipate no adverse
‘schedule wo(ild cause further delay in yerify its performance according to its comments.’This action will be effective
the implementation of Stage II in specifications; records that show that on June 27,1994 tinless May 31, 1994
IndianS. Finally, the Indiana rule ‘ proper maintenance has been conducted someone wishes to submit adverse
otherwise fulfills the Stage II ‘ according to manufacturer comments. If such notice’ is’receiv d,
requirements and USEPA believes it specifications; records that show timó this action will be withdra’wi befOre the
will provide substantial atr quality ‘ periods and duration of 811 malfunctions ,,effective date by publishing two.,’
benefits to’ the regulated areas. otthe Stage!! system; motor vehicle, fuel subsequent’ documents.’One document,
Therefore, USEPA believes it is iri.the throughput’information for each will withdraw the fiñal’actk)n an’d
public interest to approve and make calendar month of the previous year; another will begin ,a new rulemaking’by’
enforceable this requirement at the’ and proof of employee ti aining . announcing a proposal Ofi.he action and
earliest time feasible. In the limited , certification. The’USEPA finds Indiana’s establishing a comment period. If no
circumstances above, USEPA believe’s, recordkeeping and reporting ‘ such comments are received, the public
that it is ‘not inconsistent to interpret the ‘ requirements acceptable. . . is advised ,that this action’will ‘be
-‘effective on June 27, 1994.’’-
adoption date to the Deáember 1, 199,3. (6) Pe 1odic Inspection Requirements ‘ This action has been dassifled as a
(3) System Gertifi cation ‘ The IDEM has commjtt’ed to adhere’to Table 2 action by, the Regional
The adopted rule mandate thatall the Enforcement Guidance that specifies Administrator under the procedures
Stage II vapor control systems used be annual inspections for the facilities with published in the Federal Register on
certified by GARB to meet 95 percent mandatory follow-up at stations with January 19, 1989, (54 FR 2214-2225). A,
emission reduction’efficiency. Use of, violations or the development of an revision to thO SIP processing review
CARB-cërtlfled systems is ac-ceptable to inspection’ schedule approved by tables was approved by the Acting
USEPA. The USEPA has specified in its USEPA through’ IDEM’s inspection , Assistant dministrator for ‘Office of Air
guidance documents that it believes that program ‘p!an.” ‘ ‘ , and Radiation on October 4,1993
GARB-approved Stage II systems meet, “(7) Regulated Facility’Compliance With (Michael Shapiro’s memorandum to
‘Regional Administrátors) A’ future
the requirement.of the Act with no ‘ Program Requirements ‘ document will inform’ the’ gener8l public
additional efficiency testing required.
Therefore, USEPA finds the specified The Indian ôode (IC 13—7—13—1, states of these’tables. Under.the revised tables
system certificatiOn in the Indiana ., that any persoxY who’violates any . ‘ this action rémain8 c1assified s a Table
submittal acceptable. , ‘ provision of thisarticlé,IC 13—1—1, IC’ ‘2. OnJanuary’6, 1989, the Office of
13—1—3, or IC 13—1—11, or any regulation Management and Budget (0MB) ,aived
“(4) Installation of Stage II Vapor Gontrol . or,standard adopted by one (1) of the ‘Table 2 and 3 SIP revisiods (54 FR 2222)
Systems ‘ ‘ ‘‘boards (i.e., Indi ana Air Pollution ‘ from the requirethents of section 3 of
‘The Indiana rulO mandates that” ‘ , Control ‘Bo8rd), Or who violates any Executive Order 12291 for a” period of
proper tests be performed to verify ‘ ‘ ,deterininatioñ,-përmit, or order made or. years.’ USEPA has’submitted;a request
proper installation, and function of the ‘ issued by the Commissioner (of IDEM). for a permanent waiver. for Table 2 and
Stage II systems, and requires systems to pursuant to this article, IC 13—1—1, or IC Table, 3 SIP revisiOns. 0MB has agreed
‘be retested every five years, or upon’ ‘ 13—1—3;’is liable’for a civil penalty not to continue the wai ier until such time
majOr system replacement or ‘ - ‘ - ‘ . to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars as it rules on USEPA’s request This
modificatiOn. The USEPA believes th6’ ($25,000) per day of any’violation. In - ‘ request continued in’effe t under ‘.5
testing procêdurés specified help make’ thatthis submittal is a regulation: Executive’Order. 12866 ‘which “ ‘
‘the rule enforceable and, therefore, are ‘ adopted by the IAPCB,’a violation of’. ‘ superseded Executive Order’12291 on
consistent with the requirements of the ‘which’subjects the violator’to penalties ‘ September ‘30, 1993 :’ ‘ ;
Act. ‘‘ . ,‘, ‘ - ‘ ‘ ‘ ..., ‘ under IC13— —13—1, th submittal is ‘ Nothing n ‘this ‘o ,’ah’dbè’
‘coñsistént with’ the pokey’ established ‘ construed as per tWig 01’ allowing or
5)’Recordkeepi ig and Reporting ‘“ ‘ ,.‘ by JSEPA”in’its’Ehfo!cethé’ñt Guidance. establishing.a pre ed’ew ( for any future.
1 he”Indiana rifle requires that the “ In’ additiOn, DEMhasiübthitted a civil request for revisiOn to any SIP. Each’
‘affected’facilitiés submit a registration’ , penalty-policy document which ., ‘request’ for revision to the SIP shall’be ”
-------
Federal Register / Vol 59, No 81 / Thursday. April 28, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 2194&
considered separately inlightof specific
technical, economic, and environmental
factors and in relation to relevant
statutory and regulatory requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
5 U.s.c. 600 et seq. USEPA must
prepare.a regulatory flexibility analysis
assessing the impact of any proposed or
final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603
and 604. Alternatively, USEPA may
certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and government
entities with jurisdiction over
populations of less than 50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter l..partD of the Act do not
create any new requirements, but
simply approve requirements that the
State is already imposing. Therefore,.
becau$ the Federal SIP approval does
not impose any new requirements, I
certify that it does not have a significant
impact on any small entities affected.
Moreover due to the nature of the
federal-state relationship under the Act,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility
analysis would cOnstitute Federal
inquiry intç the economic
reasonableness of state action. The Act
forbids USEPA to base its actions
concerning SIPs on such.grounds.
Union Electrk Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427
U.S. 246, 256—66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(aX2). . :
Under section 307 (b)(1) of the Act,
petitions for judicial rev ew of this
action must be filed in the United States
Couii of Appeals for the appropriate.
circuit by JunO 27 1994. Filling a
petition for reconsideratiOn by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review not does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).) . :
List of Subjects in4OCFRPart52
Environmè ità1 protection, Air
pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting and record keeping
re4uirexnent , Volatile organic
compoirnds. :. .
Dated April 8 1994
Michelle D Jordan,
ActrngRegaoaaL4dmwistrator
For the reasons set out in the
preambte,purt52, chapter 1,title 4001
1987, issue of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
EFFECTtVE DATE: April 28, 1994.
FOR FURTHER HFORMATION CONTAC
Ms. Allie Latimer, Special Counsel for
Ethics and Civil Rights, General
Services Administration, Office of
Ethics and Civil Rights, Washington, DC
20405 (202) 501—0765.
SUPPLEMENTARY iNFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866--Regulatory
Planning.añd Review . .
The General Services Administration
(GSA) has determined that this ruleis.
not a significant regulatory actioO for
the purpc ses of Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act .
The General Services Administrative
has determined that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on.
a substantial riumber of small entities.
Onder the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
u.s.c. 601 et seq.) .
List of Subjects an 41 CFR Part 101-6
- Government property management,
Intergovernmental relations?. .
For thereasons set outin the. .
• preamble, 41 CFR Part 1O1 .6 is.
amended Osfollows: :
PART .1O1- .6---MlSCEU.ANEOU
REGULATIONS ..
1. The authority citation for pax ió1—
6 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390(40
U.S.C. 486(c)) . - -
2. Subpart 1O1—6.5 is addedto read as
follows: . T : ..
M scellaneousRegulatioñs; Display of . : .
Code of Ethics for Government Service . Subpart,1O16.5—Code of Ethics for
- . . . . Government Service
AGENCY: Public Buildings Service, . . .‘ . . . .
General Services Administration. § 101—6.500 Scope of subpart. .
ACTiON: Final rule; . . . (a) Inaccordance with Public Law96—
303 the requirements ofthissection
SUMMARY: Public Law 96-303,94 Stat. . shall apply to all executive agencies (as
855 (July 3, 1980), requires the defined by section 105 of Title 5, United
Administrator of General Services t . States Code), the United States Postal
• provide for the publication of copies of •. Service, and the Postal Rate
the Code of Ethics for Government Commission. The heads of these
Service (Code) and for their distribution agencies shall be responsible for
to agencies for use.It also presäibes... ensuring that the requirements of this:
that the. Administrator shall promulgate sectiOn. are observed ahd crnplied with
regulations by which the Code shall be within their respective agencies.
displayed in appropriate areas of - - (b) Each agency.as defined in “(a)”
buildings in which at least 20 . above, shall display in appropriate areas
individuals are regularly employed by of buildings in which at least 20
executive agencies, the U S Postal individuals are regularly employed by
Service or the Posta1.RatOCommission- i.. an agency as civilian mployees;:copiOs
as civiliàn.employees ...ThisFinel Rule . of the Code of Ethics forGovernr ”
reinserts regulatory provisions which Service (Code)
were inadvertently omitted from the (c) For Government owned or
Federal Property Management leased buildings subject to the
Regulationsbe innirigwi1htheJuly4,; requirements of this section; atlOast one
the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as foflows:
PART 52—{AMENDEDI
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42.U.S.C. 7401—7671q
Subpart P—Indiana
2. Section 52.770 is amended by -
adding paragraph (c)(93) to read as
follows: .
§ 52.770 Ide nttfication of plan.
* * * .* .. *
(c)* * * .•. . .
(93) On February 25,4994 the Indiana
Department of Environmental
• Management requested a revision to the
IndianaState Implementation Plan in -
the form of Stage 11 Vapor Recovery.
Rules as amendmeñtsto Title 326 of the
Indiana Administrative Code (326 IAC)
8--1—O.5 and 8—4—6....
(i) Incorporationby reference. (A) 326
IAC 8—1-0.5 Definitions and 8-4—6
Gasoline dispensingfacilities.- Filed
with the Secretary of State October 28,
.1993, effecti ie November 29, 1993..:
Published at Indiana Ragister, Volume
17, Number 3, Decemberi, 1993.,
IFR Doc. 94—lOlil Filed 4 26—94; 8:45 am)
B WNG 000€ 5 • 5Ø 4 : .
GENERAL SERVICES,.
ADMiNISTRATION
41 CFR Part 1Oi 6:
(FPMR Amendment A .-61j
-------
V. VOC (including RACT)
-------
V. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (Including RACT )
V.1. Criteria for Determining R CT in Region IV. - - June 19, 1985
memo from John Calcagni
V.2. Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations, Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987
Federal Register -- May 25, 1.988
V.3. Guidance for Developing Alternative Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) Demonstrations for Tulsa Aerospace
‘Industry - - Dec. 4, 1989 memo from G.T. Helms
V.4. Requirements f or an Alternate PACT’ - - undated
V.5. Reanalysis of Capture Efficiency (CE) Guidance -- Mar. 20,
1992 memo from John S. Seitz
V.6. Appendix E to the General Preamble, 57 FR 18077 (Apr. 28;
1992)
** State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of.
1990; Supplemental; Proposed Rule 57 FR 18070 (Apr. 28, 1.992)
(See General and Cross-Cutting Guidance section]
V.7. Determining Applicability for Sources Subject to Pending New
Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG’s) - - Mar. 29, 1993 memo from
G.T. Helms
V.8. HON/RACT Interface Draft Guidance, 58 FR. 54136 (Oct. 20,
199,3) .
V.9. Revised Capture Efficiency Guidance f or Control of’Volatile
Organic Compound Emissions - -. Feb. 7, ‘1995 . -
V.10. Issues Concerning Bakery RACT Requirements. - - Feb. 8,
1995 memo from John S. Seitz
V.11. . Excerpt from State Implementation Plans; Approval of
Post-1987, Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Plan Revisions for Areas not
Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Notice), 52
FR 45065-72 (Nov. 24, 1987) “
** Ozone Nonattainment Planning: Decentralization of Rule
Effectiveness Policy - - Apr. 27,. 1995 memo from Sally L. Shaver
[ See Emission Inventories section]’ .
-------
J)4fj4 •)-u 4J)LJ-
vf
june 1
1 MORA U1
SUaJ CT: Criteria for Deter inlng CT in c ion IV
Jonn Ca cayni, Chief
Ecuno c Ana ys s ranCJi $ASU (I’W-lZ)
TO: G. T. K&ms. Jr... Cinef
Cur trol Pro raAs Operations Branch (MD 1 )
As you re ested w nave tevieweC tne docu fltfroi EPA k€910n
IV presenting a metiiO4olOgy for. 0 1n9 the’ tect no1oyica1 and econo 1c
feasibflity of ennssion controls to e Gesignated as RACI for a particular
Industrial lostallation.
My concerns are: 1) the document estabflshes decision rules für
RAdII 2) the econo n1c feasibility test comolnes aftoroabihty with cost
effectiveness and, 3) the economic feasibility tests are not very robust.
9iJi i2 Ru
The Agency çrappled i1th decl;Ion rules In 1977 In its .atte pt to
esta Iisn criteria for RACT. It decided t tnat tiwe tn t triere wt fC
too many confounding factors to estaDl$sn flr decision rules tot tecn-
nolo 1cal orccono 1c feasibility whicfl wou’d apply In every case.
Instead, EPA concluded that RACT has to be a case by case determination.
This potic,y Is clearty articulated in tne supplement to th general
reoL ble on RACT (44Fi S3?GI., 9/17179) . We cannot finn an , bd$lS to
support tfle Geciston ulëse5taLl15fl d by the t t of the k 1on I V
docw ent. t ather RACT etust be a case by case oetermlnation wnich s oi d
rely on the entire recoro as di Cu55ed in th eneral prea ble cited above.
late n ling of Cost effectIveness and AffordabUity
The two criteria of cost. effectiveness and affordability are dif-
ferent ano sfloulG.be presented se arôtelj.
Cost Efrectiveness
In e aluatthg econo lc feasibility for RACT ‘, the agency 91ve 5..
signlficent’welgnz. to econo 1c efficiency and thefairness test of
cost—cftectivcness. The reason for this Is tr at Agency po’Ilcy i 1storically
has been to seek atta1n ent tnrou P the a ost cost- fftctive tz of strategies
avalldtle. The CIG’s, although pr1 ar1ly technology baSed are applied
to ozone SIP’s ‘In a manner to prov Ge a rou n first order arox at1Qfl
-------
uo_. J. •J tj. ‘J’)’J-t
f the cost econ ically efficient p1 n. To maintain consIStency, evaluatlotr
f .th ! econc iCfeas1bl11j 01’ 4 sou•rce’S control tequlre ents should De,,
‘n the context of the .CTG r quircr nts rather than. an . absolute cost etfect.;-
iveneS:Cr1erIa-. ,:. ... : . . . ,‘ . . : . •..
r ‘ — • “ r
.1 — 4.
4 source presentlng the uniqueness of its àperat1onS•.
:o pafed to other sources addressed by tfle CTG. The’ de onstratiofl would
hen show ‘that these unique attributes result in ‘tne.rec end d level of 1.:
:ootrol being slgnllicantl,y less cost—effective tot this source than for’ ’:::
ther. ’s0urCeS..I!.tt is category. TThe use ofS2 1 000 per tonlas a hurdle. ‘‘:Y
fltr1ggers1 aecision cannot be supported • Rather. it Is more ap’pro-
pri att as Lrule of thumb’ based oA emp1rICai..ev1deflCe ‘of what past • ‘:
expert enC has 1nd1c te4 ’ that thehl yPwr end of RACT costs has ‘beest.; for -,
typical sources. There arc sources ann source categories for whlçn costs’-
in eXCeSS of 32 1 000/tOA have been determined ‘tO be reaS0naDle. ,
-. .r c — “ -‘ .“ ,, - — ‘ 1.
.z:- — ; ‘‘- AffordaDlilty - - ‘.,
. — - — — — .. —..- - :- -
‘ We would advise ivoidtng any dec1stor criteria or tests for ‘aIforda’
b1ltty. There is r io basis In economic theory to support rewarding an
inefficient firm to tne netriment of the efficient solely because the
Inefficient firm cannot af ford’ its fair de;re* of control whiCP’ Is.
being Implemented by other compaoles . However. wa recognize that’ Ue to
th .d1srupt1oflflo.d11lOCatIOfl a closure may cause aco un1ty, the Agency.
is occasionally placed In a position of ne ottatSng a suitable alternative,.
to closure.- In hei 1 i of an exem ,t1on the alternative which we would ‘,
the compliance schenule to allow the company,tO ‘.
place itself Into a position to either if ford the controls or to nevelop
and imp1e ient more affordable alternatives. However; a company which
states that it’ oust close the plant 1T. It Is required to comply with the
RAZT requ1re sents must support the allegation If tfle Agency is to provide
reljef to mitigate the potential adverse Impacts of plant.,closurft..
- . - “ . - 4 . . , 4.—’ — I - ‘. •_ - — —‘ - 4 - _. ‘c
- - There- are certain analyses that can be’ performed to evaluate the
Com anfs contention that•c’losure would result from com l1ancé Severa ’t; T.
eXamples ire Included in the attachment. . . “ : - - - -4 4
.:- ‘.• • ‘ . ‘. -. .. - .• ‘ . - “ ‘ •
?... — - —r. - i_ — - — — 4I ’ ._ - , - - — — , • ..
‘ Whet. s’source cannot demonStrate 4 problem, the Agency snould avoid
4 granttng any_relief based on affordability. Where relief is deemed .
appropriate, an economically feasible altern*t%ve wIll need tO be negoti ed
onacase ycasebaS1s. J . •‘ ‘
:, , -. : ‘. -, •-•;_ . . .. ‘ ‘ . .. 7 .‘ .
r ‘ -sr’.’. / .. — ,, •— 4
ese concernS. I:.,reCOc efl you:advlse
Pd d lstrlbote.the Gacua.nt in... .it ;presenL form.
1 ,’.
Dick. Jen ’klrts ’.
-
• ‘ c” • ;“; . :
— - ‘— C .. _ , — — • -4- —
SASO/EAB/JCALC .GNJ 1.1 bIRm9Z8/ NCMu/ lO i2/6295 1OJ6i94S
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
EXAMPLES OF ANP LYSES FOR EVALUATING A CONTENTION OF CLOSURE
Need for Cost Absorption — The ‘company should show with data the
extent it expects to be forced to absorb the costs of control. In many
instances, most of the costs will be passed on in the form of higher prices.
Empirical data on supply and demand elasticities as well as per unit cost
impacts, expected costs incurred by competitors, and available industry
production capacity need to be presented. Thi analysis shows only one
facet of a pr9blern and must be used with other analyses to be meaningful.
Impact on Closure — In assessing closure of an ongoing operation
the company needs to present data regarding its fixed and variable
costs in producing the product affected. If projected revenues do not
exceed the surn’of expected variable costs and annualized costs of the
proposed control equipment, then closure could be a consideration.
Otnerwise., the source is still making a posit ve contribution to covering
fixed charges. Mence, the fi rni is better off operating with the investment
in a control device than not operating at all, and closure wàuld not
normally be indicated.
Capital Formation — A useful indicator of the ability to raise capital
would be the level of capital investment necessary for the’ control equipment
compared to typical recent historical annual investments made by the
firm. If the capital investment for the control equipment is lower
than other recent annual capital investments made by tne firm, then an
argumentthat ufufldS are not available” is not credible. Even if the capital
• requirements are large by historic standards this does not necessarily m ke
it unreasonable. For instance, funds are sometimes available from industrjal
municipal bond issues floated for the express purpose of providing low
cost funds for pollution control.
-------
LJ1SC of what constitutes -derncnstratiort of availability of
co p1yir9 caati•ngs or other types of control.3
Federal Ra tet I Vol. 53. No. 217 J Wednesday, November g. / PDoposed Rules
AppeodizA
The Cean Air Act reqior that S ,
for areas not in atthlnment of the
NAAQS by Au . tst 7. 1977 must proii 1de
for the implementation of RACT as
expeditiously ai prac csbIe. 42 U.S.C
75024b)(2)- EPA has defined RACT. ai-
m. law.st emiulon li 1ta oo that a
partic iisr .dusc. a capable o( meed ig by the
spphcatlun of cnn l technolo ’ that Is
ruscriably aviilable nztd n g
technological and e noa lc feesiabtUty. 44
Fed. Reg 5 7 2 C L I ISepteetber 1?. W7 5).
• Thro igh the issuance of Control
Technique Guidelines (TCGs) EPA he.,
identif Ied poll uant control leveli that
USEPA prnumes to constitute R.ACT for
various categories of sources. Where the
State finds the presumptive norm
applicable to an individual source or
group of sources, the State typically
adopts requirements consistent with the
presumptive norm. However, the
presumptive norm is a recommendation,
and States may develop case•bycase
RACT determinations independently of
EPA’ . iecoinmendaUon. EPA will
approve these RACTdeterInLnaiions as
long as the States shows they will
satisfy the Clear Air Act’s RACT
requirements based on adequate
documentation of the economic nd
technical circumstances of the particWar
sources being regulated.’
In light of these requirements. EPA
will approve an alternative RACr
requirement only if the State
demonstrates that the requirement does
in fact constitute RACT. To make thie
decnonstratlon. the State must show that
‘Moe, apeditcaflj A Ms dcsa bmd MCI sad
the thI bOiII of tha Ste tea as fol ou •
Mcf .ltb Wari a non. só CTG nstom.
______ io the S at wbmt DA flI
the ‘ptuaaip v. norm” f MCT. A s
a vIni orakudos ot tbm apsbWd as bIsmu
i , Iad u . W ,e S’ Made
ibm i pdvu m applksb a ae lndt’ doaJ
‘ .aq o( =.. A 1 ,-’ tbm :
ibm 8ts adopt r,qid,. u wtth ,
bmu’sJle d.r is istha 4 RA .
. •‘.. 0
psb4Ubs and ptvbh.m. irktdt . .i.... .raJ to tbi
iizzy they do a aLe tcto . nt thu en i
•dz *a s of ..cb f.dU* to y s
pru . .4a*i contiot. o t1d be OIOTV
sowent. Stat.. era or ed to ju4 s d’. f..s bfl1iy of
the ra mru rid.4 neoIs on pardc i1*t•
ara sad adt ibm rnroIa e din&y.’
Tbm r m ti ordy tr gwndad .
For shy emu or of l 5%$
. .thr tIw fall .Ithtn the Io uatry r rm. the
Stat ., may du.v,3up y.ci RACT -
rqvIr 1e h depurnde11tly of Ai
. . . . .sn,nditIoo . A wtfl pro Io pp,osi any
. nUt.d RACT Wremani that the Stats ibm’ua
wttl satisfy ibm eaqt rsineltIs of ibm A t for L CT
b... o n th, i omtC and i cwiIcai drmmsts I
o( he perii ad.r ,oor i bstng tegutited. 44 FR
S31 i — 5cpIcmb.v 17. ‘VOl.
in fact the Current SIP requirements do
riot represent R.ACT because pollutIon
control technolo ’ necessary to reach
the req uirementi is not—and is not
expected to be—reasonably available.
EPA will determine whether the State
makes this demonstrations on a case-by-
case basis, taking into account all the
relevant facts and circunistances
concerning each case.
In making these demonstrations, the
State must make reasonable efforts to
determine nd adequately document. the
availability of complying coatings or
other kind . of control, as approprtate.
The State is free to consult irzlorrnaiiy
with EPA to determine whether EPA has
up-to-date information concerning the
availability of particular coatings or-
other kinds of control. If EPA doe. not
have up-to-date inlormatton. the State
must undertake futher efforts.
Examples of these efforts include .
examining information that is or should
be reasonably available to theState..
including wbetber sourcesoperating
theStatethatere lnanindusuy-
comparable to the sourceat lasue (e.g..
within the same CTG category) achieve
compliance with the SIP. by the
approvedcompllance scheduel, by using.
complying coa ngs , or other kinds of
control, that the source cvu1dsdopt 1n
addition. If the State participates in a
formally established. multi-state
pollution control group or commission.
EPA presumes that the State has.
reasonable access to information
concerning whether sources operating in
the other States that are members of the
group or commission use complying
coatings. or other controls. Thus.. the
State m at examine available
information concerning sources in those
other State.. Reasonable efforts by the
State also include seeking information
reasonably available to the source
requesting the SIP revislorL. including.
(or example. contacting suppliers
available to the source to determine (1
they have complying coatings or other
controls: contacting trade associations
to determine if they.know of complying
coatings or other con ols: and
reviewing bade publications containing
information concerning complying
coatings or other controls.
It seem. appropriate for the source to
make a showing that process changes.
such as switching to low solvent
coatings are not available. if low solvent
coatings (or other process changes) 0
meeting the Con trot Technique.
Guideline (CTG}—recoliunended
emission level are shown not to be
feasible lot a partic’.ilar source. then the
source should Identify the lowest level
of volabie organic compound (VOC);
emissions that is available for that
Assuming that ii source has prepare
an adequate showing that abatement
(“add-on’) controls are not feasible. a
example of an action that a source atii
perform to demonstrate to the Stoic th
no complying coating is available wo
be for the company to place two
consecutive advertisement, in each of
three leading paint trade journals (e.g.
1 dustzia! F inishing. Products Finishar
Modern Point and Coaw s. JCT.Joun
of Codtings Tèithno!ogsc American Pa
and Coodngsjournd) and describe th
application and product specifications
fc,u’s low solvent paint which they are
seeking. This advertisement should
solicit paint companies to provide a
VOC product meeting those .
epecifications. The responses Which th
company receives could be provided tc
EPA as proof that this type of product
does or does not exist. The .
advertisement in a Vade )oumal wouk
reach a wide number of paiflt.prodtacei
some of whom may have developed
suitable low VOC products. When
reporting the response to the
advertisement to EPA, the Slate shouk
report the lowest ‘bC cornei ’ ‘ ‘-
that is available for the psrii
even if that coating does not
CTG recommended limli
Another ezample of an approach iii
a metal coatot might use in
demonstrating the unavailability of
complying coatings for a pèrticular
product would be to contact a trade
association which represents a large
number of rnanufacturere of low VOC
costing. (e.g.. the Pqwdet Coating
Institute ), If such an suociatlon
documen a that nons of Its members c
provide a low solvent complying çoati
for this product. then thIs trade
association reply could be used tø sho
that a reasonable effort had been mad
to find e complying product and that
such a product apparently does not
currently exist If. through efforts such
a. those descnbed above, the source.
makes a convincing demonstration tha
complying products are not available i
the industry. State would not be
req aired to thak dupUcetive efforts.
If. after the reasonable efforts
descitbed above are e endad. and th
State 8nds that no c.omplylng coatings
or other controL, as appropriate are
available. EPA Itself may u 1 °
independent aaeessment of
availabUftyo( such ccaticgi
and the compliance status a - -
sources In the same CLG category.
(FR Doc. -2.V’7I Filed j -1-1 &46 amJ
-------
L34 .kr - (3CC I(
-------
I NTRUIJUCT IUrC
On November 24, 1987, EPA proposed it post-1987 ozone and carodn
monoxi’Je policy statement. In that proposaj the Ayency descrioeo a
process to make SIP deficiency TM calls” pursuant to Section 11O(a)(2)(H)
of tne Clean Air Act. Appendix U of tne proposed policy statement
contained a listing of SIP deficiencies and inconsistencies that
snoulu be addressed anu corrected when States respond to such SIP cal s.
The purpose of this document is to provide additional clarification of
tnose areas described in Appendix D in wnicw existing Reasonably Avai laole
Control Technology (RACT) regulations for volatile organic compounds (VOC)
have not been adopted and/or implemented on a nationally consistent Oasis.
This clarification does not expand or modify existing federal regulatory
requirements, but merely ennances Appendix 0 by providing more sped tic
information in cases where past EPA guidance’ or approved rulemaking was
vague or ambiguous. This document does not address issues c’6vered in
Appendix 0 related to new source review regulations.
In tne April 1987 letter from the EPA Administrator to the Governors
of 42 States, EPA announced its intention to undertake a three—part
process in its post—1981 SIP revisions. First, EPA was to review all
‘federally-approved control, commitments in the State implementation plan
to determine whether they have been adopted. Second, EPA was to review
whether these auopted measures are technical ly adequate and meet minimum
national standarus for consistency. Third, EPA was to initiate a coinpre—
hensive program to determine whether adopted measures are being effectively
implemented. This document addresses many of the “Appendix 0 ” problems
uncovered during the second part of this process. Corrections of the
deficiencies described herein provide for a greater degree of equity
and national consistency among all States and localities that receive
post-1987 ozone SIP calls.
Iu 1
4 vô
u ó.
((0 , ‘(.L & , U
(\ )uJt4v ‘ “ )‘ t
iu- L\ue 2 o Y
-------
ISSUES ELATINI.i TO VOL EGULATIUN CUTPUINTS,
DEFICIENCIES AND DEVIATIONS
Executive Sumn ry
Based on Appendix 0 of Federal Register of •Noveniber 24, 1987
1. i ACT eyulation Exemptions--
0 Where EPA has previously specified a regulation size cutoff (in
CIG or other guidance documents—-e.g., model regulation documents,
sucn as EPA—4bJ/2-19—ULJ’1 and EPA—905/2-ld—(JU1), State must incarporace
these cutoffs if their existing regulations are less stringent.
(See Attachment 1)
Where EPA has previously specified 3 to VOC/hr or b lb VOC/daj
cutoff, State may use it on actual emissions basis or use 10 tpy
theoretical potential emissions (design capacity [ or maximum
productionJ and 8760 hr/yr) before ‘dd-on control. Care should oe
taken to make enforceable any reyulations specified on an “actual
emissions basis.
0 Cutoff total determined frdm the sum of individual emission sources
within same CTG category. (Exception: Petroleum marketing --
storage tanks, terminals, and loading racks must oe comoinea.)
0 States may only use higher cutoffs if supported by 5% analysis on
an emissions oasis (snowing tnat no significant emissions ditferential
occurs between EPA guidance and State choice). (See Attachment 2)
Z. Uefinition of 100 tpy non-CTG source——
o Aggregate all unregulated sources (including sources which would
nave been coverea by a CIG if they had been above the EPA—accepted
size cutoff--e.g., <100 tpy graphic arts sources).
0 Base on theoretical potential emissions (design capacity [ or
maximum production] and 8761J nr/y.r) oefore add-on’ control.
•° Cannot merely apply less-than-RACT controls to avoid applicability.
o Can restrict flours of operation by legally and federally enforceable
permit conditions to limit emissions below 100 tpy.
o “Once—in—always—in” concept must apply (i.e., if emissions are
found above cutoff, then State must apply RACT thereafter).
3. Form of Surface Coating Emission Limit Units——
o Regulations snould be expressed as lb VOC/gal or coating (less
water and “exempt” solvents). “Exempt” solvents are those
deterinined by EPA to nave negligible pnotocflemical reactivity.
See VOC definition, page 1-2.
o If “equivalent” add—on controls, transfer efficiency, or emission
trading (cross line averaging) are contemplated, then regulation
should also be expressed as lb VUC/yal of solids (or lb VOC/ib
solids for graphic arts).
0 Alternatively, the regulation can contain a calculation conversion.
procedure to determine compliance. Procedure must be clearly defined,
replicaDle, and consider tne abOve factors. (See Attacnment 3)
o Daily emission caps are desirable but not mandatory unless estab-
lished as part of the SIP control strate jv. They cannot be uSed
in exchange for a relaxation of RACT.
-------
1 —2
4. . Exempt Solvents——
Treat as water i “lb VOC/gai co ir itSS water” calculations.
0 nnot take cr. t in emissions $nventory and attainment
•monstration or new source review for control of exempt solvents.
. .empt only. those solvents determined to have negligible photo—.
chemical reactivity listed in the-five Federal Register
notices (see RECOtI74ENDATION FOR EXEMPT SOLVENTS, page 2—5.)
S. VOC Definition—— -
o Cannot use 0.1 mm Hg vapor pressure cutoff —— inconsistent with EPA
reactivity policy. Such a definition would exempt compounds of
low volatility, which, under cerfain processes, would volatilize
and, therefore, participate in photochemical reactions.
° Model definition: -
“Volatile organic compound (V0C ——Any organic compound which
participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions. : This includes
any organic compound other than the following compounds:
methane, ethane, methyl chloroform (1,1,1—trichioroethane), CFC-113
(tric’hlorotrifluoroethane), methylene chloride, CFC—11
(trichiorofluoromethane), .CFC—12 (dichiorodifluoromethane), CFC—22
(chiorodifluoromethane), FC—23 (trifluoromethane), CFC—114
(dichlor tetrafluoroethane), CFC—115 (chioropentafluoroethane).
These compounds have been determined to have negligible photo—
chemical reactivity. For. purposes of determining compliance with
emission limits, VOC will be measured by the approved test methods.
Where sUch a method also inadvertently measures compounds with
negligible photochemical reactivity, an owner or operator may
exclude these negligibly reactive compounds when determining
compliance with an emissions standard.” . .
6. Corrections for Other VOC Rule Definitions——
o List from Appendix D: (coating, coating line, refinishing, paper
coating, fabric coating, vinyl coating)
o EPA Regions to make SIP calls on State—specific definitional problems
to ensure consistency w.ith CTG’s and to avoid vague and ambiguous
wording.
7. Transfer Efficiency (TE)——
• Where SIP allows credit for TE, SIP must clearly state the
applicable baseline, emission limit,, and test procedure. A
replicable baseline should be no less stringent than standard
industry practice.
• 60% default baseline acceptable for most large appliances, metal
furniture, and miscellaneous metal coating operations; hOwever,
testing for actual TE above 60% default baseline is needed to
determine final compliance.
o 30% default baseline generally acceptable for certain auto coatings:
i.e., surfacer and tap coat waterborne equivalence (i.e., 2.8 lb
• VOC/gal coating, less water at 30Z TE). See page 2—22.
O TE cannot beused as an alternative means of control unless baseline
is specified and test method is approved as part of the SIP.
° Source—specific SIP revision is required unless use of TE is approved
pursuant to generic SIP provision (see discussion, page 2—14).
° Actual TE’s must be used; no NSPS TE table values allowed for final
RACT compliance. . , ,
-------
1 —3
8. Cross—Line Averaging (Bubble)——
0 In cases where a State, prior to the post—1987 SIP call, has
previously granted (without EPA a pproval) cross-line averaginc to
a source, the State must inc1ude the cross—line averaging scheme
for approval as a source—s:ecific SIP revision under the emissions
trading (ET) policy (see 51 FR 43814, 12—4—86). Treat this as a
de facto pending bubble, but only for purposes of the additional
20Z control requirement. V V
o Source—specific revision must meet ET policy on daily weighted
average basis V
0 If approved under generic bubble rule, generic rule must also meet
provisions of ET policy V
V The following situations are examples of cross—line a’ eraging:
(1) The source averages emissions between two or more separate
operations (e.g., auto prime coat and top coat) with the same or
different regulatory limits; and
(2) The source averages emissions between two or more similar V
processes (e.g., separate conveyor lines of similar machines)
with the same or different regulatory limits.
9. Compliance Periods——
° SIP must clearly state compliance period (e.g., hourly, daily) and
averaging method (arithmetic or weighted).
0 Regulation must require compliance on no longer than V
daily basis (generally acceptable).
0 Longer than 24—hr averaging must meet EPA policy (O’Connor memo
1—20—84)
o Compliance date extensions must meet EPA policy (Potter memo
8—7—86)
10. Recordkeeping Requirements——
• Must keep records consistent with compliance time frames——daily
compliance requires daily records V
o Employ most recent EPA recordkeeping guidance (guidance forthcoming).
11. Test ethods——Use most current EPA acceptable methods. All methods
must be specified in the SIP. (See Attachment 4) For autO topcoating
operations, see page 2—22. V
12. Capture Efficiency——
° Specify capture efficiency test method where capture efficiency is
discussed or implied in limit (e.g.. web—coating operations with V
add—on control). V
• Employ most, recent guidance on capture efficiency testing (guidance
forthcoming).
13. Equipment Leak Components—— V
0 Inaccessible valves are required to be monitored at least annually.
0 Unsafe—to—monitor valves are required to be. monitored when conditions
would allow these valves to be monitored safely, e.g., during shutdown.
14. Exemptions, Variances, and Alternative Means of Control——
Generic approval of emission trades is already covered by EPA’s
V emission trading policy statement (51 FR 43814, December 4, 1986).
-------
1—4
All SIP’s must specify whether approv a1 of source—specific exemptions,
variances, and/or alternative means o control shall be accomplished
as a source—specific SIP revision or by a determination of approval by
the State Director (a “generic provision). All such generic determind—
tions and supporting documentation shall.be submitted to the appropriate
Regional Office.
* To be approvable, a provision for generic approval of source—specific
exemptions, variances, and/or alternative means of control must -—
specify appropriate test methOds and other replicable criteria
in accordance with guidance issued--by EPA; AND
require that any source seeking approval of an exemption, variance,
or alternative means of control demonstrates that its control
method achieves emissions reductions equal to or greater than the
emission reductions required by the SIP.
0 Provisions that are intended to be generic (i.e., not requiring case-
by—case EPA approval for the alternative means to be fe eral1y effective)
must meet the general principle of replicability described in EPA’s
• emissions trading policy statement (51 FR 43850, December 4, 1986).
o Federal Reaister notices that approve SIP revisions containing general
provisions that may be construed as generic proceduresshould include
EPA’s “warning” about residual authority to ensure consistent actions
under generic procedures. See page 2—14.
Seasonal controls (other than shutdown of natural gas.afterburners
or use of emulsified asphalt) not allowed
State redesignation to attainment classification must not affect
applicability of regulations. The EPA will approve a redesignation
under 40 CFR Part 81 only if it meets EPA’s redesignation policy.
-------
1 dHAT DOES SIP CALL MEA 1?
(Regarding VOC RACT Rules)
Response to SIP calls will be made in two phases as described below:
FIRST PHASE——LIMITED RESPONSE
(SIP revision due 1 year after work plan is submitted under SIP call)
o No additional regulatory requirements added
o Meet all previously applicable requirements for 1987 extension
areas and 1982 SIP call areas ( 41 Level Playing Field ) (e.g.,
consistent cutoffs, test methods). All such areas must meet
requirements of Groups I, II, and III CTG source categories.
o No additional RACT requirement <100 tpy for contiguous rural county
SECOND PHASE——FULL RESPONSE
(After EPA Publishes Final Ozone/CO Policy)
o New additional requirements possible for additional MSA and new
contiguous (rural) SIP call areas. (May be mandatory or discretionary——
depends upon final policy).
Groups I and II
Group III
> 100 tpy non CTG
0 Newrequirements possible for new isolated rural SIP call areas. Again,
depends upon final policy.
Groups I and II: > 100 tpy coverage only
-------
2—2
CT.G RACT REGULAT ON CUTOFFS/EXEMPTIOUS
0 Recommended cutoffs contained in CTG’s, model regulations, or EPA
• policy memorandums (See Attachment 1)
° For additional CTG categories size cutoffs, see SELECTED COATI !GS
CTG CATEGORY RECOtIMENDED EXEMPTION.LEVEL, page 16.
0 Calculating regulation size cutqffs for CTG sources
Base tpy cutoff an theoretical potential to emit (design capacity
tor maximum production] and 8760 hr/yr) before add—on controls.
Care should be taken to make enfor eab1e any regulations specified
on an ‘actual” emissions basis.
Cutoff total determined from the sum-of individual emission
sources within same CTG category (Exception: petroleum
marketing——storage tanks, terminals and loading racks must
be combined) - - -
Apply RACT if plantwide emissions > cutoff,limit
- •° If caught with emissions > cutoff limit in the future, then
State must apply RACT (“once in, álwaysin”)
•e CIG area sources have no cutoff (e.g., cold cleaner degreasers
and tank trucks)
0 SIP call requires States to assess •their existing VOC regulations ana
address cutoffs in EPA guidance. Exemptions can be granted only by
way of the 5% rule (see Attachment 2)
o In cases where past guidance recommends high cutoff (e.g., 100 tpy),
SIP call should also recommend that State investigate small exemption
levels to prepare foradditionalemission reductions under full response
to SIP call
-------
2—3
DEFINITION OF 100 TPY. NON—CIG SOURCE
Based on theoretical potential to emit (design capacity [ or maximum
production] and 8760 hr/yr) before add—on controls
0 To determine if 100 tpy:
00 aggregate emissions of all nonregulated sources
——include sources which would have been covered by a CTG
if they had been above the EPA—accepted size cutoff——e.g.,
<100 tpy graphic arts sources
——exclude regulated CTG sources
0 If > 100 tpy, ‘evaluate RACT on all unregulated source types in plant
0 Even “status quo”. (RACT—level) emissions must be put in regulation or
federally enforceable permit form to avoid increases (e.g., emission
levels without any additional controls)
o To achieve “below 100 tpy” (and avoid RACT), a State may limit production
or capacity and specify this limitation in a federally enforceable
permit (cannot just apply minimal controls to go below 100 tpy)
° Employ ‘once—in—always—in” concept for applicability
-------
2 —4
FORM OF SURFACE COATING MISSION LIr1IT UNITS
° Recommended form of emission limit——pounds VOC per gallon ccatinc
(less water and 11 e emptu solvents*)
/ 0 Ho ever, if rule r SIP allows:
00 determination of compliance from équivalentu add—on controls,
00 credit for transfer efficiency, or
emissions trades and cross—line averaging
Then rule must have VOC limits expressed as both:
00 pounds VOC •per gallon coating (less water and exempt solvents)
to aid in compliance determination
and
00 pounds VOC per gallon solids (or pounds VOC per pound of solids for
graphic arts)
or.
provide clearly defined, rèplic ble conversion calculation procedure
to obtain equivalent limit (See Attachment 3)
Daily emission caps are desirable, but not mandatory unless they are
established as part of the SIP control strategy. Daily emission caps
cannot be used in exchange for a relaxation of RACT.
*“Exempt” solventsare those determined by EPA to have negligible
photochemical reactivity. See VOC DEFINITION, page 2—6.
-------
2—5
RECOM7IENDATION FOR XEMPT SOLVENTS
°.Check all regulations
° Cannot allow circumvention of EPA reactivity policy based on other
VOC definitions and exemptions
° For calculation purposes, any exempt compounds shall be treated
as water
° Cannot take credit for control of exempt solvents for purposes
of emissions inventory and attainment demonstrations or new source
review
° Exempt solvents are only those identified in the following
Federal Register notices:
42 FR 35314, 7/8/77 (Table 1)
00 42 FR 38931, 8/1/77 (corrects 7/8/77. FR)
°° 44 FR 32042, 6/4/7,9
45 FR 3.2424, 5/16/80 (clarifies 6/4/79 FR)
45 FR 48941, 7/22/80
-------
2—6
VOC DEFIN TION
Cannot use 0.1 mniHg vapor pressure cutoff to define, V0C——inconsi tent
with EPA reactivity policy. Such a definition would exempt compounds
of low volatility, which, under certain processes, would volatilize
and, therefore, would participate inphotochemical reactions. A State
must eliminate this loophole from the SIP.
i 1odel definition:
Any organic compound which participates in atmospheric
photochemical reactions. This includes any organic
compound other than the following compounds: methane, ethane,
methyl chloroform (1;1,1—trichlôroethane), CFC—113
(trichiorotrifluoroethane), methylene chloride, CFC—1l
(trichiorofluoromethane), CFC—12 (dichiorodifluoromethane),
CFC—22 (chi orodi fi uorome thane), FC—23 (tn fi uoromethane),
CFC—114 (dichlorotetrafluoroethane), CFC—115 (chloropenta—
fluoroethane). These compounds have been determined to have
negligible photochemical reactivity. For purposes of determining
compliance with emission limits, VOC will be measured by the
approved tes t methods. Where such a method also inadvertently
measures compounds with negligible photochemical reactivity,
an owner or operator may exclude these negligibly reactive
compounds when determining compliance with an emissions standard.
-------
2—7
CORRECTIONS FOR OTHER ‘IOC RULE DEFINITIONS
° List from proposed ozone policy——
Appendix D
00 coating
coating line
00 refinishing
paper coating
fabric coating
00 vinyl coating
o EPA Regions to make SIP calls on State—specific definitional problems!
to ensure consistency with CTG’s and to avoid vague or ambiguous I c,”,
wording.
-------
2—8
TRANSFER EFFICIENCY (TE)
Where SIP allowscre dit forTE, SIP must clearly state the applicable
baseline based on standard industry practice, emission limit, and fully
replicable* test procedure for transfer efficiency.
o Current guidance: in most cases, can accept use of 60Z transfer
efficiency, as baseline for:
——Large appliances
—— 1etal furniture
——Miscellaneous metal parts
o Testing for actual TE above the 6O default baseline is needed
to determine final compliance
• In most cases accept use of 30% TE as baseline for auto surfacer and
topcoat waterborne equivalence (i.e., 2.8 lb VOC/gal coating less water
at 30% TE) (see page 2—22)
o TE cannot be used as an alternative means of control unless baseline is
specified and test method is approved as part of the SIP
• Source—specific SIP revision is required unless use of TE. is approved
pursuant to generic SIP provision (see discussion on EXEMPTIONS,
VARIANCES, AND ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF CONTROL, •page 2—14)
o Actual TE’s must be used; TE table values (e.g., from NSPS) are
unacceptable for final RACT compliance.
*For a discussion of replicability, see 51 FR 43850, 12/4/86
-------
2—9
CROSS—LINE AVERAGING (BUBBLE)
In cases where a State, prior to the post—1987 SIP call, has previously
granted (without EPA approval) cross—line averaging to a source, the
State must include the cross—line averaging scheme for approval as a
source—specific SIP revision under the emissions trading (ET) policy
(see 51 FR 43814, 12/4/86). Treat this as a de facto pending bubble,
but only for purposes of the additional 20% control requirement..
o Based on daily weighted average
• No credit for downtime; however, credit allowed when there are
enforceable production limits.
o Must be submitted as source—specific SIP revision, unless processed by
the State under an EPA—approved bubble rule. 1ust be consistent with
provisions of EPA ET policy -
o If allowed under EPA—approved generic bubble rule, generic rule rnust
meet EPA ET policy*
o Fix deficiencies in calculation procedures or compliance techniques
associated with generic regulations
o The following situations are examples of cross—line averaging:
•° the source averages emissions between two or more separate
operations (e.g., auto prime coat and top coat) with the same
or different regulatory limits; and
00 the source averages emissions between two or more similar
processes (e.g., separate conveyor lines of similar machines)
with the same or different regulatory limits
*HOTE: SIP call needed for currently approved generic bubble rules
that are inconsistent with EPA ET policy
-------
2-10
COMPLIANCE PERIODS
o SIP must clearly state complianceperiod (e.g , hourly, daily) and
averaging method arithmetic or weighted)
o In general, regulation must require compliance on no longer than a
daily basis’
o Averaging times longer than 24 hours allowed ONLY in accordance
with established EPA policy ‘(O’Connor memo——1/20/84)
o Averaging periods in excess of 24 hours are not allowed ejierically.
Must receive EPA approval as SIP revision
o Reexamine pre—O’Connor memo approvals of > daily averaging to
ensure that RACT levels of control are applied
Compliance date extensions allowed only in accordance with Potter
memo (8/7/86)
-------
2—il
RECORDKEEPIHG RE 1JIREMENTS
o Keep records consistent with compliance time frames——daily
compliance requires daily records
°Record or calculate coating solids use and VOC emitted consistent
4ith compliance time frames
EXAMPLES: gallons of solids per day
pounds of VOC per day
(This allows, for instance, one to calculate compliance with a VOC
limit in terms of lb VOC/gal of solids)
° List amount of diluents and (where relevant to determining compliance)
wash and clean—up solvents
o Document use of EPA test methods or EPA—approved State method in
calculating VOC content of coatings
° Document methods used to calculate volume percent solids content of
coatings
° Separately enforceable provisions must clearly require recordkeeping
° Employ most recent ‘EPA recordkeeping guidance
-------
2—12..
TEST ETRODS AND CA TURE EFF!CrENCY
Use most current VOC test methods (See Attachment 4). For auto topcoating
operations, see page 2—22.
a All methods must be specified in the
a Procedures should allow verification of accuracy. of test data.
° Prescribe capture efficiency test metI ód where capture efficiency
is discussed or implied in limit (e.g., web—coating operations with
add—on control).
a Employ most recent EPA guidance on capture efficiency testing.
-------
EQUIPMENT LEAK C 1PONENTS
° Sources previously exempt from monitoring (e.g, plug and ball valves)
‘subject to SIP requirements
o Inaccessible valves are required to be monitored at least annually.
0 Unsafe—to—monitor valves are required to be monItored when conditions
would allow these valves to be monitored safely e.g., during shutdown.
-------
2-14
EXEMPTIONS, VARIANCES., AND ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF CONTROL
o Generic approval of emission trades is already covered by EPA ’s
emission trading policy statement (51 FR 43814, December 4, 1986).
For information on emissions trading, see page 2—9,.
o All SIP ’s must specify whether approval of source—specific xemptions,
variances, and/or alternative means of control shall be accorr lished
as a source—specific SIP revision or by a determination’ of approval by
the State Director (a “generic provision). All such generic deter-mine—
tion’s and suoporting docurnentation’shall be submitted to the appropriate
Regional Office.
0 To be approvable, a provision for generic approval of source—specific
exemptions, variances, and/or alternative means of control must
specify appropriate test methods and other replicable criteri.a
in accordance with guidance issued by EPA; AND
require that any source ,.seeking approval of an exemption, variance,
or alternative means of control demonstrates that its control
method achieves emissions reductions equal to or greater than the
emission reductions required by.the SIP.
° Provisions that are intended to be generic (i.e., not recuiring’case—
by—case EPA approval for the alternative means to be federally effective)
must rneeX the general principle of replicability described in EPA’s
i s4ons trading policy statement (51FR 43850, December 4, 1986).
o Federal Register notices that approve SIP revisions containing general
provisions that may’ be construed as generic procedures should include
the following ‘statement:
it should be noted that, similar to EPA’s treatment of
generic bubble rules (51 FR 43853, column 3, 12—4—86),
if a State—approved action under a generic rule does
not meet all, the requirements for replicability, it
cannot be considered part of the SIP and by definition
cannot replace prior valid emission limits in the SIP.
Should EPA determine, as a result of its oversight
activities that a State—approved action is inconsistent
with theabove requirements, it will notify the State
andsource in writing and specify any necessary remedial
measures. In such circumstances, EPA may’take appropriate
remedial action to assure attainment and maintenance,
including direct enforcement of the original SIP limits.
° Seasonal controls (other than shutdown of natural gas afterburners
or use of emulsified asphalt) are not allowed.
* State redesignation to attainment classification must not affect
applicability of regulations. The EPA will approve a redesignation
• under 40 CFR Part 81 only if it meets EPA’s redesignation policy.
-------
2—15
ADDiTIONAL CLARIFICATIOtJ BY CTG SOURCE CATEGORY
(For Selected Categories)
-------
2—16
SELECTED COATINGS CTG CATEGORY RECOMMENDED EXEtIPTION LEVEL
Applicable Source Categories:
Can
Metal Coil
Metal Furniture
Magnet Wire
Large Appliance
Miscellaneous t4etal Parts
Flat Wood Paneling
Paper Coating
Fabric Coating
State may use:
10 tpy theoreticalpotential emissions (design capacity [ or maximum
production] and 8760 hrs/yr) before add—on control
3 lb VOC/hr or 15 lb/day actual emissions before add—on control
° To show that there is no significant difference between “State—derived
cutoffs” and EPA guidance, States must apply “5% rule” (See Attachment
2) to allow higher cutoff. Analysis must be based on comparison of:
emissions after control under presumptive cutoff——with
emissions after control under higher cutoff
NOTE : 5% rule applies. to entire source category, not individual
sources. RACT is the test for individual sources.
° Allowc atings usage rate (gal/day) as basis forexemption if shown
equivalent to emission rate exemption (see EPA guidance memo from
• Tom Helms, EPA/OAQPS, to Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I—X, Additional
• Information Concerning Emission Cut—off——3 lbs/hr, 15 lbs/day.
November 4, 1987).
-------
2—17
GASOLINE LOADING TERMINALS
20,000 gal/day——considered terminal
< 20,000 gal/day = bulk plant
° Allow rolling 30—day average to determine applicability——but not.
for determining compliance with emission limit
° Employ “once—in—always—in’ 1 concept for applicability
° CTG limit recommendation——80 mg/i
° Ensure that trucks using terminals pass leak—tight test
-------
2—18
GAS LINE BULK. PLANTS
° Defined as < 20,000 gal/day, throughput
0 Allowed exenipti.on——< 4,000 gal/day throughput
° Recommend CTG control alternative #3 (Submerged fill + vapor
balance——in and out)
° Allow rolling 30—day average for determining applicability——but
not for determining compliance
° Employ nbonce_in_always_inhi concept for applicability
o Recommend tank truck must be certified leak tight at bulk plant
-------
2—19.
LEAKS FROrI PEtROLEUM- REFINERIES
0 Define “leak’s as VOC concentration > 10,000 ppm; ‘/OC concentration
< 10,000 ppm is not a leak
0 No CTG cutoff for. petroleum refinery size
——applies to all refineries
o Recommend consistency with 5OCt11 leak CTG guidance, i.e., valves
located such that monitoring personnel must be elevated 2 meters
above permanent support surfaces or require scaffolding might be
exempt from quarterly monitoring. Annual monitoring still required.
-------
2-aO
MISCELLANEOUS REFINERY SOURCES
Vacuum producing systems, wastewater separators, and process unit
turnarounds
o No CTG cutoffs
o Recommended cutoff——only recovered petroleum products with Reid
vapor pressure 0.5 pounds or greater are covered. Affected sources
are not covered if throughput of these recovered petroleum products
is < 200 gal/day.
°May also wish toconsider NSPS where no cutoff is recommenoed.
Segregated storm water runoff drain systems and non—contact
cooling water systems are exempt.
-------
2—21
SERVICE STATt0US——S AGE I
Regulation can be iritten two ways:
——tank size, or
-—gasoline throughput
° Tank size:
——exempt storage tanks < 550 gal capacity for agricultural use
——exempt < 2,000 gal capacity storagetanks in place before 1/1/79
——exempt < 250 gal capacity storage tanks in place after 12/31/78
° Gasoline throughput:
——exempt < 10,000 gal/mo (120,000 gal/yr) throughput for service stations
——allow rolling 30—day average for applicability, level——but not for
compliance
o Empláy “once—in—always—in” concept for applicability
° Apply 5Z rule for other than 10,000 gal/mo (120,000 gal/yr) exemption
(5% rule applies to the entire source category and not individual
facilities).
-------
• 2-22
AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT DUTY TRUCK COATING
0 EPA autocoating protocol is the preferred method for calculating daily
topcoat emission rate (proto o; forthcoming)
° Topcoat regulation must be amenable to use of EPA autocoating protocol:
00 Emission limit’must be in units of lb VOC/gal of solids
deposited (2.8 lbVOC/gal coating, less water at
30 percent TE translates to lS.Llb VOC/ al solids deposited)
00 Compliance must be calculated on a daily weighted average basis
Topcoat operation must include all spray booths,
flash—off areas and ovens in which topcoat is applied, dried
and cured (excludes, final off—line repair).
0 Emission limit for surfacer (guidecoat) should be expressed in pounds of
VOC per gallon of solids deposited with compliance calculated on a daily
weighted average b sis if transfer efficiency is to be considered in
determining compliance. In these cases, the EPA protocol nay be applicable
for calculating daily surfacer emission rate.
0 The SIP should specify whether anti—chip materials applied to nain body
parts (e.g., rocker panels,’ bottom of doors and fenders,and leading edge
of roof) are ‘treated as surfacer or miscellanedous metal coating.
These anti—chip materials should generally be treated as surfacer,
especially if transfer efficiency is to be considered in compliance
demonstrations. Underbody anti—chip (e.g., underbody plastisol) should
be specified as a miscellaneous metal coating.
0 Coatings other than primer, surfacer,, topcoat and final repair should
generally be considered miscellaneous metal coatings,. (See rnemorandun
from Richard Rhoads, EPA/OAQPS, to Directors, Air and Hazardous flaterials
Division, Regions I—X, Applicability of’ .VOC Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTG’s) to the Automobile.Manufa’cturing Industry. July’31, 1980.)
° No CIG. cutoffs ‘ ‘
Should define exemption level on plantwide basis
°CTG applies only to manufacture of new vehicles
° New and modified sources must also meet new source review requirements,
which may include BACT and LAER.
-------
2—23
CUTBACK OR EMULSIFiED ASPHALT
o Ho CTG cutoffs
o Recommend seasonal exemptions (i.e., outside of ozone season) as opposed
to temperature forecasting (e.g., < 50°-F). (See memorandum from Richard
Rhoacis, EPA/OAQPS, to Air & Hazardous Materials Division Directors,
Regions I—X. Cutback Asphalt—acceptable RACT Regulation. December 19,
1978).
° Specify (1) no higher than 7t oil distillate as maximum allowable solvent
content in emulsified asphalt, as determined by ASfl1 distillation test.
0—244, or (2) allow use of certain grades or applications of emulsified
asphalt ith the following maximum solvent contents as determined by
ASTM 0—244: (a) 3% limit for seal coats used in early spring or late
fall; (b) 3% limit when chip seals used when aggregate is dusty or
dirty; Cc) 8% limit when mixing with open graded aggregate that is not
well washed; and Cd) 12% limit when mixing with dense graded aggregate
(See memorandum from Richard Rhoads to Director, Air & Hazardous 1aterials
Division, Regions I—X, Clarification for Final SIP Actions on Asphalt
Regulations, October 4, 1979)
° Other exemptions for use solely as penetrating prime coat and when
stockpiled for extended periods (longer than 1 month) (See memorandum
from Richard Rhoads to Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division,
Regions I—X, Cutback Asphalt—Acceptable RACI Regulation. December 19,
1978).
-------
• 2 —24
SOLVENT t1ETAi CLEANING
° Exemptions: See CTG for appropriate cutoffs
° No 3 lb/hr, 15 lb/day exemption for small cold cleaner degreasers
(area source). (See n enorandum from Richard Rhoads, EPA/OAOPS, to
Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I—X, Clarification
of Degreasing Regulation Requirecnents , September 7, 1978).
-------
2—25
GRAPHIC ARTS
CTG cutoff < 100 tpy potential emissions (design capacity and 8760 hr
or maximum production) before control
° EPA will accept as an alternative emission limit 0.5 lb VGC/lb solids
on a per line basis. (See memorandum from Darryl Tyler, EPA/CAQPS,
to Director, Air Division, Regions I—X, Alternative Coripliance for
Graphic Arts RACT, September 9, 1987.
o If a source wishes to average emissions across lines, it nust meet
the general provisions of the EPA emissions tradincpolicy.
° Employ ‘once—in—always—in” concept for applicability
-------
ATTACHMENT 4
TEST METHODS OR PROCEDURES
FOR GROUP t, II, AND LII CTG’S
-------
ATTACFII 1ENT I
CTG APPLICABILITY:
CUTOFFS, EXEMPTIONS, AND GENERAL
APPLICABILITY
-------
CTG APPLICABILITY:
CUTOFFS, EXEMPTIONS, AND GENERAL
APPLICABILITY
The EPA has issued control technique guideline (CTG) documents for
30 source categories, two regulatory guideline documents covering 25 of
these 30 source categories, and several policy and other miscellaneous
guidance memoranda. Part of the guidance provided in the CTG ’s, the
two regulatory documents, and the guidance memoranda concerns cutoffs,
exemptions, and other similar guidance on the applicability of the recom-
mended control techniques. This information is sun narized in Tables 1, 2,
and 3 for 29 of the 30 source categories. The CTG for the 3Otr source cate-
gory, Vegetable SOil, was recommended by EPA not to be implemented by the
States until test method uncertainties were resolved, and thus is not included
in these tables. A complete list of references is provided at the end of
these’ tables.
This information represents guidance issued prior to May, 1988. For
categories with cutoffs listed as “None”, no specific guidance on cutoffs has
been issued for this particular category althoàgh a 3 lb/hr or 15 lb/day
general exemption has been discussed in pre—1988 guidance. For current
guidance on cutoffs ‘for categories listed here as “None”, see “Issues Relating
to VOC Regulations. Cutpoints, Oeficiencies, and Deviations - Clarification
to Appendix 0 of November 24,’1987. Federal Register,” May 1988.’
Also, for CTG Groups I and II for nonattainment areas that neither
received an attainment date extension beyond 1982 nor received a notice of
SIP deficiencies (“SIP calls”), States were not required to cover sources
with emissions less than 100 tons per year, even if the CTG or EPA guidance
contained no applicability- size cutoff.
Last Update: 5/16/88
-------
TAIII.i 1. CUTOFFS FOR GROUP I CTG CATEGORIES
Rett rences
(a)Storage tanks with less
than 2,000 gallons
storage capacity (Ref.
2, p. 5-1).
(b)Exemption for bulk
plants with throughputs
of less than 4,000 gals
__j r_d yjRef 3, p. 1) .
(a)Stati r. ry gasoline
storagecontainers of
less than 2,085 lIters
(55t) gallons) capacity
used exclusively for the
fueling of impleiiients of
husbandry, provided the
containers are equipped
with sut nerged 1111
pipes (Ref. 4, p. 29).
(b)<7580 liters (2,000
gallons) capacity
storage tanks in i;lace
before 1/1/19 (Ref. 4,
p. 29).
(c)<948 liters (250 gal-
ions) capacity storage
tanks in place after
12/31/18 (Ref. 4, 1.29).
Cutoffs
‘None
Source
Category
1. Gasoline Loading
Terminals
2. Gasoline 8ulk
- Plants
3. Service Stations-
Stage I
Comments
•Terminals are defined as >76,000 liters (20,000 1
4 Hons)/ y throuhput.
•Bulk plants are defined as <16,001) liters 2, 3
(20,000 gallons)/day throughput.
4, 5
-------
TABLE 1. CUTOFFS FOR GROUr—r TG CATEGORIES (cont inued)
Source - —.
Category Cutof is Comments References
(d)Exemptions for service
station tanks with
throughputs of no more
than 10 .O00 gals/month
or 120,000 gals/year
____ ( Ref. 5, p. 2) . _______ ________ _____________________________
4. Fixed Roof Petro- (a)<150000 liters (40,000 •Does not apply to storage vessels equipped with 6, 1
leum Tanks gallons) storage external floating roofs belcire 1/11)9
capacity of volatile
petrol t’m liquids (grea- Does not apply to horizOntal, underground
ter than l0.5kPa PIP) storage tanks storing JP-4 jet fuel (Ref. 1,
(Ref. 6, p. 6-1). p. 2).
(b)<1. ,600,000 liters
T420 ,000 gallons)
storage capacity of
crude oil and
condensate prior to
lease custody transfer
______— —____ 6, p. 6-2) . __________________________________________
5. Miscellaneous Re—• None for vacuum prodUcing •CTG recommends case-by—case addressing of in- 4, 8
finery Sources systems and process unit stances in which control may not be justified
(Vacuuiis Producing turnarounds. (Ref.8, p. 6-1).
Systems, Wastewater
Separators 1 and •<200 gal/day for waste
Process Unit Turn- water separators (Ref. 4,,
arounds) p. A-68)
6. Cutback Asphal t None (see comment) If a State chooses a 100 ton per year cuto f t, J, tO, I I
the State muSt consider all State, local, and
private use in an area for which the control
strategy demonstration is developed (t ef. 10,.
p. 6).
-------
EARLE 1.’ CUTOFFS F0 GROUP I CTG CATEGORIES (contjnued)
Source
Ca t e gory
6. Cutback Asphalt
(continued)
(a)’ In urban nonattainment
areas, open top vapor:
degreasers with an’
open area of less than
I m 2 from equipment
standards (Ref. 12,
p. .7-4) and, conveyn-
rized degreaser with
less than 2.0 m ,of
air/vapor interface
from requirement of a
major control device
(e.g., carbon adsor-
‘ber) (Ref. 12, p.
3-34).
(b) In rural nonattainiiient
areas, all cold clean-
ers can be exempted
and open top vapor’ or’
conveyorized degreas-
ing operations atone
l)lant location wlwre
emissions are lOU tons
•Use of cutback asphalt is approvable under the
following cIrcumstances: (1) where It can
be demonstrated that long-life stockpiling
,ls necessary, (2) where the asphalt is to he
used solely as a penetrating prinie coat,
(3) months during the-year where temlerattires
do not linger above’ 50°F for periods of time
adequate for emulsified asphalt application
and setting, and (4) where It can he deiiion-
strated that no VOC emissions will occur tro,ii
the use of the cutback (Ref 11, pp. 2,3).
•No size cutoffs from operational standards -‘
•VolatIlity of solvent is used to require grea-
ter control In cold’ cleaners for the same con-
trol techniques (Ref. 12, p. 3—31).
•Operatlng and equipment’ requirement exeinp-
tions for cold cleaners with reiiiote solvent
reservoirs; no other exemptions for cold
cleaners in urban non-attainment areas (Ref.
13, p. 1).
Cutoffs , ‘ . . , ‘es
References
1. Solvent Metal
Cleaning
12, 13, 14
-------
IMILE 1. CUT JFFS FOR GROUP I Cfli (;ATEGORIES (concluded)
or less on a facility—
wide basis based on
annual solvent pur-
chase records can be
exempted (Ref. 14,
p. 1).
10. Fabrics
• None
15
11. Paper
•None
.
15
12. AutomobIle and
Light-Iluty Trucks
•None 0
-
.
15
s
13. Metal Furniture
•None
-
16
14.
Magnet Wire
None 0
.
_____________________________ 17
15. Large. Appliances
None
•Quick
drying
lacquers used to repair scratches
18
and nicks that occur
exempt from meeting
(Ref. 18, p. 1—2).
during assembly are
any emission limits
.
Source
____ Category ____
1. Solvent Metal
Cleaning
(continued)
Cutoffs
Comments
Re fereuces
8. Can Coating
•None
15
9. Metal Coils
-
•None
15
-------
TAB1.E 2. CUTOFFS FOR GROUP II CTG CATEGORIE
Source
Category
1. Leak from Petro-
leum Refineries
•2. Miscellaneous Metal
Parts
3. FlatWood Paneling
Cutoff.s
•Leaks of concentrations
less than or equal to
10,000 ppm (Ref. 19, p.
6-1).
• None
•None
‘<15 lbs/day; for each
vent from reactors,
distillation opera-
tions, crystallizers 1
centrttuges,and vaL
cuum dryers (Ref. 23,
p. 1-5).
- Comment s
‘No cutoff for petroleum refinery size; applies
to all refineries.
•Not intended to affect facilities that recycle
waste oil (Ref. 20, p. 13). ____
•ThIs regulation is not intended to cover sur-
face coating of the following metal parts and
products: (1) automobIle and light-duty
trucks 1 (2) metal cans, (3) flat metal sheets
and strips in the form of rolls or coils,
(4) magnet wire for use In electrical macMn-
ery,. (5) metal furniture, (6) large appli-
ances, (1)exterior of planes 1 (8) automobile
refInishing, (9) customized topcoat ing of
automobiles and trucks, if production is less
than 35 vehicles per day, and (10) exterior of
marine vessels (Ref. 20, pp. 28 and j. _
•Ooes not apply to the manufacture of exterior
siding, tileboard,. or part icleboard’ used as a
- furniture component (Ref. 20, _49) __
‘Recommends cutoffs if case—by-case approach
is not practical (Ref. 23, p. 1-5).
‘Requirement for air dryers and production
equipment exhaust systems differ at 330 lb/
day (Ref. 23, p. 1-6).
‘Does not cover fermentation, extraction of
organic chemicals from vegetable iiiateri al s or
animal tissues, and toriiiula t ion and packa jing
of the_products(Uf.20 j j 1).
Heferences.
19, 2(1
20, 21
20, 22
20, 23
4. Synthesized Pharma-
ceutical Products
-------
TABLE 2. GROUP 11 CTG CATEGORIES (continued)
Source
Category
(a) <150,000 liters
140,000 gallons) of
storage capacity
(Ref. 25, p. 5-1).
(b) <1,600,000 liters
(42O,OO0 gallons)
storage capacity used
to store produced
crude oil and conden-
sate prior to custody
transfer (Ref. 25,
p. 5-3).
•Does not apply to the production of specialty
tires for antique or other vehicles when pro-
duced on an Irregular basis or with short
production runs only if these tires are pro-
duced on equipment separate from normal pro-
duction lines for passenger type tires (Ref.
20, p. 74). —_____________
•Does not apply to fixed roof tanks with or
without Internal floating roofs, or to small
production tanks (Ref. 25, p. 1-2).
•Does not apply to tanks with a metallic-type
shoe seal In a welded tank which has a secon-
dary seal from the top of the shoe seal to the
tank wall or external floating roof tanks
storing waxy, heavy pour crudes (Ref. 25,
p. 5-3).
•Does not apply to petroleum liquid storage
vessels: (1) that contain petroleuiii liquid
with a true vapor pressure of less than 10.5
kPa (1.5 psia), and (2) containing petroleum
liquid with a true vapor pressure less than
27.6 kPA (4.0 psia) that are of welded con-
struction and presently possess d metallic-
type shoe seal , a liquid—mounted foani seal , a
liquid-mounted liquid filled type seal, or
other approved closure device of demonstrated
equivalence (Ref. 20, p. 105).
Cutoffs
None
5. Rubber Tire Nig.
6. External Floating
Roof Petroleum
Tanks
Comments - References
20, 24
20, 25
-------
6. External Floating
Roof Petroleum
- Tanks (continuedL
7. Graphic Arts
8. Perchioroethylene
Dry Cleaning
9. Gasoline Tank
Trucks and Vapor
- Collect Ion
System Leaks
TABLE 2. CUTOFFS FOR GROUP It CTG CATEGORIES (concluded)
= Source
Category
Cutoffs
‘<100 tons/yr (Ref. 20,
p. 91).
Comments References
‘Does not apply to horizontal underground
storage tanks storingJP-4 jet fuel (Ref. 25,
. 2.1
None
20,
• None
26
•Adsorbers are not required where there is
inadequate space to accommodate them or
where there Is no way to desorb theni. Other
hardships maybe found to exclude plants
from using adsorbers (Ref. 27, p. 1-4).
•Adsorbers are also not required at coin -
operated facilities (Ref. 20, p. 118).
20, 21
•The affected facilities are (1) gasolin’e tank
trucks that are equipped for vapor col lect ion,
and (2) the vapor collection systems at bulk
terminals, bulk plants, and service stations
that are equipped with vapor balance and/or
vapor processing systems (Ref. p _
2H
-------
TABLE 3. CUTOFFS FOR GROUP III CTG CATEGORIES
‘ApproxImately 1,000 tons
of light liquid and
gaseous VOC processed
(see comment).
‘Does not apply to petro-
leum solvent dry cleaning
facilities that consume
less than 123,000 liters
(32,500 gallons) of
petroleum solvent
annually (Ref. 31,
E-2). -
•Faciiities having a total
resources effectiveness
(TRE) Index value greater
than one (1) would not be
required to meet RACT
(a)Leaks with VOC concen-
trations less than
l0 ,00() ppm
‘Provides guidelines to States to calculate
uncontrolled emission rates below whichRACT
may be unreasonable and States could conshler
the exemption, of plants with uncontrolled
emissions at or below these emission levels.
( Ref. 29, p. 4-1 ). —____
‘Small process units may be exempted from•
Implementing routine leak detection and repair
programs on the basis of cost effectiveness
for these small units (Ref-. 30, p. 4-1).
•Process units processing only heavy liquid
VOC or processing only non-VOC and equipment
operating under vacuum may also be exempted
( Ref. 30, p. 4-1) . _______________
•Does not apply to equipment operating under
vacuum and to equipment in heavy I iquid
service (Ref. 33, p. 4-2).
Source
Category
1. Polymer Manu-
factu ring
Cutoffs Comments References
2. SOCMI and Polymer
Mfg. Equipment
Leaks
‘Leaks of concentrations
less than 10,000 ppm
(Ref.’ 30, p. 1-2).
29 -
30
3. Large Petroleum
Dry Cleaners
4. Air Oxidation
Processes - 50CM!
S. Equipment Leaks
troni Natural Gas!
Gasoline Processing
Plants
32
33
-------
TABLE 3. CUTOFFS FOR GROUP III CTG CATEGORIES (concluded)
Source
Category
5. Equipment Leaks
from Natural Gas/
Gasoline Processing
Plants (continued)
Cutoffs
(b)States may consider
exempting non-complex
- gas plants that have
design throughputs of
less than 10 mIllion
scfd (Ref. 33, p.
3-22)
(c)RACT shoul.d apply
only to equipment
containing or contac-
ting a process stream
with a VOC concentra-
tion of 1.0 percent
by weight or more
(Ref. 33, p. 4-2).
Comments References
•Does not apply to wet gas service reciproca-
ting compressors that do not have a VOC
control devIce (Ref. 33, p. 4-2).
-------
1-2
I d t) I i L ((1 liflt. I iiuetl )
It: s I Ml. ii u us uu III )CI tuiits: S i R 1 U01 1 1’ I 1:1 L S
I ntIii try
Hulk Ti nuinaIs
Cr C ’
I)o c iiint n I Niiish e I
LI’A -4!’0/2-//-ti2b
A 1 p 1 %cdhI(
- •O t !°!
A Iti
Ite ioinni iidetl Me I luol ( s ) d iid
fluciiiuient ( s) Cit mu
lest Metlioti
1() (i R 60 .503 ‘lL sL Methods
iuul I rocedures’ , Me I 1 10(15 !SA
25U, 2A. ?t (
iii ii iiiiii:iii
l 4 iy lh
( r leieil l Ii
i;i ‘t
I tk I es t s— —Mon it oi i iuj t)uiri n j
I Idus fI_’l’ ( set, 1 inl I. riwk CI ( )
Vdpur Ha lalice
Systeni 4 l:uiui II )—
iiit flL Spec it lcd—
t 10115 dOll (t 1 r
LI liii l ’roi:ediiieS
Itjii 1 iiiiieti I. SIJ( (1 I —
I id 1005 dliii
Operat liiuj Pl O—
ceultir S V ipor
U;i I nlice Sy t.t i i 4
1_tIll l 1 1 1 1(?Iit I iispe(: t lOll,
(:F( j )I). 6—8
I t ’.tk 1 .‘s t . — —Mon I Lou I siij Our I n .j
lr tnsI er (see taiik truok C i(s)
I• ixe i-ltotil lanks
lIl ’A-450/2- 1/ Ott)
lull I IHlItiIl I i’ (4 —
I(.dt tolls iiuI
Mu liii eiid uite
I(u tIlI I I’(’lIlt llL
lii tt iui i I
I I hut. 1(111 Itini I
Clh l)I).62
Th
U I I s
Hulk Plants
Service Stattons--Sta je I
IPA-4’ ,ll/2- /1-HiS
l)i±s ltjli C I ’ ltt ’ Il i
Document (DCII)
NI I S
I SiSIt
I qul pinent IIISpCC t Ion
DID l ’I ’ . i—i)
I Tests——Monitor inuj Our iiuij
I Idnster (see tank truck (:1 t )
Ad — 1)11
IetIir ,ti ?5, ‘iii t:iit Pt,i 10
-------
ATIACIIF4LNT.. TO MLMJ FROM DARRYL TYLER, LPA/OAQPS, SEPi LMBER 14, 1984
Table I
TEST METHODS OR PROCEDURES FUR GROUP I CTGS
Recoiiiiiiended Method(s) and Uocuiiient
CTG Applicable Document(s) Citing May Be
Industry —______________ Document Number Control Options Test Method ____ Ordered From
Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabric, and EPA-4 50/2-71- 0O8 Low solvent MetHod 24, 40 CFR Part 60
Autoiiiobi les and Light-Duty coat i-rigs G P O 1
Trucks
Add-on 1 Method 25, 40 CFR Part 60 or GPO /
methods in “Measurement 01
Volatile Organic Compounds,”
- EPA 450/2-78-041 NTISa?
Metal Furniture EPA-45 0/2-7/- 032 Low solvent (CTG pp.5-i to 5-b) £111 52
coatings Method 24, 40 CFR Part 60 GPO 7
Add-on’ Me hod 25, 4Q CFR Part 60 or GPO ’
methods in “Measurement ot
Volatile Organic Compounds,”
EPA 450/2-78-041 NTIS 2
Magnetic Wire Coating EPA-45U/2-/1-033 Add-on 1 Method 25, 40 CFX Part bU or
methods in “Measurement of:
Volatile Organic Compounds,”
EPA 4s0/2-78-U41
Large Appliance LPJ -4bU/’2-17-O34 Low solvent (CT(i pp. 5-i to 5-4) NT IY
coatings Method 24, 40 CFR Part bu - GPO 7
Add-on 1 Method 25, 40 CFR Part 6u or G P O /
methods in “Measurement ut ’
Volatile Orydnic Compounds,”
EPA 4’jU/2-ld-U41 FI S2
-------
I i’) I — i liii) i I (tUft. iiiiit .I)
1 i s r t i: i i Ufl)S on iuoct: UI mi: s loin (UOtlP I (:1 oiS
- Uecoininentletl tie ttiot l( s ) a nil
c II . A 1 t 1 i i: iI I Ihctiiiient (s ) (:1 t_ intj ii.iy Iti
ui!t Ions test Method — . . . !4h!v 1 It
Pet ro I etins Net Inter I i ’s
Vacuiin Protluc ln j Syst ns • Waste— EPA—450/2- /1-025 Various L(IIIiI iIent o: F; $). 6-2 NIl Y
water Separators and Process Spec ii icat. ions anti
On t Iii rita inunti. Oii era t I n.j Proc edo res
LCu thack A jitia I t I: PA—450/2— / /—Ui, Water [ 11111 I s I on I) I rec t Ohs er -va I Ion by
Inspector
i s t n 5(1 i vent A S I M U I sill I at ion A I M
Content IcS I it-244
LPA—4 5O/2—//-O? Etlu Ij iient Spec i— C 1t pp. 3—31, 3—33, 3—35, NI IS
I ICat 141 1 15 autO and i— I ‘to 1—/
(iperat Iui .j Pru—
ce.I ulrt?s
Add—on Ca rh ui t)ra I I lest Met hod
Atisorher
-------
I I. S I II I I III )I)S lIlt I uI:I.I)Lll I. S I t)It 1 1 1W1 1$’ II l I
Pu I ru I L IMI Ue t nury Fu j it lye
huisslons (Lt aks
Siu lace c& tL ln Miscellaneous
Mut. a I I’a r t s and Products
A 1 1 1 4 1 lCd )) I
cnu-fl!
I: 1A—450/2— i)t—Oib Insiiict ion Monitor—
iiuj M t i IlI1t lIdIlCL ’
[ PA— 45(4/2 — 1H—l) 15 low So I vinl
(:at Ifl(jS
- —on
Mt t)iul 25,. Au u;il 1 1 ir I ( I I )
Factory Stir -laCe Coat iiiu of
Flatwood Panel in j
Pitainiaceut ICa I Maitu I acture
[ PA-4’M/2— /U I)2 UJ
Mi mt t•na l lce atitl
O wrat in t l
(CFG iiii. 1—2)
N I I
fliihhtir I Ire Moiiutacture
(‘ raph c Arts ltuto jra ure and
F I exoyraphy
EPA- 45(1/2- 1uJ—U iU
LPA-450/2- /U-l)33
Add—on I
Add-on’
I ow So I vent ink
ll 1 4Jl 1 Sot i Is Inks
ML thOd 25’, ‘ID CFIt Part 61)
M 1 1Iuod 25, 40 CFIt Part 61)
M tluod 24 , 40 CI It Pait 61)
Add—u ii I
M, tIiinl 2’), 41) Cl-It Pa it 61) l ,I IJ’
I: x l. rIIa i t i tiiij Itool lank s
I PA—ISU/2— Itt—tM 1
Ii S ))I C I. I (ill lid hit i —
I’ M n it ni• i nij
(.I(i pp. 5—I to 5—4
II II “
AI)CYL I an liuj I •srh Io,oethy I
I PA— 4’III/?— Jul (i’ll)
0 Ja1 I. lufi aiitl
Ma I I II 4:Il IlI(t
Add—usi u:a till_Ill
AiI .urI t h Ill
C 16 sip. 6—1 to 1)—I
I)s i (I. I t S t l•I t IiiiI ? 3
r I I ‘ ‘
1 )/\I)
- (: 16
I)oc IIIIIUII I. tlIlIllI)t r
Itibcoilllulendl I Mel Iiod( s ) and
I)octiiaient ( ) Cit lri j
lest Method
M 4 t .hud 21, 40 cI:It Part 60
I PA- 450/2- 10-032
Ihi (.441 1 14 I
li.4y 16
l1ilI 4 l ty4I
NIl Y’
( I’(I /
(C 16 I I’. 6—1)
( II Hi ttl()tI 24, 40
t:I:It I l i -I (II)
Low So veiit
Coat in js
(C’ 16
or
I II ). S—I)
Mi 1hod 24,
41)
Cl-It
. it II Y
I irt 61) 6I’U .
Add—on 1
Met ItotI 25,
40 CFU
Par I
61)
6 1>() /
-------
I 1—2 IdI)II ? (coiit irw4 .I)
1£ S F MIII lullS V flU I ItL)Ci I)llU IS I flU (ilffltII II C I S
V Utcoiiuneflk iI M 1lu I( ) dfll
C I Ap 1 I IcdI I t)ot;tiiii nL ( s ) C i i ii’ j V M. y I t t ,
_N!!I!! Opt !° V •V ! ! . ! ?1 — — VVV .:VV. — !‘ ‘! ! I
(;dstsl isu lank Trucks lJ’A—4’U/2— / I—tP I Prt. sstirt —VdcutIII ML•iIwd 2/, 4(1 ci’u b(l, or V
VI t ( • V(; Alihenlix U
In s tc t ion , Mon I — C I ii —A 1 e iitl I x It — I k It, S I.
io u iinj , M d IlILtffldnC( I or Mon I iou intj l)iir IOJ
I oail In j V Nil S”
-------
[ tI I t 3. Mt tIuJLIS or Prcdiii’t s toi Iiit’ti I I I C I(
Ui,c. iniut inlt. l M ( (u l ( s ) d Od 14iy (t.
C IG Ap bI Icah Uociiiiu n t (5) C t suoj
industry I)ocurneri tNuniher C ! t!o! (11)1. Ions Ft ,t Met hod -
Iar je Pet ro letun
Uty C I eaiun’s EPA— 45t 1/3—02—l)09 0pt rat ion and C i , Append ix U N Ii Si?
Maintenance
Add—on 40 CUR Part (dl,
• Method 25 ( W I ) 1
Natural G s/ osoHne
Procet s in j Plants £PA —4 5 0/3—8i—OtI/ Inspt cL ion ‘10 CI U Part Id).
Moiiltorin j N tIiod 21
Ma intenance
SOt:MI it lye EPA- 450/ 3-Oi-OU( I nspec t io u 4(1 C i U Part bO,
l4onItO rIntj Method 21
11a lilt t’nai%Ct
ManutdCtUIc ot
IIiIjh I)en lty Poly-
ethylene Polyiirnpy—
I ene (URI Po I y s Lyrene U PA —450/3—03 —(11)0 Add — on - 40 C I U Pa it I 1)
MethOd Ill. ?5, or
25A
As di)I rOi)1idI t
VOL Stora je C IG not issued tIS ol 9/ 1/O’I
SOCHI Air Ox Idat on C1( not I 5 .IIC4I dS oF 9/ I/ (I 1
-------
REFERENCES
1. Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truc , .’Gasoline Loading Terminals.
EPA—450/2—77—026. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Stanaar s. October 1977. OAQPS No. 1.2-082.
2. Cont ol of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline Plants.
EPA-45O/2—77-035. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. December 1977. OAQPS No. 1.2-085.
3. Correspondence. W. C. Barber, Director, OAQPS, EPA, to Hon. L. udger,
House of Representatives. November 13, 1978.
4. Regulatory Guidance for Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
from 15 Categories of Stationary Sources. EPA—905/2—78—OO1. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region V. Air an Hazardous Materials
Division. April 1978.
5. Memorandum. Richard G. Rhoads, Director, CPOD, EPA, to Director, Air and
Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I—X.. Evaluation of 10,000 gals/month
Throughput Exemptions for Petroleum Marketing Operations. August 17, 1979.
6. Control of Volatile OrganicEmissions from Storage of Petroleum Liquids
in Fixed—Roof Tanks. EPA—450/2—77—036. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards. December 1977.
OAQPS No. 1.2-089.
7. Memorandum. B. Polgiase, Technical Guidance Section, EPA, to G. T. Helms,
Chief, Control Programs Operation Branch, EPA. Applicability of Fuel
Storage Regulations to JP—4 Jet Fuel. December 23, 1981.
8. Control of Refinery Vacuuth Producing Systems, Wastewater.Separators
and Process Unit Turnarôunds. EPA—45O/2 77—025. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
October 1977. OAQPS No. 1.2—081.
9. Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Use of Cutback Asphalt.
EPA-450/2—77—037. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards. December 1977. OAQPS No. 1.2-090.
10. Memorandum. R. G. Rhoads, Director, CPOD, ‘EPA, ‘to Director, Air and
Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X. Cutback Asphalt ‘lOG Regulat’iois.
March 6, 1979.
11. Memorandum. R. G. Rhoads, Director, CPOO, EPA, to Director, Air and
Hazardous Materials Oivision, Regions t—X. ‘ Cutback Asphalt - Acceptable
RACT Regulation. December 19, 197•8.
12. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning.
EPA—450/2—77—022. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards. November 1977
-------
13. Memorandum. R. G. Rhoads, Director, CPDD, EPA, to 0irector, ir and
Hazardous Materials Division, egions.. 1-X. Exemption for Cold Cleaner
Degrea.sers. ‘July 2’, 1980.
iLl. Memorandum. R. G. Rho’ads, Director, CPOD,. EPA, to Director, Air’and
Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, tII-X, and Director, Environ-
mental Programs Division, Region II. Clarification of Degreasing Regu-
lation Requirements. September 7, 1978.
15./ Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources
- Volume II: Surface Coating, of Cans-, Coils, Pape r, Fabrics, Aütomo-
biles, and Light-Duty Trucks. EPA—450/2—77—008. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Qffice of Air Quality Planning and Stanaaras. May
1977. OAQPS No. .1.2-073.
16. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions-from Existing Stationary’Sources
— Volume II I: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture. EPA—450/2-77-032.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Decenter 1977. OAQPS No.. 1.2-086.
17. Control of Volatil.e Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources
— Volume IV: Surface Coating for Insulation of Magnet Wire. EPA-450/
2-77-033. U.S. Environmental Protection ‘Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Decenter 1977. OAQPS No. 1.2-087.
18. Control of Volatile Organic ‘Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources
— Volume V: Surface Coating of Large Appliances. EPA 450/2-77-034.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Planning and Standards.
DecefTber 1977. OAQPS No. 1.2-088.
19. Control of Volatil’e Organic Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment.
EPA 450/2—78—036. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards. June 1978. OAQPS No. 1.2-i’ll.
20. Guidance to State and Local Agencies in Preparing Regulations to Control
Volatile Organic Compounds from Ten Stationary Source Categories.
EPA—450/2—79—004, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. September 1979.
21. Control of Volatile Organic Emission’s from Existing Stationary Sources-
Volume VI:. Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Parts and Products. EPA-
450/2-78—015. ‘U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. June 1978. QPS No. 1.2—101.
22. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources-
Volume VI I: ‘Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Panel ng. EPA—450/2-
78—032. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. June 1978. OAQPS No. 1.2—112.
23. Control of Volatile Organic EmissiOns from Manufacture of Synthesized
Pharmaceutical Products. EPA-450/2-78—029. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. December 1978.
OAQPS No. 1.2—105. , ‘ ‘
-------
24. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Pneumatic
Rubber Tires. EPA—450/2-78-030. U.S. Environmental ?rotection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planningand Standards. December 1978. ;JAQPS
No. 1.2-106.
25. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid Storage in
External Floating Roof Tanks. EPA—450/2-78-047. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Decemoer
1978. OAQPS No. 1.2-116.
26. Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Existing Stationary Sources-
Volume Vilt: Graphic Arts - Rotogravure and Flexography. EPA—450/2—
78-033. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Oecen er 1978. OAQPS No., 1.2-109.
27. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions frornPerchloroethylene Dry Cleaning
Systems: EPA—450/2.-78—050. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards. December 1978. OAQPS No. 1.2-117.
28. Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Gasoline Tank Trucks
and Vapor Collection Systems. EPA—450/2-78—051. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning ana Standaras. December
1978. OAQPS No. 1.2-119.
29. Control, of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Manufacture of
ftigh—Oensity Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins.
EPA-450/3—83-008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. November 1983.
30. Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemi-
cal and Polymer Manufacturing Equipment. EPA—450f3-83-006. U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
March 1984..
31. Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Large Petroleum Dry
Cleaners. EPA—450/3—82-009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. September 1982.
32. Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Air Oxidation
Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry. -EPA-
450/3—84—015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. DEcen er 1984.
33. Control of Volatile Organic Compound Equipment Leaks from Natural
Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants. EPA—450/3—83—007. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Oecember 1983.
-------
ATTACHNENT 2
EXAMPLE 5Z RULE CALCULATION
-------
EXAMPLE OF AN APPLICATION OF THE 5 PERCENT EQUIVALE :CY RULE
State ‘X’ was in theprocess of developing volatile organic compound
(VOC) reculatjons for the ‘Metal Furniture” control technique guideline
(CTG) ca:egory.
An analysis of’their emission inventory for their ozone nonattainment
area disclosed the following with regards to metal furniture plant
potential emissions.
(81% Overall Control Efficiency)
Plant
Plant
P.1 ant
Plant
Plant
Post Control.,
( CTG Allowable )
“ “
“C”
Pre—con trol
(Potential
)
100 t/yr
300 t/yr
18.5 t/yr
80 t/yr
90 t/yr
Post Control
(St. Rec. Allowable)
19.-
57
t/yr
t/yr
19
57
t/yr
t/yr
3.5
15.2
17.1
tlyr
t/yr
t/yr
18.5
15.2
17.1
t/yr
t/yr
t/yr
Total 588.5 t/yr . 111.8 t/yr 126.8 t/yr
The cutpoint.recommended by EPA for the metal furniture source.
category was a VOC emissions level of 10 tons per year potential. The
State was considering a cutpoint of 25 tons per year potential in order
to provide relief to Plant “C”. rt was intended to show that with a 25
ton/yr cutoff, allowable emissions would be within 5 percent of potential
emissions by applying a 10 ton/yr cutoff.
An evaluation of, the various plant potential emissions (assuming 90%
capture efficiency and 90% control) indicated that post control (CTG)
allowable VOC emissions (with a 10 ton per year cutoff) would be 111.8
tons/yr.
Post control allowable VOC emissions (with the State’s recommended
25 ton per year cutoff) would be 126.8 tons/yr.
The difference in post control allowable emissions from the metal
furniture source category would be 126.8 — 111.8 = 15.0 tons/yr.
‘ 15
111.8 x 100 13.4 percent
Therefore, ‘allowable emissions with a 25 tons per year cutoff would
not be within 5 percent of allowable emissions with a 10 ton per year cutoff;
thus, the 25 ton/yr cutoff would not be acceptable.
-------
ATTACHMENT 3
VOC CONVERSION CALCULATIONS: COATINGS
-------
VOC CONVERSION CALCUlATIONS:
• COATINGS
OZONE ANO CO PROGRAMS BRANCH
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING & STANDARDS
FEBRUARY, 1988
-------
COMPARISON OF VOC REGULATION FORMATS
#VOC/GAL COATING vs #VOC/GAL SOLIDS
EXAMPLE CONVERSION
CIVEN: (‘V’ .O ./ivo /GAL COATING (LEss WATER)
— —7.36 IIVOC/GAL
COATING TO———#VOC/GAL SOLIDS
STEP #1 —— WHAT’S VOLUME OF VOC IN 1 GAL OF COATING?
3.O11VOC 1GAL VOC = 0.408 GAL VOC
CAL COAT 7.3611 VOC GAL COATING
STEP #2—— WHAT’S THE VOL OF SOLIDS IN 1 GAL COATING?
1 CAL COATING —VOL VOC = VOL SOLIDS
1 — 0.408 = 0.592 GAL SOLIDS
STEP#3—— HOW MANY CAL 0F COATING DOES IT TAKE TO GET
A CAL OF SOLIDS ? (INVERSE OF STEP #2)
1 GAL COAT = 1.689 GAL COATING
0.592 CAL SOLIDS CAL SOLIDS
STEP//4—— CONVERT 3.011 vOc/cAL COATING TO #VOC/GAL SOLIDS
3.0 VOC * 1.689 CAL COAT = 5.0711 VOC
GAL COAT CAL SOLIDS CAL SOLIDS
‘.‘: ( ‘t j\I 5.C VOC/CAI.. SOLIDS
. - ...-.-.- I GT.HF
I 2/1/8w -
-------
COMPARISON OF VOC REGULATION FORMATS
#VOC/GAL COATING vs #VOC/GAL SOLIDS
35—---------
30
/
25 /
20 FOR DENSITY=7.36#
- N
0 /
Cl ) 15
10 7”
0 5
o
0 - —- • . i I ii 4 i I II L1 LI
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
#V0C/GAL OF COATING (LESS WATER)
[ ZONE/ COORANCH
I G.T. HELLIS
[ 12/24/87
rILGM- .L 17
-------
GT -i
P .OGRAM TO COVVERT #VOC/3AL OF COATING TO
VOC/GAL SOLIDS & VQC/# OLIDS
VOC/OAL COATING #VOC/GAL SOLIDS #VOC/ SOLIDS
1. 1.2 C. i
1.2 i. o. i
1. 4 1.7 :. 1
1. 2. C o. t
L .a 7 4• :. i
2. ) 2.7 0.2
-, .., - I ‘-- -,
- .— ... .L.
I —. -
4.0 0.2.
4.8 4.5 0.3
3.0 5. i 0.3
5.7 0.4
2.4 .3 0.4
7.0 0.4
• 3.8 7.9 0.5
4.’ ) 8.8
4. 9.8
4.4 10.9 0.7
4.â 12.2. 0.8
4.8 1.8 0.9
5.0 15. 1.0
5.5 41.8 1.4
C 1.. 1
5.7 25.3
-I—
5•9 29 7 1.9.
4.2.5
— .
2.9.2. • 2.5
- 4.7 • 2.7
4.1 7.1
• . . -
.4.7
35 4
• • -• -•. 14. I
- •.•_; .
ASSIJiIEE 100 DE ’—JSITY = 7..2 #V0C/GAL
SOLIDS DENSITY = 1á. ) *./GAL
-------
PROGRAM TO CONVERT #VOC/GAL OF COATING TO
4VOC/GAL 3OLIDS . < #VQC/#SOLIDS”: LPS :NT: LPF.INT
#VOC/GAL COATING #VOC!GAL SOLIDS VOC/#SOLIDS1
. REM FF:OGF:AM CALLED ‘SOLIDCALCULATE’
EM PF:OGRAM TO CALCULATE VOC • ‘ aLIcS
_FRINT
‘:s s GTH:L
1 LF’RINT”
17 LFF:INT
2’: LFRINT
:: LFRINT ____________
: LPRINT
FOR x=i To STEP .2
i : :’ y=x/7. C
: :• : z=i—
1 • -
• ?
‘ 75
477
478
50()
1
1 )O
1 2 ) )
1
p 1_ )
t i= 1. / Z
ANS = x *W
LBSOL=ANS/ 16
F:EM LFRINT USING FORMAT PRINTS OUT ANSWERS WITH ONE DICIMAL PLACE
—REM ALSO SKIPS SPACES PER ALL THE ##****#***###8
REM SEE PAGE 7-197 OF OW—EASIC MANUAL
LPRINT USING “#*#*$*$#***$**. #“; X:ANS:LESOL
NEXTX
FOR X= .5 TO 7. á STEP . 1
Y=X/7. :;
z=1—Y
W=1iZ
ANS=X*W
REM DENSITY OF SOLIDS IS 1 VOC/GAL
LESOL=ANS/14!
LFSINT USING “*************#. *‘ ; X:ANS:L SOL
NEXT X
LPRINT:LFRINT:LFRINT
I I
15 : ’) LFRINT:LESINT
19 0 LFRINT”
ASSUMES VOC DENSITY = 7. 6 *VOC/GAL’
SOLIDS DENSITY = 16.0 #/GAL”
-------
Footnoti. s
I Add—on: Inc litei it Ion, cdrluln SorI ers • rt,I r Iip ’rat kin • ret r ) p?rdt 1wt/cthIli)re S it) I/dl)S0rpt Oi l • e l i:
• Uriit r Ry iIOCIHIU’.flt iIla lIher f bill 1III N .i I I O1 d I h.u.his Ic a Iii I uriii., Li iiii Sir V i’ , 2tl5 P01 t. Uijya I HUa.I
Spr isiyt lelil , VA 2 Ib I (nc ninal Ice ri tItl I led).
3. Order ir ti U.S. PA , Oil ice of A i r ( ua I I Ly I’I ann nj and St dniIard , I in ss ion t a,iilariis and E n j I iiee r ntj D l v u on
Ch n ical and i t roleun flranch , Ma I I t)ro i 1 3, i esea rc Ii Ir I iifl j I e i’a rk • H. C 2 1 /I I . 0ocuini n I lit I e “I)es i jii Ci I
SLa je I Va ior Control Systems Gasut inc Service Sta1ioiis ’, Uuvt.iuI r I’JJS.
4. Visual inspection except tot leaks.
5. VIsual inspection on 1 y.
6. Order I rt n : U.S. L1 A , Or lice of Al r (Jud Ii ty P I aim I iu j and St anda rd , lii is’; u no Mc dSiiniuciiL Dr aud I Ma I I Drip I’J
itesearci’ Jr i ntj e Park • N. C. 211 LI Method lit I e : “Method 23— —Deteriii ln.tI I no of ha I Oijefla lid Dcijaui Ii s I mm Si it. i ouci
Sources,” jirOpOSciI 4 FIt 39)66k June I I. I9U I.
I Order I i4 n Super intendent of Ductwient S , U.S. Goveinmiment Pr lot I nsj UI I ice • Wash lujion • U. C . 204112, ihc IIIIW 1II. I.
Code ot I. der I lte u I at ions , 41) CFIt Protect I on of En v 1 ronmen I • Part. s t 1) to UI ). “ .
lest iiic I hod cii ric a 11 y not inc 1 toted 1,1 411 C F It Pa ii hO.
-------
an± J rSeS f. r Sta: r3ry ::•R
• p2en 1x A.
1iC an /a cc : r ’ierses. cr Sta oiar SYJr:2S : :rna 3: .c
-------
ATTACHMENT 5
LNDEX TO EPA GUIDANCE MEMORANDUMS AND POLICIES
-------
INDEX
Recar Tended Policy on Control
of Volatile Organic Ca cunds
Recarmended Policy on Control
of Volatile Organic Cc1!pounds, Correction
Attair nt/Nonattai nrrent — Staths Designations
Iiicleit ntat ion of RACE on Hydrocarbon
Stationary Sources
Criteria for Approval’ of 1979 SIP Revisions
Exai 1e nstration of Attairirrent for
• Photoche dcal Oxidants -
Stage I Vapor Recovery — Bulk Plants
Devel rrent of Regulations for HC RACT fran
Crc’s -
Criteria for Prcpceing Approval of Revision
to Plans for Nonattainnent Areas
Regulations for HC Sources Covered b 1 ’ CI’Gs
Application of RACT to Point Sciirces of \
in Rural Areas
Vapor Recovery Regulations Required to Meet
RACT Requirenents for the 1979 SIP
Internal Offsets for MC i’ Categories
Procedures for Measuring Volatile Or nic
Cczrça.inth
Raquir ent for VOC RACT Regulations in all
Oxidant Nonattainnent Areas
Clarification of Attair Tent,k1onattairxTent
Eva1i ation Q.iidance -
Oxidant Standard
Clarification of EPA Policy on E issio of
Methyl Chlorofo n
Clarification of Degreasing Regulation
Requir ients
Continuity of SIP Regulations
1. 7/08/77
2. 8/01/77
3. 1/03/78
4. 2/02/78
5. 2/24/78
6. 3/1 /78
7. 4/03/78
8. 4/28/78
9. 5/19/78
10. 6/05/78
11. 6/13/78
12. 6/30/78
13. 7/03/78
14. 7/10/78
15. 8/04/78
16. 8/16/78
17. 8/23/78
18. 8/24/78
19. 9/07/78
42 F?. 35313
42 FR 38931
Hawkins
Hawkins
Adnii nistrator
Rhoads
Barber
Barber
43 FR 21673
He lire
Nel igan
Rhoads
Hawkins
Rhoads
Hawkins
Rhoads
Hawkins
Barber
Rhoads
20. 9/11/78
Hawkins
-------
21. 9/1217s Categorical C p1jance Schedules for \OC Sources Rasnic
22. 9/29(78 z r Reccverj P etir jestionS
23. 10/06(78 Canu nts kito Industry Pr sals Rhoads
24. 10/l2/78 t. cIassjfjed Counties with ,Significant OC Hawkins
int So .rce Eri issic* S
25. 10/26/78 one Transçort Values for SIP Revisions Barber
26. 10/26/78 finition of Volatile Organic Ccxrx .inds
27. 10/27(78 Oxidant Standard ‘è,r1c Group P etir g on 10/19(78 irn
28. 1]J03/78 b1ati1e Organic C ’çc .znds issia s Inventory Barber
29. 11/03/78 Categorica1 Ca p1iance Schedule for \ DC So.irces Barber
30. 11/09/78 Clarification of Parer Coatir finition for Rhoads <
‘VtC Sources
31. 11/13(78 I aste Dis sa1 Regulations for ‘ X Calcagni
32. 11/13/78 Clarification of RFP for Oxidant Control Barber
Strategies
33. 11/16/78 \blatile Organic C uç und issions Reductions Barber
at Q1
34. 11/21(78 RACE ( . tions for Can Coatin C erations Rhoads
35. 12/07/7 Selection of Ox t sign Value Rhoads
36. 12/19/78 Qitbad Asphalt — Acceptable R. I Regulation Rhoads
37. 12/20/78 Availability of End Seal Coiçounds for Can He1ir
Ma rufactizir C erationS
38. 12/21/78 Reasonable Further Praress Requirenents for 3a’ es
Areas with Difficult Oxidant Probleris
39. 12/22./78 Request for Res nse to Pr osed C p1iance }btrnan
Sd edules ‘ the New En 1and States for
Coordinated Air Use Mar ag ent (N SC L}I)
40. 12/29/78 ffiD and NSR SIP Revision a rnittals Hd an
4L 1/16/79 Continuity of SIP Regulations — Revised Hawkins
Enc lcsure
42. 1/16/79 P w England States for Coordinated Air Use
Managerent (N CAL 1) Ca’ 1iance Proram for VEX
Sourc s
43. 1/25(79 Consistency in \ JC Regulations Helps
-------
44. 2/21/79 tecitination of ReductTions Necessary to Attain R oads
the Ozone Standard
45. 3/06/79 ?egulation of Methyl 1orofcr (1., 1, 1, Barber
Tricbo1or thane) and Methyl Chloride.
46. 3/06/79 Oit ad Asphalt ‘siC Pegulations Rhoads
47. 3/15/79 O estions and Ms ers a \VC Regulations Poiglase
48 4/04/79 State Ir’çleientation Plans; General Preathle 44 FR 20372
for Pro sed Ru1 klrç on ?çproval of Plan
Revisions for Nonattaiwent Areas
49. 4/13/79 Fabric Coatir nission Lirtits
50. . Rhoad.s
Paper Coat ing ission. Liini ts
_—
52. 5/04/79 ed for Di ission Offsets in ral 03 Non— Rhoads
attain Teflt Areas
53. 5/16/79 Need for Riral E nission Offset in pproved Rhoads
State Plans
54. 5/18/79 D’ p1e *ntatiai of RFP Requira’ients P. rher
55. 5/21/79 aft Larçw ge — Prew 1 .es for SIP Prcçosals . Rhoads
and pprova1s
56. 5/24179 Evaluation of B)C for an Aut rcbile Ass nbly Rhoads
Priri* c eration
57. 5/25/79 athii ission of State Air Pez nits as SIP Revisions Rhoads
58. 6/04/79 . Air O ality; Clarification of hency Policy 44 FR 32042
Con rnir O ne SIP Revisions and Solvent
Reactivi ties
59. 6/15/79. Baseline Transfer Efficiency for Spray. Applica— lsh
tia of ater—b3rne Auta t ive Coati n
60. 6/20/79 Pbdificatior to Re twendatioc for Solvent
Metal Cleaning
61. 7/03/79 Ap riate Transfer Efficiency for ‘ terborne Phoa s
Equiva lence
62. 8/17/79 Evaluation of 10,000 gals/lTonth thraigtu it Rhoads
Exer tions for Tetroleu t Merketirç ( rations
63. 8/17/79 5% tercnstration Rhoads
-------
4Ctfl
8/22/79 State Thtplrentation Plans/R evised Schedules Hawking
for Submitting Reasonably 4 Avai1ab1 Cont o1 Tech—
nology Regulation for Stationary Soirces of XC
65. 8/28/79 SIP; ceneralP’reathle for Prç osed R.i1emakir 44 FR 50371
on Pç oval of Plan Retsions for bnattain7Tent
Areas-Supp lenent
66. 9/19/79 Srrezy of State Ifrtpletentation Plan tTJC 1giase/
Regulations Calcagrii
67. 10/04/79 Clarification for Final SIP Actions on Asphalt Ritads
Regulations
68, 1) 115/79 1R)C t st Metioth of Pro ures Rhoads
69. 12/12/79 &enptions for t greasers Rhoads
‘ 70, 12/21/79 \OC’Pegu lations Ississ
71. 1/03/80 \OC RegulatiOns Issues HeThs
72, 1/28/80 State and Regional Agencies Continue to Make Salman
Sericcs Errors in Calculatirç Equivalence with
the M Recarurerdations for Surface Coatirx
73. 3/20/80 ! ëw FUgitive 1tjdrocar ns nissions Factors for Rhoads
Petróletr Refineries and Petrochemical Plants
74 , 4/18/80 ftplicabillty of MX &nissions Giidelines: Giac ne
General Pk3tors Corroration, brth Tarrytawn
Msrbly Plant
75. 4/25/80 Canpliance Schedules for La.s Solvent technology RhOads
Progrars of the Graphic Arts CIG Cat ozy
76. 4/30/80 tatter to N.Y. CCC . Thariaceutical CI Willirs
77. 5/05/80 Procedure to CaloJlate Equivalency with the C7C Rhoads
Recatrendations for Surface Coating
78. 5/16/80 Solimnt Reactivitles 45 FR 32424
79. 6/16/80 1ine Tart Tnack RegulAtions Rhoais
80. 7/02/80 bceiiption for Cold Ceaner greasers
81. 7/07/80 tetnination of Captixe ficiency Perry
82 7/18/80 ‘tatter to Texas Oil Marketers Association Rhoads
83. 7/21/80 Cilajiation of Evaporation Loss fran External hillirs
Floating R,of Tanks
84. 7/22/80 5oj .qnt Reactivities List Mditiors 45 FR 48941
-------
)LL, .J.
85. 7/23/80 Letter to NCSCAIJM on Taric Trucks Barber
86. 7/30/80 leaks fro Ga 1ine lark Trucks Heis s
87. 7/31/80 A plicabi1ity of ‘V C Control Tedinique Glide— Rhoads
lines (CT s) to the Auta bile Mar .ifactt ing
Industry
(8/04/8o pplicabi1ityofPa rcoatirç , Fabric Coating, Heii 7
89. 8/08/80 Req .est for Confin ation of the finition of
a 100 Thn so ce as pp1ied to Controls in the
Gasoline Storage and tlarketirç Q ain
90. 8/22/80 The Use of Pemnit Conditions to Cefine ten— Rhoads
tia1to it -
91. 8/25/80 Fabric Printing Cefinition Berry
92. 8/28/80 Iss s Concerning VrX RACE II Regulations Heirs
Ceveloprent
93. 9/03/80 Miscellaneois Metal Parts and Pr iucts CI Hè)sns
FMssion Limits for Coating of Shipping Pails
and Drums
94. 10/17/80 Equivalency Calcilat ions with the CIU Recap— Rhoads
rendat ions for Surface Coating
95. 10/24/80 Set II MJC Regulation ?çproval Hawkins
96. 10/28/80 Standards of Rerformance for Ne Stationary 45 FR 71537
Soiz s: aphic Arts In stry; P 1ication
t ravure Printing; Pr osed le and Notice
of Public Hearing
97. 1)120/80 1e of Iinpro zed Transfer Efficiency in i cn— Rhoeds
strating Ca’ipliance with the C’IG Reccv ndations
for 9.irf ace Coating
98. 1)120/80 ? pr riate Transfer Efficiencies for Metal oads
Ft rnittre and Large çpliance Coating
99. 1)120/80 Ca p1iance with ‘.UC ission Limitations for Hawkins
• Can Coating O rationS
100. 1)125/80 )ç z ,a1 and Pro’ u1 tion of I”çlenentation 45 FR 78121
Plans; Revis i Ceadline for Sub’ issicn of V
RACE I gu1ations for Set II CIG
10]. 11/28/80 Pppr riate Transfer Efficiencies for Metal He.ii
Furnit e and Large p1iance coating
102. 12/01/80 Revised Seasonal Afterburner ! 1icy Barber
-------
103. 12/02/80 1e Thtpr ied Trar fer Efficienc ’J in He lrris
• cnstrating Ca p1iance with the CIG Recc”-
rrendations for Surface Coating
104. 12/02/80 Ccet Effectiveness for RACI .— Application to
Leaks fran tro1eun Refinery Equiprent
105. 12/02/80 RACI for Specialty Printing erations Rhoads
106. 12/03/80. Set II )C Regulations Appr a1 Rhoads
107. 12/03/80 Canpliance with ‘JX Bnission L initationS for Hawkins
Can Coating Oçerations
108. 12/24/80 RA /U tenninations for Casket Coaters He1j r s
109. 12/30/80 w Nonettairr nt signations . Rhoads
110. 1116/81 . P’Sodel Inc x for Ozone SIPs . . . . Calcagni
111. 1/22/81 SIPs, ?p a1 of 82 Ozone Plan for Extension 46 FR 7182
Areas Final F 1icy
112. 1/28/81 Letter to !u1*oeh1er Concerning Coating Barber
Specifications
113. 1/28/81 Federal Paint Specifications Vis-A—Vis CTG Barber
114. 2/03/81 Part D Conditional Approvals — Prioritizing I ijns
Conditions .
115. 2/06/81 Storage Tar Va r Balance Requirenents at Tyler
Synthesized Tharmaceutical Products P rufacture
Facilities
116. 3/13/81 Applicability of Fuel Stór e Regulations to T ierk
JP—4JetFue l .
117. 3/24/81 Test, Methods for the Set I and Set II Q G Tuerk
Source Categories.
.118.. 4/03/8 ]. Clarification of I .)C Test Method Requirements Tuerk
119. 4/06/81 cC rest Methods or Procedures for a.ip I and Tuerk
oipII.CT
120. 4/17/81 • Internal Surface Coating a bb1e for ode Island Willians
121. 4/23/81 iteria for Reviewing State ‘RJC B hh1e • Tuerk
Regulations
122. 4/24/81 Letter to Massp rt on Jet Fuel &irr
123. 4/29/81 N S, Petroletun Liquid Storaje \ sse1s —. 46 FR 23984
uiva1ency terTn3 nation. ..
-------
‘C CI
124. 4/30/81 Status of 1982 Ozone SIP 1 ta Base Rhoads
125. 5/06/81 Cost Effectiveness of Gasoline Tank Truck Tyler
Certification Pr rati
126. 7/2.1/81 State of Michigan St e I Service Station 5%
termination
127. 7/24/81 Tank Truck Certification rkshcp Follori u p Njthojs
128. 7/24/81 ‘Results of the Regional 9.irvey of Studies
Related to PACT Beyond the CICs Heljre
129. 8/07/81 brkir Gra. p Meetin — Review of 111(d) Ojide- Goodwin
lines to Control Trichioroethylene, Rerch1oroett ’—
lene, 111 Trichloroethane Methyl Oüoride and
Trichlorotri—flourcethane fran Existing Organic
Solvent Cleaners
130. 8/11/81 Aer o1 Can Mainting Qap Sealant Caiçounds Helms
131. 8/14/81 p1icabi1ity of the Pliscellaneajs Metal Parts Helm s
C G to the Coating of ectra’ tive Parts
132. 9/11/81 Review of PA Gra p II ‘OC Regulations 1glase/Ld11i r
133. 9/22/81 & azy of Gra.ap I and II iUC PACT Regulations Nicholson
134. 9/22/81 Review of Final Graip II ‘.(.)C Regulations for lg1ase/Wi1lia
Messachusetts
135. 9/24/81 S.zinn ry of Graip I ‘IOC Regulations vi11i&ns
136. 10/20/81 Ca!Ipliance Schedules for Auto Msa’ b1y 46 FR 51366
Paint Shcps
137. 10/26/81 ‘ JC Regulations for the 1982 SIP He1m
138. 11/04/81 Status of State Action on Graip III and. F 1g1ase
Beyond Source Categories
139. 11/06/81 licy on the Use of Conditional Pç rova1s nnett
(I aft)
140. 11/09/81 New Procedures for Review of State Impleienta— Bennett
tioii Plans
141. 11/30/81 Review of Plan Revisions by the Office of Bennett
Manage’ent and d t
142. 12/11/81 licy on the Use of Conditional p o ra1s Bennett
143. 12/14/81 S.zraiery of Tank Truck Certification Tests 1g1ase
144. 12/14/81’ Letter to George Payne ‘on Can Mar afacturing Barber
-------
8 GI
145. 2/09/82
146. 2/12/82
147. 3/19/82
• cce-tability of Ok1aha’ a’s r onstrauon Con—
cer- -ç the Surface Coating of Misce]JànecuS
Meti Parts and Products -
Ac ptabi1ity of Qk1aP via’s nstratiOn Con-
cerning the Surface Coating of MiscellaneclIS
P’etal Parts and Products
Approual and Proiiu1 tion of plenentation
Plans; San Francisco Ray Area Air Basin tbn
attairment Area Plan (Boiler—Plate for UQC,od:
causeu)
San Francisco P nattain ent Plan
Clean Air Act Restriction Applying to SIP
Revisions D e 7/1/82
F2A issions Trading Polity
JCs fra i Rakeries
Prime Coating at Chrysler Assa’ b1y Plant
fquivalency with the Perchioroethylene Dry
Cleaning CTG RACI’ PecaiuTernlations
Clarification of Me’io ted May 6, 1981 Truck
Certification r rai’
1icy on Exoess D’ issions D.3rirç Startui’,
R utdcwn, Maintenance, and Malfu ctions
- Errata 9 eet for Petxo1eu” Dry Cleaners
A1l b1e Tark Truck te ina1 E nission Lii tits
Peviewi of Illinois Groip II ‘ UC Th.1les
Draft RACE terminations
• Peyno1 Metals — ‘iX B bh1e with Long—Then
D’dssicns Averaging
Averaging Tiu* -. ‘ C uiva1ence
Caupliance Calculations
( aphic Arts, — 100 TP btentia1 Exe’çticn
O idance r Non-CIG RAC1’ teDninations
Bode Cover Coating -
Tark Truck Hatch Covers
47 FR 11866
47 FR 11866
Pe rry-O
Spink
Carb
Tyler
Hes
Helms
F 11T S
Helms
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
3/19/82
3/25/82
4/08/82
4/19/82
6/18/82
8/27/82
154. 9/07/82
155. 9/28/82
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
11/01/82
1/17/83
3/04/83
4/04/83
4/15/83
161. 4/21/83
162 . 5/10/83
163. - 5/17/83
164. 6/03/83
165. 6/06/83
Bannett
Fa ner
1glase
% .11iai s/Po1gla
Wi l]ians
P lg].ase
1g1ase
Helms
1g1ase
Calcagni
166 6/28/83
Letter to i the’ ical on Exeñçt Solvents
•He1
-------
167. 6/29/83 c1usion of Exenpt Solvents Fro ‘ .UC Ca1c
lations -
168. 7/05/83 Reynolds t’etal Bubble Helms
169. 9/14/83 Aflo”ahle Thnk Truck Terminal th ission Liiidts-— Poiglase
Update of 1/17/83 MeiTc
170. 9/19/83 lest Methods for Ga 1ine Bulk Terminals McLaugh ljn
171. 10/12/83 Averaging T ines for Coi p1iance Tyler
172. 19/20/83 Pddition of Dilution Solvents to Printing Inks Polgiase
173. 10/24/83 Solvent Reactivities Federal Register’
174. 10/31/83 Averaging Times for Canp1ian with ‘.OC Tyler
emission Limits
175. 12/05/83 Meeting Report on Long—Term Averaing for OC Ibiglase
So zces
176. 1/20/84 Averaging Tijies for Ca’ p1iance with ‘.OC ission O’Connor
Limits——SIP Revision Policy
177. 1J27/84 Violations of Record Keeping Pro ,isions in SS
? proved SIPs
178. 2/29/84 aft Xo Report for &irface Coating Poiglase
Calculations
179. 3/06/84 OC £quivalency Calculations — Clarification Tyler
of Require nts
180. 3/08/84 Letter to Liliquist on Flexible Padcaging Cannon
181. 3/15/84 Reynolds and ‘estvaco Plant Pr osed Helms
Ozone SIP Revisions
182. 4/16/84 Letter on ‘ IC extend tç1iance dates Rothblátt
183. 5/7/84 lbpcoating and Printy of Urethane Fabric Helms
and Sheets
184. 5/7/84 ccluslcn of Vir ,1 Plastisl Iran He l a
‘ Canpliance Calculations
185. 5/21/84 Confirmation that ‘ C Regulations Tyler
are required for C’IG III
186. 6/19/84 Regional szvey — ‘ C fluivalency Polgiase
Calculations
187. 6/25/84 Confirmation of finition of 100TPY
Sc ce
-------
r
Applicability of CTG III
Federally Enforceable Re nits
for 100 I?Y non CrG soizces
‘SOC data sheet for suppliers
of paints arid coatin
1icy __
(Fran 19 Issue Resolution Process I
?‘Eticc to establish daily violations fran
annual \ C u.ce data
‘VOC test meth th or xocedures for Groip I ,
II, and III CTCs
Connecticut- ‘OC issues
Cannents on ‘VOC clarification re
Connecticut ‘ OC issues
Clarification of C1 RACT Reo nn ndation for
H igh— n.s i ty 1 ethylene, polyprqylene,
and polystyrene
Stadc height in facilities using air stripping
for groi.u d ter cleaning
Response concerning ‘ ICC clarification
Biission limits for coating of shipping pails
•anddrt
Consideration of Organi ls in ‘VUC çliance
Calculations
Printing on Unsupported Vir ’l Filni Covered
t,’ CrG
Results c f May 3 ‘CC P eting _____
(Fran 19 VCZ Issue Resolution Process)
Graphic Arts — Md-On Control Systens 1ton
Fabric Coating — Dip ar 1 Impregnator Coating Gru çler
206. 8/27/85 Classification of Benzene as a ‘ )C’ Tyler_—...
- -- —--- -- ———-------------- -- —- --
8/29/85 iapar CoatingACrnetion hnSO J
208. 12/16/85 Baseline Time Reriod for ‘VUC Transfer Efficien— He]srts
cy edits
188. 6/25/84
189. 7/30/84
190. 8/28/84
191. 8/29/84
192. 9/11/84
193. 9/14/84
194.
195.
196.
197.
11/07/84
12/06/84
12/21/84
1/09/85
198. 2/04/85
Tyler
Hejjns
‘i Son
Rasnic
Beriy
Tyler
Itirphy
}fagg
Helms
Tyler
Cannon
Tyler
Peljrs
th ison
Crt ipler
SScD
199.
200.
2/11/85
4/02/85
201. 4/23/85
202. 4/23/8 5
203. 5/20/85
204. 7/22/85
205. 8/15/85
-------
4 Q9. 1/17/86 I s s *3(e) and $5 of the \tJC Issue Price
Resolution Process: Establishir Proof of
‘. VC nissions Violations, and Bjbbles in
Consent crees Resolving Civil Actions
Thder Section 113(b) of the Clean Air Act
(Fran 19 VCC Issue Resolution Process)
210. 1/31/86 Responses to T io \ 3C O.)esticns Raised by SSCD
Regional Offices
(Fran 19 VC Issue Resolution Process)
211. 2/28/86 Responses to Fa.zr ‘siC Issues Raised by Ditison
the Regional Offices and partnent of
Justice
(Fran 19 ‘ C Issue Resolution Process)
212. 4/11/86 Responses to Five OC L sues Raised by the Enison
Regional Offices and part ’ent of Justice
(Frai’ 19 ‘ .)C Issue Resolution Process)
213. 5/01/86 cenption of Negligibly Photothei ically Tyler
Reactive Ca ounc ‘ the State of So.ath
C rolina
214. 5/16/86 Compliance %iith ‘SOC Enission U nitations E )nison
for C n Coatirç C erations
(Froit 19 ¶.VC Issue Resolution Process)
215. 5/22/86 cenption of Negligibly otod enica1ly Tyler
Reactive Co ’çounds by the State of Saith
ro1ina,
216. 8/04/86 Misuse by industry of Cost and Cost fec— Berry
tiveness as a Ibol to Avoid Can ,1iance with
F wirc rrbenta1 Regulations
217. 8/07/86 1icy on the Availability of L —So1vent I tter
Techno1o ’ Schedules in Clean Air Act
‘Fz force’ nt Actions
218. 8/07/86 licy on SIP Revisions Requestir Compliance tter
L*te E ens inns f V Soirces
219. 9/22/86 Reactivity of Acetylene - Hathaway
220. 10/07/86 D O Directive on \VC Canpliance Hitte
221. 10/30/86 Inclusion of Clear uu Solvents in te ninirq Helne
pp1icabi1ity to t e 100—bi Rer rear t n-C1’G
Requir nuents
-------
• 222. 11/21/86 Early Ca 1iance and Stip4ated Penalties in asnic/A1.. s
\ t Enforcenent Cases
223. 1/20/87 te ,iiination of Econanic Feasibility Hem’s
224. 3/16/87 November 21, 1986 Menoran xn Titled “Early Hitte
CaTç1i’an and Stipulated Penalties in
C Enforcen’snt Cases”
225. 4/17/87 finition of He1r s
226. 6/25/87 nission O2t-Off for Control chniaues Hem’s
• Guidelines — Volatile Organic CaTpamd
Sairces
227. 7/21/87 finition of Volatile ‘Organic CaTpczlnds Rel s
(\ C ‘s)
228. 9/09/87 Alternative CaTpliance for Graphic Arts Tyler”
RAcr
229. 11/04/87 Additional Infor tion Con rning. tdssion HeIITE
Q t-Off — 3 lbs/br, 15 lbs/day
-------
C F Updated — 1/13/8
Cross Reference Index by Source Cateoorv
Date of
Cateaorv Memo Oriciriator ,
1) Surface Coating of Cans 11/21/78 Rhoads
12/20/78 Helms
11/20/80 Hawkins
12/03/80 Hawkins
8/11/81 Helms
12/14/81 Barber
5/16/86 ,Emison (19 VOC Iss .
2) Surface Coating of Metal
Coils
3) Surface Coating of. Fabrics 4/13/79 Helms
8/04/80 Helms
8/25/80 Berry
12/02/80 Rhoads
8/05/85 Crumpler
4) Surface Coating of Paper 11/09/78 Rhoads
Products 5/13/79 Helms
8/04/80 Helms
8/29/8 5 Johnson
5) Surface Coating of Auto- 10/06/78 Rhoads
mobiles 11/16/78 Barber
5/24/79 Rhoads
4/18/80 Giaccone
7/18/80 Giaccone
7/31/80 Rhoads
10/20/81 46 FR 51386
6/18/82 Tyler
6) Surface Coating of Metal 11/2 /80 Rhoads
Furniture 11/28/80 Helms
7) Surface Coating of Magnet
Wire
8) Surface Coating of Large 11/20/80 Rhoads
Appliances 11/28/80 Helms
9) Gasoline Terminals 8/08/80 Helms
8/22/80 Rhoads
9/14/83 Poiglase
10) Gasoline Bulk Plants 9/14/83 Poiglase
11) Stage I Vapor Recovery 7/21/81 Helms
Roof Tanks
-------
CGF
Cross Reference Ifldex by Source Catecorv Cog. 2 )
Date of
Cateaorv ‘ Memo Originator
12) Gasoline Storage in, Fixed 8/08/80 Helms
Roof Tanks
13) Petroleum Refinery Process 3/20/80 Rhoads
14) Cutback Asphalt 12/19/78 Rhoads
3/06/79 Rhoads
10/04/79 Rhoads
15) Solvent Metal Degreasing 9/07/78 Rhoads
12/12/79 Rhoads
7/02/80. Rhoads
16) Surface Coating of Miscel— 8/04/80 Helms
1aneou Metal Parts and 9/03/80 Helms
Products 1/28/81 Barber
8/14/81 Helms
2/09/82 Helms
2/12/82 Helms
4/02/85 Helms
17) Flatwood Paneling
18) Pharmaceutical 4/30/80 Giaccone
8/04/80 Helms
2/06/81 Tyler
3/13/81 Tuerk
19) Pneumatic Rubber Tire
20) Vegetable Oil
21) Graphic Arts 4/25/80 Rhoads
8/04/80 Helms
10/28/80 Federal Register
5/10/83 Poiglase
7/22/8 5 Dalton
9/09/87 Tyler
22) Dry Cleaning 8/04/80 Helms
8/07/81 Helms
8/27/82 Helms
11/01/82 Farmer
10/24/83 Federal Register
23) Leaks at Petroleum 12/02/80 Helms
Refineries
-------
Cross Reference Index by Sour e Catecorv (DC; 3 )
Date of
Cateaorv Memo Oricinator
24) External Floating Roof 8/08/80 Helms
Tanks 3/13/81 Tuerk
4/29/81 Federal Register
25) Gasoline Tank Trucks 6/16/80 Rhoads
7/18/80 Rhoads
7/21/80 Williams
7/30/80 Helms
5/06/81 Tyler
7/24/81 Nicholson
12/14/81 Poiglase
9/07/82 Helms
6/06/83 Calcagni
9/19/83 McL 1 augh lin
26) Bubbling•- 5/01/79 Rhoads
7/15/79 Walsh
4/17/81 williams
4/29/81 Tuerk
4/08/82 Spink
4/15/83 Helms
7/05/83 Helms
10/12/83 Tyler
10/31/83 Tyler
12/05/83 Polgiase
1/20/84 O’Connor
3/09/84 Tyler
1/22/86 Price (19VOC IssuE
2/28/86 Emison (19 VOC IssL
27) Solids Applied/Transfer 6/15/79 Walsh
Efficiency 7/03/79 Rhoads
1/28/80 Salman
5/05/80 Rhoads
8/04/80 Helms
10/17/80 Rhoads
11/20/80 Rhoads
12/02/80 Helms
2/26/81 Salman
3/04/83 Wil liams/Polglase
6/29/83 Helms
2/29/84 Polgiase
3/06/84 Tyler
12/16/85 Helms
4/11/86 Emison (19 VOC Iss
-------
C F --
C css Refe ence Ir.dex by
So%. rce Catecory (ac. 4)
Date of
Memo
7/08 /7-7
8 /2 4/7 8
3/06/79
6/04/79
7/22/80
2 26/8i.
6/2 8/8 3
6/29/83
10/24/83
5/0 1/8 6
5/22/8 6
9/2 2/8 6
Oriainato
Federal
Barber
Bar be r
Federal
Federal
Salman
Helms
He]. ins
Federal
Tyler
Tyler
Hathaway
29) Capture Efficiency
7/0 7/8 3
Berry
30) Test Methods
31) Beyond Set I and II CTG
11/15/79
- 3/24/81
4/03/81
4/06/81
(4/11/86
7/24/81
11/04/81
12/30/81
8/29/8 4
1/31/86
6/25/87
11/4/87.
Rhoads
Tuerk
Tuerk
Tuerk
Emison (19 VOC Issu
He lins
Polgiase -
Helms,
Rasnic (19 VOC
SSCD (19 VOC Is es
Helms
Helms
32) 111(d)’
33) Definition of YOC
8/07/8 1
10/26/78
8/27/85
4/17/87
7/21/87
Goodwin
Helms
Tyler
Helms
Helms
34)- RFP
35) 5% Rule
12/21/78
8/17/79
James
Rhoads
36) Long Term Averaging
37) Jet Fuel
10/31/83
12/05/83
1/20/8 4
3/06/84
3/13/81
4/21/81
4/2 4/8 1
-Tyler
Po lglase
o ‘Connor
Tyler
Tuerk
Poiglase
Burr
38) Dilution Solvents
Cat e aorv
28) Exempt Solvents
Register
Register
Register
Register
10/20/8 3
‘30/86
Berry
He 1 ins
-------
Cross Reference Index by Source Category (pg. 5) ,
Date of
Cateaory Memo Originator
39) Definition of 100 9/07/79 Rhoads
Ton—Per—Year 8/08/80 He1r s
8/22/80 Rhoads
5/10/83 Poiglase
6/25/84 Helms
2/28/86 ison (19 VOC Iss
4/11/8.6 E ison (19 VOC Iss ’
40) CTG III 5/21/84 Tyler
41) Afterburners 12/01/80 Barber
2/28/86 Emison (19 VOC Issu
42) Non—CTG Bakeries 4/19/82 Carb
43) High bensity Polyethylene, 1/09/86 Tyler
Polypropylene, and Poly-
styrene
44) Surface Coating of Vinyl— 4/23/86 Crumpler
coated Fabric or Vinyl
Sheets
45) Criteria for Plan Revisions 5/19/78 43 FR 21673
for Nonattainment Areas
46) Low Solvent Technology 8/07/86 Potter
11/21/86 Rasnic/Alushin
3/16/87 Hitte
47) Compliance Date Extension 8/07/86 Potter
48) General VOC Issues 5/20/85 SSCD (19 VOC Issue$
49) Recordkeeping/ 1/17/86 Price (19 VOC IssuE
Reporting 4/11/86 Emison (19 VOC Isst
50) Class Al, A2, and 1/31/86 SSCD (19 VOC Issue:
B ‘JOC sources
51) Baseline Year for VOC 2/28/86 Emison (19 VOC Iss:
Percent Emission Reductions
as pez State SIP Regulations
-------
CC F
Cross Reference Index by Source Catecory (DC. 6 )
52) Type of Coi p1iance Monitor— 4/11/86 Ernison (19 VOC issues
ing when Incineration Is
Used Sporadically
53) Cost Effectiveness of 8/04/86 BeZry
controlling VOC’s
54) Clean up Solvents 10/30/86 He1 ns
-------
ATTACHMENT 6
SUMMARIES OF CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTG’S)
-------
ATTAC1 1ENT 7
EPA PROTOCOL FOR CALCULATING DAILY EMISSION RATE
FOR AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK TOPCOAT OPERATIONS
(TO BE PROVIDED)
-------
ATTACI*IENT 8
APPENDIX D, NOVENBER 24, 1987, FEDERAL REGISTER
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 52. No. 228 / Ttsesday. November 24. 1987 / Notices
45185
Information for p 0 paaed standard;.
EPAè 50/3 .*918 . May 1984.
7 Surface Coating of Plastic rarts
Basise a.t*graund
‘.iaado for Propoesd d 5.
____ December 1985.
8. pi ocbe Y Raactrwe Orgamc
Co d Ernii From Consumer
and ComfliSr& Products. EPA 902/4-.
i , prqured by EPA Region U.
Novetebet 1985.
9. Evaluadofl of a Paint Spray Booth
UWIz g Aa Re&oulation. EPA -600/2-
84-143.
to. 3eneflte of Microprocessor Control
of Curing Ovens for Solvent Based
Coatings. EPA-625/2-84-031 . September
1964.
The EPA Region IV has prepared with
contractor usis ”ct a number of
reports on specific non-Crc sources In
specific atlas. These reports describe
control technology which Is available.
The reports listed below were prepared
byEPARa glonlV.
ii. Volatile Organic Compound -
Control at Specific Sources in Louisville.
Kentucky and Nashville. Tennessee.
EPA-104/9-81-4387, December1981.
This report discusses control
technology for these industries:
Wood Furniture
Aluminum Pnflhiig Mill Lubricant
Control
Fiberglass Reinforced Polyester Boat
Building (Styrene Rinluions)
12. Teithiilcel Suppost in the
Development eta Revised Ozone State
ImplementatIon Plan for Atl ”n &
Georgia. prepared.for EPA Region IV by
Pacific Environmental Services. EPA
Contract No. 68- -3887. August 1985.
This report includes:
Architectural Surface Coating
Automobile ReRniihi’ig
Commercial/Consumer Solvent Us.
Fuel Combustion
Gasoline Volatility
Aircraft Emissions
Degreasing
Lawn and Garden Equipment
13. Summary Report for Technical
Support in Development of a Revised
Ozone State Implementation Plan for
Memphis. Tennessee. prepared for EPA
Region IV by Pacific Environmental
Services. EPA Contract No. 68-02—3887.
lune 1985.
This multi-volume report indudes:
Wood Furniture Coating
Barge Loading Facilities
Sheet Fed Paperboard Coating
Chemical Processing Plants
Solvent Extraction
Offset Lithography
Bulk Plants
14. TechnIcal Information Document
for Technical Support in Development of
a Revised Ozone State lmpl . . .. .tatian
Plan for Birmingham. Alabama.
prepared for EPA Region IV by Pacific
Envfronmeital Svz v s . EPA Contract
No.66 -4 )2-4887. Tha onmsts of ‘a senes
uf reports published in October and
November1984 and Vebrnary 1985.
covered inclu4e:
Surface Coating of Large Aircraft
Paint Manufacturing
Coke Processes
Lamination of Vinyl Countertaps
Mineral Wood Production Industry
Brick Manufacturing Industry
Explosives Manufacturing Industry
A number of control technology
documents have been widely circulated
as draft documents for review. Some of
these documents have never been issued
as final documents such as crc ’s for
various reasons. but they still contain
much helpful technical Information.
Copies of some of these may be still
available from EPA. especially from the
Emissions Standards and -ngineering
Division of the Office of Air Quality
Planaia and Standards. Among these
are:
15. Draft. “Control of Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions From Full-Web
Process-Color Heatset Web Offset
Lithographic Printing.” August1981.
16. Draft, “Control Technique
Guidelines for the Control of Volatile
Organic Emlsuians From Wood
Furniture Coating.” April 1979.
17. Draft, ‘Fabric Printing Industry—
Background Information for Proposed
Stesidarde ”, April 21.1981.
18. Draft. “Economic Impact Analysis
of Catalytic Incineration and Carbon
Adsorption on the Fabric Printing
Industry.” November1981.’
19. Draft. “Control of Volatile Organic
cinI.ions From Existing Stationary
Sources: Paint Manufacturing Industry.”
U.8. EPA. OAQP9. In addition. EPA’s
Air Toxica Control Technology Center
has issued the following report
20. Air Stripping of Contaminated
Water Sources. Air Emissions and
Control. July 20. 1987. Prepared for Air
Tonics Control Technology Center. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
V7 1 1.
Potential New Source Review (.VSRJ
!ifeasures
The primary approach a State could
follow to mitigate the effects of growth
by reductions through its NSR program
would be to subject more sources to
new source review.
The following measures are being
suggested for States to consider in their
control strategies as appropriate
techniques to deal with growth. Under
current roles, new sources and
modlEcations may be exempted from
the Part U ma orNSR reqinremnents by
(13 Hav g a potential to emit below
certain thresholds (lao tons per year
(tpy) for new sources and 40 tpy of VOC
fur modifications to existing major
sourcesj (2) not being located in an area
designated as nonalthlni.eflt under
section 107 of the Clean Au Act (Act):
and ¶3) qualifying fo e one of the specific
exemptions contained in the NSR
regulation, (e.g.. conversion to
municipal wastes for power generatio
production increases not limited by a
permit, increased operating hours).
Each of these situations has a
separate set of possible solution., or
revisions.
(1) Thresholds—The threshold,
contained in the NSR program could be
lowered to, say. 25 tpy.for major sources
and major modifications. A significant
portion of the total VOC emissions
generally come from small sources, so
lowering cutoffs would bring
significantly more of the VOC emissions
into the mayor NSR program. Even 25 tpy
threshold may not cover a majority of
the emissions resulting from new
sources. One study ha. shown that for
VOCs. modifications and new sources
emitting lees then S Ipy compose 55
percent of total new VOC emissions.
(2) L4catian Outside Non attainment
Area—States may wish to apply the
nonatteinment area NSR requirements
of section 173 of the Cnn Air Act ( md
State programs under that section) to
sources located outside but near
designated nonattainment areas.
(3) Specific Exemptions—The
definitions currently contained In the
NSR program exempt certain increases
in emissions from being considered as a
modification. These exemptions allow
sources capable of accommodating
alternative fuels or raw materials to
switch fuels or raw materials (e.g.. from
oil to coal) without being subject to
major NSR requirements. Also. sources
may increase their operating hours (e g.
from 8 hours per day to 24 hours per
dayland throughput (e.g.. from 60
percent of capacity) to the maximum
possible i hile meeting Federal NSR
requirements (unless the changes are
specifically limited by Federal
enforceable conditions). States could
;emove these exemptions from the NSR
regulations.
Appendix D—Oiscrepancies and
Inconsistencies Found in Current SIFs
The EPA has reviewed a number of
SIPs and found inconsistencies and
discrepancies from established EPA
policy and guidance. The following
-------
45206
Federal Register / VoL 52. No. 226 / Tuesday. November 24. 1987 / ‘Notices
discuuian usia the most promment
problems and suggests coriictions to
these problems. While no State or local
agencies are spectflcailp identified. EI A
intends to discuss individual State and
local deficiencies with the appropriate
agencies at the time the SIP call is made.
a. Achieve Cons?stenz implemen(atson
of New Source Review Prugmms
During as audits of Slate and local
NSR programs. EPA has found
considerable differences in how
agencies implement their NSR
regu_lations. EPA has found. for example.
that maiiy major modifications of
sources escape preconstruction review
and that lowest achievable emtmio
reduction (LAER) determinations for
sources subject to NSR are often
inconsistent and uuufficiently stringent.
In many cases. these problems may
result from improper interpretation at
the applicable rules. To inuu_miae the
likelthood that this will occur in the
future. EPA intends to develop guidance
on such issues as how emissions
increases and decreases should be
calculated for netting purposes. when
and how implementing agencies may
use growth allowances as a substitute
for offsets, and how to ensure that best
available control technology and LAER
determinations reflect the best
technology for the source in question
rather then simply the new source
perfOrmance stAnilards control leveL
The EPA also intends to increase its
auditing and enforcement of State
programs.
New Source Reriew Regulations
The przmaiy focus of the new source
review regulations is tQ evaluate the
emissions impact of new or modified
source projects before construction
commences on the projects. The basic
requirement for a new source of au
pollution is to ensure that its emissions
do not cause any new nonattainment
situations or exacerbate any existing
nonattainmerit problems. Alt sOurces
musr prove .” generally by modeling air
quality impacts before and after the
proposed change, that they do not cause
or contribute to any nonattainment
problem. For maim new sources and
na jot modifications wishing to iccate in
designated nónattainment areas. the
applicant must also show that the most
stringent pollution control equipment
‘LAER) is being installed, that all aiher
sources owned by the applicant within
the State are in compliance (Statewide
compliance ), and that the emission
Lacreases are either offset or taken into
account with an approved growth
allowance (emission offsets). These
requirements are listed in the Clean Air
Act in sections 172 and 173.
The wording Insome State NSR
regulations allows or has the potential
to allow certain sources to avoid some
or all of the intended requirements of
new source review. This is in conflict
with the Federal provisions, since State
rules can be mote stringent than the
Federal provisions, but in no case can
they be less stringent. The EPA believes
that appropriate guidance and technical
support canheip ensure that States
implement the new source review
regulations in conformance with EPA
policy: however. States may need 1o
correct or clarify some of their
regulations to avoid possible
applicability or enforcement problems
that may arise under new source review
due to less stringent provisions. The
following areas are the focus of efforts
to achieve conformity with EPA policy.
Eiempiions
Permit Con&tions Federal
requirements State that’only federally
enforceable permit conditions may be
used to exempt I source from the
requirements for major sources. State
operating permits and State consent
decrees are not federally enforceable
wiles, incorporated into the SIP either
through EPA apptoved case-by.case
rulemaking or through a generic
mechanism. Slate preconstruction
permits issued by States under EPA-
approved SIP regulations pursuant to 40
CPa stia, 51.24, or 51.30. as well as
construction permits issued by EPA or
by delegated States under 52.21 are
federally enforceable.
Stats Nonauainmeiu Designations:
The EPA will not permit a State to
exempt sources located in
itonaitainment areas that the State has
designated ‘attainmenr without EPA
approval. Similarly. States will not be
permitted to use attainment
demonstrations that have not received
EPA approyal to determine whether an
offset or netting transaction is consistent
with RPP.
Cenemb States should revise their
regulations to remove any requl.itury
provisions that could be used to e ’tempc
any source from iny major SR
requirements. The only e’cciusiona s* .
those contained in the Federal
definitions of mator stationary ;ouices
(40 CFR 51.165(a)(1 )(tvjf or major
modifications (40 CER 51.163(a l(1)(v) .
No source type (e.g.. cotton gins.
resource recovery facility) or source
class (e.g. reactivated sources) may
have a blanket exemption from any new
source review requirement. This is a
problem under the major source and
major modification thresholds. since the
NSR provisions require that all emission
increases be accumulated for
applicability purposes. For example a
single cotton gin may be a minor Source.
while four cotton guts (under common
ownership) locating on one piece of land
would constitute a major source or
major modification. States may retain
exemptions from mutor source
permitting requirements if (1) there
exists a federally approvEd growth
allowance to mitigate resulting
increases in emissions and (2) State
regulations expressly prohibit the use of
the exemptions to exempt any major
source or major modification from major
NSR requirements.
Clean $pot £vemptcon: As a result of
the August 1980 rulemaking which was
conducted as part of the Alabama
Powerdecisian. Stateregulations cannot
contain provisions that exempt a source
(toni major new source review
requirements where the source does not
“siçuficantly cause or contribute to a
violation of a National Ambient Air
Quality Standard?’ The August 1980
requirements sub jëct any major source
or ma jot, modification located in an EPA
designated nonattainnient area to the
majorNSR requirements regardless of
the ambient impact of the source. Some
SIP’s. however, stilt retain this
exemption and should be revised.
Offset/Netting Requirements
Offsets: The EPA requires State
regulations to contain enforceabLe and
specific criteria on the credibility of
emission reductions as offsets. These
provisions must include a specific, well-
defined baseline for emission increases
and decreases. a requirement that all
emission reductions used for offsets be
federally enforceable (see section on
permit conditions acove). certain
I r strirtions art the use of emission
reductions ca ed by pr!or shutdowns
and curtailments as offsets. and the
prohibition of the use of any emission
reductions akeadv included i a Siae
,it!dmmertt domors’ratmn. The last
r qui’ement I sted is to ensure that a
t.i ’e does r.of use a reduction twice. i.e..
I . . _ 4, r . ,jl; , . , .
hnol . nhtri ,in ill I ’ .
ong ( nm s nd ..ir’
..l.(... s— hi 4 I’.n4 1 prcmid .iiu . ,n of
•4 . , — .(f ’ 13(ift I• .111.
‘4 ‘i-iu. DC r.- ii. ’ : i—v
.li—r r i.. . ., ,r.m,n’ C,. J . ri . ..i,,I
w.ili r.,pu,.w.ti 4 . ifliiqI i — i 11
140111cr; — “ v,ie , ,nt r—gi.Lit .’nj
ill (Ir!.n4 rtiii ir,m.n4s in eilrti it j
,. requi ..merns
d O d EP Ilien ret ses flee. r.q.4 1rm .nig punujrn
lo his C? I/ ee’,Iement .ie ,emem. EPA witi li ,)w
P ta St ie. iocAdn s iMur .p iIIcal5Ie I 5UIdi1.ifl4 .4
a ropn4 ie.
-------
FederaL Regiater / Vol. 52. No. g / Tuesday. Noi ,ienib 24. i9v I Notices
45107
once I r attainment purposes and once
for d” W .1 new source growth.
Nettu*g The EPA geipuies Stat.
regulations to coutsia spenfic and
eDJOrceabIa criteria 1* S u. wishes to
allow. source to ‘oat our of
NSR review. A soug “nets out ’ of
‘a oi new source review by securing
emission decrQues within the source to
mitigate increases from the urns source.
resulting in an “in ig&lcant” emissions
increase on a sourcewide bisas. The
Federal regulations require the following
criteria for nettlnç (1) An “actual”
baseline: (2) health and weLfare
equivalence between the emiizon
increases and decreases: 43) Federal
enforceability of ‘ ‘ MinS decreases
(see section on permit conditions
above); (4) a specific contemporaneous
time frame (up to 10 yeus) and (5) the
prohibition on the use of any ductions
already incorporated in a State’s
attainment demonstration (see
discussion on offsetting above). The
health and welfar, equivalence
generally focuses on the concept of air
quality the air quality effects of the
proposed netting action must result in
equivalent or Improved air quality. For
“sta le pollutants. this places an
emphasis on dispersion. For an ozone
nonat .nt area. th. relative
reactivitles of the VOC ses also
plays an miportant role In air quality
determinations. The State should not
allow a netting transaction that causes
an increase In a reactive VOC and a
decrease in a negligibly rsact1 e VOC
even if the absolute a t of VOC
emitted does not Increase signlfleandy.
The contemporaneous tlmsfrsme is
needed to ensure that Increases are
acàmulated over a reasonable period of
time, to discourage construction projects
exempting themselves from NSR. and
ensure that decreases are not so old as
to already be taken into account In
attainment demonstrations. Also. If a
reduction occurred a very Long time ago.
that reduction should go towards
assisting an area to show attainment
rather than assisting $ source to avoid
ma lot NSR requirements.
Defin iions
N$R regulations should use a
‘.OC definition that defines VOC as all
compounds except those that
EPA has listed in its Federal Register
r.ut ces as nonphotochemicaliy reactive.
(See VOC definition in RACT
regulations discussion.)
Ot!’err NSR regulations should contain
clear definitions, consistent with Federal
requirements, for the following terms:
Stdtioitary source: actual e” ssions :
dilowuble emissions: fugitive emissions:
commence or begin coastrucuoni
building. louctu_re. or faczlity and major
stationary source. State regulations that
do not colKain goad. concise definitions
that meet the Federal requirements risk
treating sources inequitably because of
varying interpretations of the
definitions. For example, minor
variations an a State nile regarding the
LAER definition which appear
unimportant could allow a source to
avoid installing proven technology by
arguing that it coits too much, a result
that is unacceptable using the EPA
definition. The definitions must provide
a framework to mike decisions
replicable among sources.
Small Sources
Lack of Minor Souxce and Min&
Modificaüon Review: As required by
the Federal rules. SIPs should require a
review program of all sources of air
pollution regardless of size. This review
must Include an assurance that no new
spurce or modification will Interfere
with aua ”p”t and maintenav !, of the
standard as well as a requirement that
all construction projects be subject to
public cc.i mest procedure. Many States
only have requirements for major
sources and major modifications. States
may only exempt minn sources from
these requirements if (1) there existsa
federally approved growth allowei to
mitigate resulting Increues in usuions
and (2) Stats regulations exptessly
prohibit of exemptions to
exempt any major source or major
modifications from NSR requirement&
b. Ensex. Canjbrmity of SiPs With
Existing EPA Fb&y
Although most SIP regulations have
met the terme of EPA’s requirements for
Part 0 plans. EPA may have approved
some SIP’s containing rules that do not
meet those requirements.
Some State regulations controLling
VOC emissions ate being Implemented
in a manner that Is not consistent with
EPA requirements and policies and can.
in certain cases. significantly interfere
with the effectiveness of those
regulations. These implementation
problems appear to be caused by
;ncorrect or ambiguous definitions.
anable interpretation, the lack of key
provisions (e.g.. compliance times, test
methods. etc.). or specific provisions in
State regulations that are inconsistent
with current EPA policies. In some
cases. these problems can interfere with
the States ability to (1) secure their
e!Ipected emissions reductions from
stationary source RACT regulations or
(2) controL emiuion growth through their
NSR regulations. EPA plans to work
with State. to identify these problem
areas and provide training, guidance.
and other tecnnicai support to SU SUt 5
that RACT and NSR regulations are
effectively implementird.
Stationary Source PACT Regulations
The existing RACT regulations Were
developed as a major component of the
SIP strategies to achieve VOC emissic i
reductions. The following describes thu
areas where RACT regulations have
been adopted andlor implemented on
an inconsistent basis.
PACT Regulation Exemptions
Many of the Cr C ’s that EPA issued in
the late 197Q ’s recommended that States
exempt from their RACT rules only
those sources falling below certain size
or throughput cutoffs. Other CTG’s
recommended no such cutoffs. Some of
the RACrregulat lons now In the SIP’ S.
hOi...v t. establish exemptions i ider
_ th!Lthiil ‘ .com uded the
or prv,id _ exemptions so ambiguous as
to be sus .pi1bIe to abuse. The EPA will
require the States to amend such rules to
ensure that these exemptions conform to
the CrC recommendations in all cues
, p pse for which the State
prd idii adequate justification that-the
CrC Level would Impose unreasonable
requirements in that Stats. -
Definition of 100 Tons Per Year Source
The EPA guidance has called on SIP’s
for exensiqp ,gr to require RACT for
soUicss with the potential to emit more
than 100 tOns p .r year ( tpfl but thatk.
not fall into a CFC category. Although
EPA intended the definition of source
for this purpose to be the entire plant
some SIP’. are susceptible to an
interpretation requiring RACT only for
- individual emissions units emitting more
than iOOtpy. Also. some SIP’s are
susceptible to a reading under which the
source must apply RACto.glyiLlt has a
potential to emit more than 100 ipy ,
controls. EPA Intended, however, to
i ’ ’tates apply RACT to non .CTC
sources emitting more than that amount
. i hout controls . Therefore. EPA intends
to reqiiWe the relevant States to amend
•C) rules that do not cLearly reflect
EPA’s intent.
Ot!ier Issues
r. astlng VOC rules coOtain a variety
of oi r ambiguities and exemptions
ih t may impede efforts to achieve full
P.ACT.level reductions. Although some
of the affected State or local agencies
currently interpret these rules
consistently with EPA policy, courts will
frequently turn to the actual words of
the rules to decide the legal obligations
of the affected sources. For that reason,
EPA believes it is essential for State. to
-------
amend these nalei to state clearly what -
s required. Until the States change
These rules, the Agency will continue to
interpret them consis tent w h EPA’s
Intent when it approved them and will
encourage the relevant State or local
agencies to do the same. Examples of
these deficiencies are described
generally below.
• Emission Limit Units: VOC rules
incorporating limits expressed as
pounds of VOC per gallon (lb VOCIgal)
of coating should also list the eqwvalent
lb VOC/gal of solids emission liiwl. It
will be acceptibli but not mandatory to
totally replace pounds of VOC per
gallon of coating imats with units of lbs
VOC per gallon of solids. VOC rules
should state that units of lbs VOClgal of
solids be used for all calculations
involving eimsiion trades. crou4ine
averaging. and determining compliance
by add-on control equipment such as
incinerators and carbon adsorber,.
Exempt Solvents: Compliance
calculations for coatings expressed as lb
VOC/gallon coating (less water) should
treat exempt solvents such as 1.1.1-
trichioroethane and methylena chloride
as water for purposes of calculating the
“less water” part of the coating
composition.
VOC Definitions.’ These rules should
d VO 7s afl organic compounds
except thos. that EPA has listed as
photochemacally nonreactive in its
Federal Register notices. Many rues
incorrecdy contain a vapor pressure
cutoff (e.g.. 0.1 mmHg) that effectively
exempts seine photochenucaily reactive
compounds (such as butyl dioxitoL a
paint solvent, and certain mineral oils)
from controL The following definition is
a model for us ,.
Volatila Oryarnc Compound (VOCJ—Any
organic compound which participates in
atmospheric photoclieirncal reacnonn that is.
any orgatuc compound other tha i hose -
which the Administrator designates as having
negligible phosochinucal reactivity. VOC
may be measured by a reference method, an
equivalent method, an alternative method or
by procedures specifit’d under 40 OR Part so.
A referet’c, method, an equivalent metbot or
an alternative mnth..d. how.vir. may also
measure nonreactive organic : 1 In
such cases, an owner or operator ma,
e ’:iude the nonreactive orq nic compounds
when ue’ermining compli ncs wua a
s’anJ rd.
Ot.’to Oefsn,:,ons.’ A variety of other
definitions in VOC rules are inconsistent
witn EPA’s CTC’s. EPA proposes to
identify these deficiencies and require
the States to remedy them.’ IS
“ ?w .ss.pw, d.lhuiione .1 “costive line”
eiw osemp from cantmj coanag lines has do
ot hays haki ovuna, Also, dsf ’uuuione 01
‘r,4ini.hiinq’ ia m,sc,tiu ,soq metal coaiive ml i i
Transfer Efficiency: Transfer
efficiency is a measure of how
- efficiently coating solids are applied to
the ob;ects being coated in spray
coating operations. Increasing transfer
efficiency reduces the amount of coating
used for a particular ob and may
thereby reduce VOC emissions. Some
States have attempted to provide
sources with credit for transfer
efficiency improvements.
The EPA proposes to require that
sources be allowed to seek credit fo
transfer efficiency improvement ni
the SIP specifies a baseline, transfer
efficiency and a test method acceptable
to EPA for determining actual transfer
efficiency. (The use of default. assumed
or table transfer efficiency values would
be unacceptable.) This could be done
either with general or source-specific
SIP revisions. -
Cross Line Averaging: A source may
use crossline averaging only upon (1)
EPA approval as a source-specific SIP
revision or (2) State adoption under a
cross-line averaging or equivalency rule
that EPA has approved generically.
Compliance Periods: VOC rules
should describe explictly the compliance
timeframe associated with each
emission limit (e.g.. instantaneous or
daily). However, where the rules are
silent on compliance time. EPA will
interpret it as instantaneous. The rules
could include periods longer than 24
hours, !yjn accordance with the
memorandum from John OConnor.
Acting Director of the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. dated
fanuary . 1984. entitled “Averaging
limes for Compliance WIth VOC
Emission Limits-SW Revision Policy.”
and only as source-specific SIP
revisions. -
in e EPA would
mrs States to amend their VOC rules
to require explicitly that sources keep
records needed to assess compliance for
the tinieframe specified in the rule.
Records must be commensurate with
regulatory requirements anJ must be
available for e iamination no requcit.
The SIP must ‘ive reporting scheduiss
and reporung formats. For ecampie.
these rules must require laity records ii’
the SIP requires daily complianc , If a
company is bubbling its emiss’.’ns on a
daily basis. the ruies must require daily
records to determine Compliance. if -
units of lb VOCIqallon solids is used fl
calculations for oaily compli. nce. the
source must record jallons oi so lids
used pet day and pounds of “OC -
emitted per day. The rules should also
require sources to list separately the
amount of diluents and. where relevant
to determining compliance, wash and
clean-up VOC. Beyond that. they should
require sources to document (1) that the
coatings manufacturer used either EPA
Method 24 or an EPA-approved State
method to calculate the amount of VOC
per gallon of coating (less water and
exempt solvents) and (2) what method
the manufacturer used to calculate the
volume percent solids content of the
coatings.
Test Methods.’ EPA will require States
to amend their VOC rules to require the
use of thamost current testje.thods to
determine the VOC content of coatings
(e.g.. EPA Reference Method 24 (1-hour
bake) or equivalent AS1’M Methods).
The method used to determine volume
percent solids should be specific and
should be an EPA-approved method (see
“Procedures for Certifying Quantity of
Volatile Organic Compounds Emitted by
Paint. Ink, and Other Coatings.” EPA-
I50/3.44 Ola. December 1984). The
procedures in outdated ASTM methods
and the Volume U CTG are generally no
longer acceptable. Procedures should
specify that EPA or States may verify
test data submitted by companies with
independent tests and that EPA or State
conducted tests will take precedence.
The EPA will also require States to
amend their VOC rules to state the
procedures to be used to measure
capture and control device efficiencies.
For example. the rules for some types of
sources or control systems should
r?quire the use ‘ f temporary enclosure’s.
t ier than miatnrial balanr.eq, in :.ipture
,‘ffiri.’ncv tests Priv;s;ons that r°’t’iire
‘t ’II emlineereu c.ipture 5ys1err’ nr
‘‘ ,.i imum re sunable capture’
be ri.pl c ,ed iith ‘specifiG cuntriil
; ,“i’ iIplni’flts.
t’,j ,.zsPni L.’. .— C (l,WiI ’j. i’i ”
r. ‘skiil require et;’.iipmcrit I”.it ,(P
‘ ‘!ulaiiOfls to he strengthens’J 4r..’pr ,ifl.!
‘j the intent of ttie CTC’s. Fur e ampte
source’s that hai.e previously be ’n
exempt from monitoring requirements
due to line size or the tue 01 plug and
ball v Ives should become sub ect to the
SIP requirements. In addition. SIP ’s
should riot exempt unsafe and
inac.cessible valves from all periodic
Federal Reciter / Vol. 52. No, 2,Z6 / TuesdaY. Novemcer 24, 1O8 / Not ces
I
nouad nd. i.l,er dial ‘gi-i,”e’ ii i ,n.I ,.if :. ..
“prnr lip nr,iinal equipment i ,nif.ii “ireru a n,it
r..’irn .i’in . Refinialitni t Im. .d .ie ..v.,te’i ii
‘Ipair,tui .31 vied equ,pi’..’nt Thu diflutit ’. ,n of
p..ii.e coutins should be re. ,nnd to mus!ii rI. ’... liii -
‘he .ipur Co..t:i’i ri’ ’ulmtti ,ns Cuvef ‘ilig i,n
plastic ti:m and nistiliac ( u i 1 as well a. pip—v Pan..,
md (.ibnc uatrne should cover ,atur.i ’,un
‘)psrations as well as sinuly cqdt 2 opa.r.ilrnns.
.anyl coatine defirniion . g 0 gjg ma.e laa :njt
irgunisol and pI.istisoL coatings iwhiui iswiutannslly
have c ntine4 hide or ito solvenil can,’iot be used
to bubhle uutiesions from vunvi pm ing it’d
tupcosmiq. Cuanni should be defined to include
‘(unctionii’ is will u protective at decorati e
rums,
-------
Federal Register , v i. . 228/ .uesdaY. November 24. 1987 I Notices
45109
monitoring requIremern . The EPA
belie ve that inaccessible and unsafe-to-
monitor valves should be monitored as
often as practicable because of the
p,r ntial for finding leaks and reducing
emissions. The EPA does not consider -
iitnual monitoruig or monitoring at
shutdown to be an unreasonable burden
for inaccessible and unsafe-to-monitor
valves. -
For natural gas plants. RACT should
apply to equipment that contains or
contacts a process stream with a VOC
concentration of 1.0 percent by weight
or more. Equipment with process
streams containing relatively low
percentages of VOC (i.e.. between 1.0
and 10.0 percent) contributes a
significant portion of total emissions
from natural gas plants and. therefore. is
subject tç RACT requirements.
Exemptions and Vananc & Many
SIFs contain provisions giving the State
authority to grant variances.
exemptions, and alternative means of
control strategies. SIPs must dearly
state whether EPA approval of such
variances is required on a case-by-case
basis before such a variance, exemption.
or alternative means becomes federally.
effective. Provisions that are intended to
be generic (i.e_ not requiring case-by-
case EPA approval for the alternative
means to be federally-effective) must
meet the general principle of.
replicabiLity described in EPA’s
Emissions Trading Policy Statement (51
FR 43814. December 4. 1986).
Appendix EG” ’- Document on
h ,w,ad t/M
I. Introduction
The EPA has considered the potential
for greater VOC and CO reductions from
vehicle inspection and maintenance
programs. and believes that substantial
enhancement is available.
The EPA is considering a variety of
options relative to enhanced tIM,
including establishing a specific
enhanced l/M performance level for
some nonattainment areas as well as -
relying on the 3 percent reduction
requirement to foecs consideration of
-enhanced l/M in lieu of a mandated
performance requirement. The latter
opiton would allow Slates to consider
the benefits of enhanced tIM. along with
those of other control measures. in
deciding how to meet the 3 percent
a .erage annual reduction requirement.
The other option toward which EPA s
presently learning would be to establish
a specific enhanced I/M requirement for
areas with relatively serious ozone or
CO nonattainment problems. The
remainder of this appendix describes
aspects of and issues related to a
separate enhanced l/M requirement. if
adopted.
Possible enhancements fall into four
categories. First, operating losses due to
improper inspections, incomplete
enforcement. or lenient repair waiver
systems can be reduced. Second.
additional vehicles which are exempt
based on age. or vehicle type can be
made subject to the inspection
requirement. Third. the emission test
portion of the periodic inspection can be
made more sophisticated or the pass!
fail limits or cutpoints more stringent.
Fourth. important emission control
components can be checked visually, or
by other means that do not involve
emissions measurement. for evidence of
tampering or inisfueling.
The concept of “enhanced tIM.”
therefore. covers both increases to the
coverage and stringency of inspection.
and improved management practices to
assure full effectiveness. The
requirements being considered for areas
adopting enhanced I/M are explained in
detail below.
II. Background
In 1978. EPA first established policy
for the implementation of the l/M
programs required under the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1977. ThIs policy -
addressed the elements to be included
in SIP revisions, minimum emission
reduction requirements. admini.trative
requirements. and schedules for
implementation. Approvable tIM
programs were to be in place in all
ozone and CO extension areas by the
end of 1982. and were to produce at
least a 25 percent reduption in light-duty
vehicle hydrocarbon exhaust emissions
and at least 3 percent reduction in CO
exhaust emissions as of the end of 1987.
At this time. there are tIM programs
operating in 60 urban areas in 32 States.
There are-a variety of program designs
in place. some which just exceed
mimmum levels. and some which
contain additional measures to achieve
greeter emission reductions. The EPA
audits of !/M programs over the last 3
years have identified bath considerable
acccrnplishments by State and local
agencies in implementing programs
successfully. and a number of operating
problems. These audit findings serve as
the bas;s for the increased stringency
and the additional administrative
req .iirements associated with enhanced
1 1 M.
/f V . Fer’or.nonce Standard for VOC
a:id CO Reducuors
The EPA has developed a computer
model which it proposes to use to assess
the benefits of various tIM program
designs. expressed as annual tons of
reduction from a typical urban flcat of
one million vehicles. The model is based
on MOBILE3. but performs additional
manipulations of the emission estimates.
The assumptions employed in this
computer model are explained in detail
in the technical report, entitled “Method
for Estimating the Cost-Effectiveness of
Inspect.on/Maintenance Program
Designs.”
The LPA is leaning toward a nominal
performance standard to be achieved by
enhanced I/M of 5700 tons of HC and
69.000 tons of CO per year per million
light-duty vehicles over the flrst 5 years
of operation of the enhanced program. -
This level represents the design level of
the third most stringent of the 27 or so
distinct tIM programs currently in
operation. As discussed in the preamble
of this policy. EPA is also considering
other performance levels which could be
established. if a separate enhanced I/M
requirement is adopted. The level of
performance described above would be
equivalent to the following design:
—Centralized biennial inspections
—20 model years of passenger cars and
light trucks
—20 percent stringency for pi e-198l
vehicles
—Idle test
—207(b) cutpoints for 1981 + vehicles
(1.2 percent CO/220 ppm HC)
—Catalyst. inlet, and lead deposit
inspections on 1981 + vehicles
—5 percent waiver on the emission
short test
Programs which vary from this design
yet have equivalent emission reductions
would be acceptable. For example.
decentralized biennial inspections and!
or fewer model years of coverage are
also allowed. provided other features of
the program design are strengthened
such that the estimated benefit meets
the new performance standard.
Programs may show equivalency to
this design using either national or local
conditions of tamperuig/mis(ueliflg
rates, vehicle type mix. average weed.
ccc. ese of local condittons m.iv result r
a e: ori ance standard different rian
5 00/09.0O0 ’. in all cases. equivalencY .0
the above design wouid be the
cont:oliing criterion fur appr3 al.
L ’ .e new computer modçl has :wo
diures whtch were not iaciudcd in
MOSILE3 but which grew out of the past
3 }earS oi ev Iuat.ag operating
;rograms Frst. for purposes ot SIP
apçroval. decentralized programs will
be cred ted with identifying and
repairing existing tampering a a rate
hach is less than that modeled for
centralized programs. The initial
analysis suggests a reduced
-------
Tuesday
November 24, 1987
Part II
Environmental
Protection. Agency
Sthte knplementatlon P ns; Approval of
Post•1987 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
P n Rs I&ons for Areas Not Attaining
the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards; Notice
(p.
‘isrj6r -
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 52, No. 228 / Tuesday. November 24. 1987 I Notices
45065
basis for geographic coverage. Part of
the definition of anMSAis that it
encompasses the commuting area
around an urban core. EPA a soliciting
comment on whether an enhanced 1/M
requirement, if adopted, should be
required in the entire MSA/CMSA.
Detailed guidance an an enhanced
l/M requirement. if adopted, is included
In Appendix E. This app”ndlx states the
specific numerical performance
requirement being considered. It also
contains Instructions for estimating the
VOC and CO emission reductions
achievable from various combinations
of program elements. i.e.. a yardstick by
which affected areas can compare their
current l/M program and various
enhancement alternatives to the new
performance standard.
In addition to the new numerical
performance standard. Appendix E
describes certain other required IIM
program features necessary to Insure
that adequate resources and
management tools and practices are in
place to assure that each enhanced I/M
program contributes to attainment as
fully as expected. These administrative
requirements include strict criteria for
cost waivers, measures to assure proper
Inspection in decentralized programs.
and activities to improve repair
effectiveness.
Appendix E also describes proposed
requirements being considered for
periodic self-evaluation and reporting
for enhanced l/M programs. These
requirements would allow EPA to
Identify programs which are not meeting
the performance requirement due to
shortcomings in implementation, and to
propose nonimplementation sanctions In
such areas.
The EPA ii also soliciting comments
on the questions listed below related to
the enhanced I/M program requirement
being considered.
—Should a lower population tiveshold
than 200 ,0001n the urbanizedareabe
used to exempt areas from -
zequiiements of 1/M? -
—Should the population of the entire
.MSA be counted toward meeting the
200,000 population cutoff for requiring
.nhRnced l/M?
—Should thresholds be lower in
transport areas where ozone levels
are severely impacted by upwind
sources?
—Should areas under 200.000 populatIon
which are upwind of a nonattainment
area and are contributing to Its long-
term nonattaininent also be required
to Implement enhanced t/M?
3. TechnicalSuppozt—a.Alteniative
.CanhufIechnok y (AC77 Documents..
}roiii time to lime, Mmay be appropriate
to publish documents that provide
technical information about the control
of individual source categories. The
documents would identify the omission
control technologies that are available
br a particular source category along
with information on process operation.
control efficiency. costs, and othel
impacts of coi4rol. A State could use
this information as the basis for an
emission limit based on the control
technology that Is most appropriate
given the local needs and circumstances.
The AC!’ document would not specify a
presumptive RACT nor a minimum level
of control that would be required.
Source categories that are selected as
candidates for ACT documents are
those whidi may contribute to local
aonattalnment problems. but which may
not warrant national measures. Some
candidates might Include batch
processing vm ts from synthetic esganic
chemicals manufacturing. Industrial
wutewater processes. automobile
refinishing, and web offset lithography.
The EPA solicits comm nts on the need
for ACT documents and source
categories that should be addressed.
1. Control T cheology Center. The
CoOtrel Technology Center (CTC) Is a
program that can provide technical
‘assistance to State and local agencies
on individual problems that pertain to
control technology and source testing. A
botline has been established to respond
to requests for assistance and to provide
a quick response to questions. Callers
will be put in contactwith EPA
engineers who have the most knowledge
about the topic In question. The CTC
hotline provides access to available
expertise Inboth the Office of Air and
Radiation end the Office of Research
and Development, whichever can best
fulfill the needs when an L dMdual
request for assistance occurs. Ibis
service is available to all State and local
a 5 nncy etaff. ’flrecTC botlfneamnberis
p919)541-0800.
‘in some the Information to
satisfy a hetline request is not readily
available from wisting literature or staff
expertise. When this occurs, the CTC
may undertake original enginenriug
analysis to satisfy the request In
determining when It Is a oprIate to
p rfvrm such analysis. the CTC will
consider the level of need and ur icucy
to the State or local agency making the
request, the ability of theCTCto
provide a timely and useful response,
cost, value of the product to other
States, and avallabilty of resources.
This service Is Intended to augn a1 t the
technical and analytical capabilities of
the State,Tarproblems that cannot be
‘handled by Their resident expertise.
The CTC does not overlap any of the
responsibilities of the EPA Regional
Offices. The CTC is a mechanism for
providing engineering assistance only.
Questions that involve such topics as
policy guidance or enforcement
determinations should continue to be
addressed to the appropriate EPA
Regional Office.
B. Requirements of Expeditious
Attrzinment Dates and Reasonable
Progress. For the reasons described
earlier in this notice. EPA proposes to
approve only those post-1987 SIP
revisions that demonstrate attainment of
the ozone and CO standards within 3
years of the date of EPA ’s approval of
the revisions Iwith a possible 2-year
extension wider section 110(e)). Thus,
EPA will Impose the applicable
construction ban in any designated
nonattainment area lacking such a
demonstration for the MSA!CMSA In
which the area is located.” Areas that
cannot demonstrate attainment within
the 3- (or 5-) year period could also
become subject to other sanctions if
they fail to make reasonable efforts to
submit a plan showing attainment by an
attainment date suitable for the area
and reasonable progress In the interim.
The following discussion describes the
requirements for progress and
attainment dates for both long- and
short-term nonattamment arees.
1. Areas Demonstrating Attainment
Within the 3-year Period. As Indicated
above, the required attainment dates for
post-1987 planning are keyed to the date
EPA approves the SIP revision (see
sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 110(e)). For
purposes of planning. EPA suggests that
States developing plans to produce
attainment in the short-term after 1987
assume that EPA’s review and approval
“The real ctissi is EPA. regulatlom
Imptenenting the construction ban apply only to
major stetlonasy ci muisemons thst cause or
amuibule to . —----trubcon of the p”l ” t far
which the nonaltslnmani seas was designated as
nonattainment. and for which the SIP dose net meet
the requirements of Pert Doris not being meded
out In accordance with the reqearements of Purl D
jsO DR S2.24(dfl. The EPA. I regulations
Imply that only emlulon. of VOC ore oonelde ,e4
ozone precorsoru for purposea of the construction
ban ISee 40 (i R 52.24 (eJ(fl(4)jil). and (QfSJIiI)J For
this reason. for ozone nonettainment seats. the ban
would ppply to major new souram and major
.modificalioas of existing sourcos of only VOC.
The denonmetlons required for.arom with
NMOCINO. tahoe of greater than l 1 may reveal
that new emissions of NO would contribute
significantly to omne formation to some i . The
EPA solicits comment on whether it uheuld Initiate a
rulemaking to amend the regulations described
above to identify NO. as an ozone precursor for
-purpose, of the conetrucnon ban in such areas.
Pot CO nonettolement esees. the ban would-apply
1. major new . . . and major ondiflontlom of
Iusliflg sowne, of CO.
-------
45066
Federal Register I Vol. 52, No. 226 I Tuesday. November 24, 1987 1 Notices
of their plans will be complete within I
year from the date the plans are due.
This would mean that, to receive
approval, the plans would have to
demonstrate attainment Within 4 years
of the date the SIP I. due (1 year for EPA
approval plus the 3-year period In
section 11O(a)(2)(A)1.
Consistent with section 11O(a)(2)(A)
and, for Part D areas, section 172, EPA
will require the SIP’. to demonstrate
attainment as expeditiously as
practicable, even if that date would
arrive before the end of the 3-year
period. The EPA Will assume that short-
term nonattainment areas that apply the
applicable minimum control measures
(no later than the end of 1992) described
in the preceding section are employing
all “practicable” measures. Thus, only if
those measures, combined with the
relevant federally Implemented -
measures, would advance an area’s
projected attainment date from the 3-
year date would EPA require the area’s
SIP revision to show atthrnmpnt by that
earlier date; -
Plans for areas that are still subject to
the Part D pknnu g requirements must
also, as required by section 172(b)(3), be
adequate to produce RFP. This means
that they must, as required by the
definition of RFP in section 171(1), -
produce “annual incremental -
reductions” in emissions, including
“substantial reductions In the early
years following approval” of their plans,
sufficient to provide for timely
attainment. Plans for these areas should
demonstrate that their control strategies
- will provide for atthinment as
expeditiously as practicable. Such
demonstrations should show that earlier
Implementation of control measures
would not significantly advance the .
attniTtinPnt date. . - -
The EPA’s experience In the early
19W. Indicatel that, despite effort. .l .
rev lew lndetailallaspectacltbe
demonstration of attainment, there have
been instances In which the control.
strategies were assessed overly
optimistically as to their ability to
produce large emission reductions over
relatively short time periods. Of
particular concern have been those
plans which delayed most of their
reductions until the final year(s) before
the projected attainment dates so that It
was difficult to determine the likelihood
of attainment until late in the plan
implementation process. Because of the
requirement for SIP’. to contain
sufficient measures to assure
expeditious attainment [ section 11O(a)(2)
(A) and (B)J and EPA’s belief that in.
cider to assure such attainment the plan
must show progress in the interim years,
EPA is proposing to require all areas
(including those with short-term
demonstrations) to achieve their
required emission reductions at a
minimum rate unless the area truly has a
marginal nonattainment problem. 3 ’ The
EPA proposes to define an area as truly
marginal If it has a design value below
0.16 ppm ozone or.17 ppm CO and it can
demonstrate attainment in the short-
term by relying only on emission
reductions from (1) federally
implemented measures, (2) measures
required for the area in EPA’s pre-1987
guidance, and (3) other measures
adopted by the State and approved by
• EPA on or before publication of today’s
proposaL In all other cases, the area
must achieve an average annual
emission reduction, of at least 3 percent
of the adjusted base year (typically
1987) emissions inventory for the
demonstration area, commencing the
yearof the SIPcall.The use of an
annual 3 percent emissions reduction
ate is based primarily upon previously
realized reductions achieved through the
application of C G controls In
nonattnlllfnent areas. The EPA believes
that a 3 percent annual reduction will
provide for an expeditious rate of
attuinment while also providing for the
implementation of control measures at a
feasible rate. The EPA does, however,
Invite comment on whether the 3 percent
annual rate of emissions reduction is the
optimum rate considering the need to
balance expeditious progress and
reasonable efforts requirements.
Reductions not creditable towards the
3 percent are (1) The federally
implemented control measures, (2)
measures required for the area In EPA’s
pre-1987 guidance, and (3) other
measures adopted by the State and
approved by EPA on or before today’s
proposal. For this purpose, the base year
Inventory would be adjusted by
- gubti scthtg from lithe emissions that
would have been eliminated if the’area
bad Implemented all of the applicable
requlremeiIts of both EPA’s pre-1987
policies and the other approved portions
of Its SIP (as just described). (See Tablç
1 “Summary of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide SIP Requirements.”)
Reductions occurring In the period
before the date the SIP is due, but after
the base year will be creditable toward
required reductions (i.e., they are
creditable if they are not included in one
of the three categories listed above). The
EPA expects States to continue
developing and implementing those
“A. .tatad above in aection IV.A.. any area with
• .tgn valu, at or above 0.16 p ai for o man or 17
ppui far CO mint elan Implement an enhanced t/M.
scheduled measures that have been
found appropriate from prior planning
efforts. Such measures should be view
as part of the foundation effort to atari
the post-1987 program and are
creditable toward the 3 percent
requirement only if they are not
Included In one of the three categories
listed above.
States should develop their control
strategies so that the minimum average
annual 3 percent reduction starts as
early as possible and occurs at a
continuous rate until attainment is
achieved. The EPA recognizes, however,
that development and adoption of
regulations often occur over irregular
- time periods and compliance efforts can
require considerable time. In general,
EPA believes that the earliest practical
time to assess compliance with the 3
percent average annual requirement will
be the fifth year from the SIP call: 2
years for SIP development and submittal
and 3 years for source compliance.
Therefore, the State’s annual progress
report (discussed In section V.A.1) for
1992 (due In 1993) must show that
creditable emission reductions of at
least 15 percent (5 years times 3 percent
per year) of the base year inventory
have been achieved. Stated differently,
the report for 1992 must show an
average reduction of 3 percent per year
from 1988 to the end of 1992. For
example, an area needing emission
reductions of 17 percent (beyond the
reductions from measures listed above
for the “marginal test”) would have to
achieve reductions of 15 percent by the
end of 1992 and the remainder thereafter
at an average rate of 3 percent per year
until attainment (I.e., achieve the
remaining 2 percent by the end of 1993).
An area needing additional reductions
of. say, 7 percent would be required to
achieve those reductions by the end of
1992. Because of the possible unique
circumstances of an Individual area,
EPA 1. solicitIng comment on the need
for and wiys to provide additional
flexibility In Implementing the 3 percent
requirement For example, certain
localities might be allowed a different
averaging time to achieve the
requirement, depending upon such
criteria as their emissions inventory
m
The EPA believes that VOC control
measures (such as those described in
Appendix C) are available for
application in these long-term areas to
meet this requirement. Although this
may prove to be a very ambitious goal in
some areas, EPA’s review of past ozone
SIP’s indicates that those SIP’s have
included measures that were capable of
achieving average annual reductions in
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 226 / Tuesday. November 24. 1987 / Notices
45067
past emissions inventories of 3 to 4
percent.
For example . the previous SIPS for
ozone extans on areas contained RACT
measures br stationary sources which
would produce emission redactions
mostly in the range of 10—15 percent. -
implementation of these measures
generally occurred over a 3- to 4-yeas’
period, resulting in average annual
emission reductions of about] or 4
percent.
By not allowing measures required by
EPA’s, pre-1987 policies to count toward
the 3 percent reduction, EPA believes
that the disparity in the past control
efforts of different areas w211 be reduced
significantly. The following example will
illustrate this effect. An extension area
that was required to implement the
basic 1/M program required by-section
172(b)kll)(B) of the Act before 1987, did
not do so, and cannot after 1987
demonstrate attainment of the standard
within the 3-year period, could not count
toward the 3 percent reductions from the
portion of any post-1987 I/M program
that corresponds to a basic I/M
program. It could, however, count
toward the 3 percent requirement any
reductions achieved by enhancements of
the IIM program beyond the basic
program. Thus. such an area weuld
achieve no advantage from its failure to
adopt the basic I/M program required
before 1987. The EPA believes that it is
appropriate to recognize in this way the
various levels of past State efforts and
progress in definmg the ef is that
would be reasonable for an ares alter
1987.
Emission reduction requirements will
not be identical, however, from area to
area, because ozone nonattainnient
areas laced different control
requirements before 1987’. For campIe,
noimsoir areas ihat.oever s’ecekred
SIP calls were not required before 1W.
to adopt RACT rules for sources in the
third category of CTC ’s. while
nonextension areas that received SIP
calls in 1984 or 1985 did face such a
requirement under EPA’. 1984 guidance
on the correction of Part D SIP;. Hence ,
the former areas will be able to count
the reductions from such RACT rules
adopted after 1987 toward meeting the,3
percent requirement, while the latter
areas will not. Similarly, nonextension
areas that did not receive SIP calls in
1984 or 1985 were not required to adopt
a basic I/M program, while
nonextension areas that received such
calls and could not demonstrate
attainment by the end of 1987 were
required by EPA’s 1984 guidance to
adopt such a program. Thus, only the
former areas wiU be able to count
toward the 3 percent reductions from a
basic l/M program adopted after 1987.
Table I sets forth the minimum control
measures and percent requirements for
each type of area.
in the above demonstrations of
attainment, the areas must account for
any growth In mobile or stationary
source emissions e q,ected to occur
between the base year and the
attainment date. So long as federally-
implemented measures continue to
achieve a net emissions reduction, -
considering growth In sources subject to
those Federal measures. the State will
not be required to acoount for auth
growth In meeting the3 percent
requirement. However, State. must
account for all other source growth
during this period. If reductions due to
turndown. In production (or source
shutdowns) are used to demonstrate
at thtinent, or ore used to meet the 3
percent annual reduction requirement.
they must be submitted as SIP revisions
and must be federally enforceable.
‘The EPA also Intends to require areas
that can demonstrate near-term
attainment to show that their plans will
provide for maintenance of the
standards well into the future despite
the emissions growth projected to occur.
Plans for these area; must project future
emissions out to at least 10 years from
____
commitment. and schedules for any
additional measures that may be needed
10 ensure maintenance of the standards.
Tha requirement will also appiy to any
other area with a projected attainment
date before the end of 1995.
Areas proJet th g near-torm attainment
must Include In their SIPa commitment
bat. if thøy do not actually aUain the
standard by their projected attainment
dates, they will meet the 3 percent
average reduction requirement. and
adopt new CTG’s incIuding any new
CTG’s issued since today’s proposa’) ,
and implement enhanced I1M (if
required). starting when EPA finds that
the area continues to violate the
standard after its specified short-term
attainment date. These areas will also
be subject to whatever additional future
requirements EPA ultimately finds are
needed for long-term areas to provide
for expeditious attainment
Z. Areas that Cannot Demonstrate
Attoinmeni Within the 3-year Period As
deathbed above, areas subject to the
construction ban because they cannot
demonstrate attainment of the standards
by the end of the 3-year period set forth
In section 11O(a)LZMA) will be able to
avoid the additional discretionary
sanctions if they demonstrate
reasonable efforts to submit adequate
plani. The EPA proposes to define inch
efforts as the submittaL according to the
planning schedule described earlier, of a
plan that will produce reasonable
progress toward attainment by a fixed
date suitable for the area. As described
below, the “reasonable efforts”
attainmont date-for each ares will
depend on the degree of progress that
the plan will produce each year. For that
reason. the discussion below focuses
first on the amount of progress EPA will
regard as reflecting reasonable efforts
for each pollutant, and then on the
&t slninent date that would reflect such
effort..
a. Progress Requirements—i. Ozone.
For ozone, EPA proposes to define a
0 reasonthle efforts” level of progress for
an area as the percent reduction
described above for nosiffiarginsil abort-
term nonatlainnient areas, exI I ie d
until the year attainment is projected.
Thus, after an Initial demonstration of al
least a iS percent reduction for the
period 1988-1992, the area must show a
9 percent reduction (beyond the
measures noted earlier) for each
subsequent 3-year period until
attaiiunent.’ 5
“Where attainment Is protected to norm’
between 3-year projections, the 3 percect anneal
reduction is required to continua until the year to
which attainment is projected. In that year. the
balance of the required reduction (up to 3percenl)is
due. -
Where such Ion .term nonatte w. - .t areas
implement a measure that is later implemented at
ll’e national level, the areas may take credit towied
the 3 percent requirement until the federally-
Implemented measure is to effect. At that time, the
- wives would bee, to have schieved iuffideet
-emission r ,du .cllona so that they continue to meet
the annual requirement to obtainS ps cent emission
reductions beyond all federally-Implemented
meanms. The EPA solicits . - .---“.*i on this
.apprcadi’and other options to address these
situations. In particular. EPA Invites comment on
whether the State should be able to maintain the
edit toward the 3 percent requirement seen
alter a Federal measure is implemented which
would supersede or duplicate the effect of the State
measure. One option may be to eflow the State this
credit Indel’uiitely except for those measures that
EPA is cwrently *mp1ementin or has proposed as
of the date of chic notion. This opiuon mt hi also
requue thâ State measure to be implemented for e.
minimum imount of tune before the Federal
measure I , effective in order for the “indefinite
credrr to be aflowed.
-------
I. Area that received section 172
extensIon and whose post-1987
SIP does not adequately darn-
onstrate attainment witNn 3-
year period in section
1 1O(a)(2)(A).
II. Area with section 172 extension
whose post-1987 SIP adequate-
ly demonstrates attainment
withm ye a rpe do
UI. Nonextension designated non-
attainment area (other than risal
wider old policy) that received a
pre-1987 SIP cal and did not
receive EPA’. approval of a
demonstration of attainment by
the end c i 1987, a whose
post-1987 SIP does not demon-
strate attainment within the 3-
year perot
I V. Same as Ill, but post-1987 SIP
adequately ddeior *r.Ies attain-
ment within the 3-year penot -
V. Nonextension designated non-
attainment area (other than nisi
wider old policy) that received a
- pre-1987 SIP call and received
EPA’. approval of a derno stra- .
lion of attainment by the end of
1987, and whoee post-1987 SiP
does not demonstrate attain-
ment wlll*i the 3-year pedot -,
VL Seine as V. but post-1987 SiP
ade eiwiy denio as at
— within the 3-yeei edod
_ . ,: :•v
Nunndansos awe daalw.atad
area ther than
nxa lwideroldpd l icy)thatdd
not received a pre-1987 SIP call
and whose post-1987 SIP does
nsf adequately damn- aUate at-
tainmeid wIUw the 3-yew
RACT for CTG I , II , and III
arid for major non-CTG sources,
to be applied in designated
ozone nonattainment weaa
Ozone nd Basic I/M program
required by section
172(b)(1 1)(B).
Same as above._
Same as above (Basic IIM pre-
sumed required in EPA’s 1984
gildance on correction c i Part
D SIPs for nonextension areas
that did not darnonabnts attain-
t er1 by the end of 1987 witheid
C ui e RACT for CTG I , II , and Ill
in 6 1a6d ozone nonatlain-
ment area
S aneeaV________
.
S. . —
Oz RACT for CTG I and R in
de.l .a1ad no , ,.L eM awe
(for all sources — that ,
where the area darnonsiratad
attainment by 1982 without con-
ncn-or amices,
RACT was required on major
sowc or )-
Ozâne and Enhancements
beyond basic I/M program (for
areas with an urbanized popula-
tion above 200.000).
Ozon. and X Enhancements
beyond basic I/PA program only
for areas above 200,000 urban-
bad population and at 0.18 ppm
or above for ozone, 17 ppm or
above for CO.
Ozone and CO Enhancements
beyond basic I/PA program for
areas with wt*nlaed population
above 200 00.
Ozone and Enhancements
beyond basic I/PA program only
for areas above urban popula-
lion above 200.000 and at 0.16
ppm or above for ozone, 17
ppm or above for CO.
re and : Enhanced I/PA To.
— for areas above 200000
wbanlaed pâpulalion with ow
for entire program toward meet-
lag Colui m C requirement
.7. a _ S
—
one & Enhanced A l re-
— only for areas above
- - 00O baUed populadon
and at 0.16 ppm or above for
iie , 17 ppm or above for CO
with credit for on*e program
toward meeting coliann C vs.
Oz RACT for CTG Ill (and for
ncn.niajor CTG I end U sources
for wilidoRACT was not re-
rp*ed prior to 1987) in certain
aea.C
Ozone X Enhanced I/PA vs.
— for areas above 200,000
wbantred poputalice, with credit
for entire program toward meet-
kig Column C reqi*ement.
Applicable unless area la a “mace
gmat nonattainment area”
Applicable unless area lu a ‘mar-
ginal n n.tl.inmard ares.”
Federal Register I Vol. 52, No. 228 I Tuesday, November 24. 1987 I Notices
S TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP REQUIREMENTS
.
S
- S
-
Type of area
.
-
A -
Federally pTescnbed
Requirements Applicable Before
1987 and Therefore Not
creciitatie iowar Meeting
Requirement in COlumn C
(Assumes No Approvable
Photochemical Dispersion
Modeling Demonstration)
B
Federally Prescribed
Requirements Applicable for the
cirst Time After 1987
Therefore Credaat le*Towar
Meeting Requirement in Column C
(Assumes No Approvable
Photochemical Dispersion
Modeling Demonstration).
C
Requirement for Annual Average
Emission Reduction of 3 Percent
of Adjusted Base Year Inventory
for MSAICMSA Commencing in
the Year of the SIP Call
S
Appfucable.
Applicable unless areas a “mar-
ginal non-attainment area”.
Seine as above (per 1984 giñd-
eric .).
,• -a..
-------
VIM. Same as VII, bs post-1967
SIP adequately demonstrates
attainment within the 3-year
IC. MM contsâni’ig no designated
nonattainment wee, end whose
post-1987 SIP does n a t ads-
— sflte atSinent
within tie 3-year pedaL
X. Same as IX. tnt poet-l aB? SIP
— demonstrates & n-
merit within the 3-yew penaL
fl Non-MM Ou$ area desipiat-
ed nonattsbsmert for ozone arid
shown to be self-generating.
XII. Non-NSA (nnl} ares desig
nated normttalmnad. for ne
and shown to be noneelf..gona-
XI1L Non-MM (flieS) we that i n
not designated nonattainment
for i i e aid mat i n ahomi to
bes e t s -genes --.•
XIV. Non-MM (rural) area mit Is
not designated rwnalhksnetd
for ozone and matte sS m to
be nawet. iensfl
XV. Nea designated uS n f l-
— we wider odd —
arid when GAS#4 under prs-
— — welth cmi ads-
— demonstrate MtaflmM
within 3-yew period in post-
1967 SIP. -
ctaw PACT for dO I and II in
— nonattamment a ma
(for aM eoi es ecoept that.
where me area demonstrated
aflesnment bg 1962 wIthout con-
— —
PACT was reqwed
sources —
.j.
.. .4 ’.- ’
,
None -
-
.
PACT for major sources in GTG I
sn II ta J. ad rarnaSir i .
mefln
PACT for mejor sources in CTG I
and It in designated mjnefl*1 -
-
one
—
One PACT for major sources in
C m I and I I in designated non-
anneid wee (or ether control
çroved in Pe lt 05W).
&ona- PACT for CTG 111 (and for
non-m5 GIG I and II sources
ton which PACT was not rs-’
quired prior to 1987) in certain
r a t
C one aM X Enhanced t /M to-
c p a ’ S only for areas above
200c000 wtanbed population
and at 0.18 ppm or above for
ozone, 17 ppm or above for CO
with ce6 for- fl
- tm d meeting Cob.enn C as-
tboriar PACT f c c GIG I , N, end III
• in certain 1 ffl 5 Cr
On aM CO €Swad tIN ro-
— *4th credit for entire pro-
gram toward meeting Column C
-S -
(bone PACT for CYSt. II, and III
in certain ajaC
Awe aid Enhanced I M to-
— o or areas above
20 0O0 — popuiabon
and at 0.16 ppm or above for
ozone, 17 ppm or above for CO
with orMt for entire ogam
toward meeting Column C re-
nent
PACT for nofi4najor sources In
crGI ad I I, silsa ices in Cr6
III in designated nonaltainmerit
area
(bent PACT Its GIG 10 aid for
non-major GIG I and SI sources
hi the central county(les).
On aid (Xk Enhanced I/N re-
c3fl4 — for areas above
woo whanined population
arid at or above 0.16 ppm
ne or 17 ppm CO. with credit
for aWe program toward meet-
big Cofuinn C recp*ament
Applicable unless area is a “mar-
ginel nonattainment area”
Apc,Mcsble unless wee i n a “mar-
— Snl wet”
PpØcaMe If post-1987 SIP does
nut Secpsatety demorabste at-
isinmeetwld* 3-yew — or
ldeslgnvakieot
Noteppticaola
Appicatile unless area in a “m a-
— no - area”
tie ppm or above for.
!Seffil Register / Vol. 52. No. 226 / Tuesday , November24. 1987 / Notices
45069
Thatz I —SUMMARY OF OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP REQUIREMEWr5—Continued
.
Type of ares
.
.
A
B
C
Federally Prescribed
Req rents Appacable Before
1987 aid Therefore Not
0-editable Toward Meeting
Requirement in Column C
.
Modeling Demonstration)
Federally Prescribed
R c i 754
Therefore QeditableA Toward
Meeting Requirement hi Column C
Modeling Demonstrflan)
Requirement ten Annual Average
Ernisson Reduction of 3 Pattern
of Adiusted Base Year Inventory
for MSAICMSA Coninenong i n
the Year of the SIP Call
on major
- - - -- S.- .. .
.‘‘.
— - ,.
Us -
— , P4 - , -
—
PACT ion cm u, is m in S IP
ceiwet
‘t . -vcs?l -
PACT for mar sources in as
endl linSlPcaliaa
Applicable unless ares in a$nvw-
ginS nonetSrent wet”
-------
- - — . Goi.Iuy, £Iovemoer 24. 1987 I Notices
TM&.g L—Suuw y OF OZONE AND CAROON MONOXIDE SIP REQumB .IEwrs—Continued
Type Of
-
A
B
C
Federally Prescftaed
Revemsnti Applicable Before
1987 and Theretors Not
Creditable Toward Meetri
Re Eement in Counn C
Federally Prea ted
Fwst TiTle After 1987
Therefore Creditable Towu’d
Mee g Requirement u Colisun C
Requirement for Anpua
Emission Redaction of L..
of Adjusted Base Year Inventory
for MSA/CMSA Commencing in
the Year of the SIP Call
• M
Modaling DemceUaUon)
I
XVL Same as XV, bid cai t ado-
RACI far molar sources
w MCI *w CTG IN arid far
Appicable.
quately demonsvals aualnmsnt
CTG I and U in designated non-
non-molar CIG I and N sources
within 3-year period in O t-
attainment area (or other coi*ol
in the cer*aI comady(ies).
1987 SIP.
area approved in Pert 0 SlP)
•
w a X. Enhanced UM re.
— only for areas above
200000 wban ad po
with credit for eras pro am
-
toward -meeting Colimm C i n-
.
—
£ Except m areas that incfoded these_mqi*emenle lii the portions of their SIP ’s approved on or before publication of todays notice.
‘Defined as an area able to demwisv.lo near-teen ef jiijiijn$ with only (1) federally-implemented 1TIOSSWOS, (2) ITIOsSUmS required for the
areainEPAspre-1 987 qildance. ar4(3) the apejicily identified 5p4 legally erdorceable CoIuJTlltITIeflts and adopted measures in the portions of
C The conI ta gnaIed U&n ,uent wee, or 1J area inciuded in the previously approved Part D SIP. If applicable,
for areas arentiy deargnated nonattainment uridse O7 end previously deargnated areas now eeped.ndiig NMOS vdatione For newly
Since future measures are expected to
be increasingly main iitfficnlt to develop
and Implement, EPA believes that the
lower end of this range (La.. 3 percent
per year) should be used In determining
whethea the State Is maidng reasonable
efforts. In addition, EPA believes that a
requirement of less than 3 percent per
year could result in unreasonably long-
term, attainment dates for some areas.
1 furv , EPA will pn e that an
area Is maldng reasonable efforts to
provide for expeditious attainment (and
reasonable further progress) If Its SIP
measures (not Including the measures
described earlier) will produce average
annual emission reductions equal to 3
percent of the base year 1 ons ,
Once the Federal measures no longer
provide a net benefit. all growth
Including that from sources affected by
Federal measures, must be factored Into
the 3 percent requirement. Stated-
differently, long-term ozone -
nonatt In’nent areas will need to -
demonitrate s ’ 4 .”• reductions to
reduce their emissions Inventories by
the required percentage regardless ci
the amount of a uwth that occurs from
all source categories. In high-growth
areas, this could require reductions from
existing sources greater than an average
annual 3 percent. In order to compea sate
for new source (or vehicle) growth. The
EPA solicits comments on whether It -
should alleviate the additional pressure
that growth would create, by permitting
States to use the expected reductions
from the FMVCP to compensate for
emissions growth while meeting their
percent reduction requirement (as long
as the FMVCP prve am and other
Federal measures provide a net
reduction) . . -
Areas that cannot demonstrate
5tta1mns tI within the 3-year period In
saction 110(aX2XA) may seek to avoid
the construction ban by demonstrating
s”aiaenent within the extended period
allowed by section 110(e). As Indicated
earlier, that section perillts aZ-year
extension of the attainment date only th
(A) One or mare emission sources (or
classes of moving sources) are ve hl . to
comply with the requirements of such plans
which Implement such primary standard
because the necessary technology or other
alternatives are not available or will not be
available soon enough to permit compliance
within mach 3-year period, and
(B) The State has coneldered and applied
us part of Its plan reasonably available
- alternative “ an , of aiI h.b.g such primary
and JV 5tIBSbIY I that
aiI&n..qne of such primary standard within
the 3 years cannot be achieved,
It Is clear that Congress ini.v dad to
motbodue EPA to conaiila th, economic
- fasslbflity or reasonablenee. .1 the
avOllable means of attainment In making
the judgetent under paragraph (A). (If.
Congress had not intended to do so, no
area would be eligible for the extension,
since all areas can attain the standard
- wIthin 3 years simply by shutting down
all economic activity.) Therefore. EPA
interprets paragraph (A) to require only
- a showing that the Implementation of
the “realonably available alternative
- means” (RAAM) described In paragraph
(B) would not bring about attainment
wIthin 3 years. Paragraph (B). then.
would provide assurance that those
reasonably available means are indeed
Implemented to achieve progress within
the 3-year period,
Therefore, an area will be eligible for
the 2-year extension If It demonsfra?
that It Is actually Implementing the
RAAM within the 3-year period anq
It still cannot attain within that 3-ye
period. The area then would not be
subject to the construction ban lilt
could then demonstrate attainment in
the 2-year extension period. The EPA
proposes to define the RAAM as the set
of prescribed measures and the ai.ii.iion
reduction percentage that are also’
applicable to other Long-term ozone
nonattainment areas.
II. Carbon Monoxide. For long.term
CO nona’tahiinent areas. EPA proposes
to define “reasonable efforts” as two
sets of measures—one for hotspots and
one for areawide problems.
For hotspots. defused for these
purposes as localized problems with
otaiiypd solutions (such as traffic
changes at the hotspot locations). EPA
will require the State to Include in Its
SIP revisions enforceable commitments
(1) to Implement the localized solutions
for all currently known hotspots by the
end of the 3-year period and (2) for all
hotspots Identified for the first time
within that period or thereafter, to
Implement the localized solutions within
3 years of the Identification.
For areas that have areawide CO
problems, EPA proposes to define
“reasonable efforts” as. In addition to
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 52. No. 226 I Tuesday. November 24. 1987 I Notices
45071
any hotspot requirements that may
apply. the average annual emission
reduction described above for long-term
ozone nonattainment areas. Although
past CO SIP’s have relied primarily on
the FMVCP to reduce emissions by this
range of annual levels, EPA believes
that additional measures are potentially
available at reasonable cost for
application in these long-term areas. A
list of available measures that States
should consider In deciding how to meet
the percent reduction requirement
appears in Appendix C.
ts discussed above for ozone. States
should develop their control strategies
so that the minimum 3 percent reduction
starts as early as possible and occurs at
a continuous rate until attainment Is
achieved. But, for the same reasons
discussed above for ozone, the earliest
practical date to assess compliance with
the reduction requirement will be in
1993 (for the year 1992). States will be
required to achieve creditable emission
reductions of at least 15 percent (an
average of 3 percent over the 5-year
period of 1988-1992) by the end of 1992.
Thereafter, States must achieve
reductions of at least 9 percent every 3
years until atthinment. -
The EPA is considering, however
whether it may be appropriate to require
a lesser reduction from long-term CO
nonattanment areas (perhaps especially
in the period shortly after the SIP
revision is due). In contrast to the case
for ozone, these areas will not be able to
rely significantly on statlonaiy source
control measures to supplement TCM’s
as a means to meet the requirements.
Most CO nonattainment problems result
almost exclusively from automotive
pollutants. Thus, it may be more difficult
for CO nonattainment areas than for
ozone nonattalnment areas to meet a 3- -
percent reduction requirement (In
addition to offsetting growth), at least In
the short term. The EPA solicits
comments especially on how to assure
that local areas aggressively continue to
implement reasonably available local
controls while not requiring more
controlthancanorneedstobe -
achieved, i.e., is 3 percent most -
appropriate or is another level or
approach more appropriate?, -
So long as federally-Implemented
measures continue to achieve a net
emissions reduction, considering growth -
in sources affected by those Federal
measures, States will not be required to
account for such growth in meeting the 3
percent requirement However, States
must account for all other source growth
during this period. Once the Federal
measures no longer provide a net
benefit, all growth must be factored into
the 3 percent requirement The EPA
solicits comment. however, on whether
It should alleviate the additional
pressure that growth could create, by
permitting States to use the expected
reductions from the FMVCP to
compensate for stationary source
emissions growth in their percent
reduction calculations.
As in the case of ozone, EPA will use
the requirements for long-term areas,
described above, as Its definition of
“reasonably available alternative
• means,” for the purpose of its decisions
on whether to grant extensions to CO
nonattainment areas under section
110(e).
b. Attainment Dotes. The attainment
dates that EPA believes wlllreflect
“reasonable efforts” for long-term ozone
and CO nonattainment areas are the
dates on which attalnmnnt of the
relevant standard Is projected to occur If
the required level of progress is
achieved.
Thus, the applicable “reasonable
efforts” attainment date for an area will
turn on the percent reduction required.
As a simplified example, If an area
needs a 50 percent VOC emission
reduction to attain the ambient standard
and if national measures (e.g., FMVCP,
RVP, onboard) will provide reductions
of 20 percent, the area must achieve a
net emission reduction (accounting for
growth) of 30 percent. Assuming the
minimum required rate of progress of 3
percent per year. the area must show
that Its strategy will provide for
attainment wIthin 10 years of the base
year (30 percent reduction divided by 3
percent reduction per year),”
Procedures and a worksheet for
calculating the attainment date are In
Appendix IC. For areas demonstrated to
be limited to CO hotspot problems and
their solutions, the attiilninent date Is
the date (presumed to occur within the S
year period) by which all necessary
hotapot control measures will be-
Implemented. • “- -.
• C. Measures Selected by the Stats.
States are required to select such
measures as will allow their
nonattnlnment areas to attain by the
required date as discussed In-section
IV.B. and to show the required
expeditious progress In the interim.
There are conceIvably a variety of
different control programs which could
achieve this requirement. The discussion
below addresses some Issues that are
likely to arise as the States study and.
select control measures after 1987,
1. Stationary Source Control
Measures. The EPA has prescribed
RACT requirements for the Group I. II.
and III CTG sources discussed in section
IV.A. and previously approved SW.
may have included additional stationary
sources control obligations (as shown in
Table I). Rather than specifically
prescribe yet additional control
requirements needed, this policy
requires an average 3 percent reduction
in emissions per year for many areas, as
described in section IV.B.
In order for an area to show the
required 3 percent reduction, it may be
necessary for stationary source controls
beyond those specifically required by
EPA to be adopted. In areas that exceed
the ozone standard by a wide margin, it
seems almost a certainty that new
stationary source control measures will
have to be incorporated Into the SIP.
Stationary sources fall Into two types:
(1) Point sources and (2) area sources.
States will have to evaluate what
stationary sources In affected areas are
present and not already covered by EPA
requirements. Table C-I in Appendix C
gives a list of various types of stationary
point sources which are not covered by
CTG’s. Appendix C also contains titles
of some technical reports written by
EPA which may be of help to States as
they evaluate non-CTG source control.
The Table C—i list could be a good
starting point for States to use In
evaluating where emission reductions
can be made through stationary source
control However, this list is neither
exhaustive nor prescriptive, and each
State should examine Its own emission
inventory to Identify stationary point
sources that may be suitable for controL
Area sources can give rise to VOC
emissions which, in some locations, may
be as large or larger than poInt sources.
However, area sources are often not
addressed In control programs and have
not been controlled In many locations in
the pest
Area sources are emissIon sources
that are relatively small taken
Individually, but in the aggregate are
large, because there are large numbers
of these sources scattered throughout
the area. An example would be
architectural coatings. Thousands of
homeowners in an urban area may each
use a few gallons of paint per year.
Individually, each user’s VOC emissions
are small, but taken together. because of
the large number of Individual users.
emissions could be relatively large.
Table C-I in Appendix C lists some
important area sources that States
M I - - should consider controlling for large
VOC reductions. One item on the list
which may need explanation is
mesiuree produce the percent reduction within
the .ame 10-year penod. - .- •-
-------
45072
Federal Register ! VoL 52, No. 226 I Tuesday, November 24. 1987 I Notices
“consumer solvents.” This term covers
solvent emissions from common
household Items such as aerosol paints
from small spray cans, hair spray.
cleaners, insect sprays, polishes, waxes,
deodorants, and many other common
items. Control measures to reduce VOC
emissions from these Items would
probably entail reformulating the
product so that It contained less VOC,
perhaps by making It as a waterborne
For stationary sources, in oudcz for
emission limiting regulations and control
measures to be properly adopted, the
regulation or measure must meet the
requirements for public bearing. be
adopted by the appropriate board or
authority, and establish, by regulation or
permit, a schedule and date for each
affected facility to achieve compliancs.
2. Air Toxica/Ozaze Policy laleifooa.
Ozone SIP development has significant
relevance to Important nationwide
efforts ourrently under way for the
control of toxic a pollutants. This is In
part true because both programs are
concerned with many of the same
sources and are being implemented In
largemaasure by the States and local
agencies. Pc i these and other reasons
(stated below). EPA Is proposing a
policy which stresses that the
development of ozone SIP’s should.
wherever possible, Incorporate
measures that reflect air tmcica controls.
Air toxice present a comp 1 nation I
problem resulting from !mn Pous and
diverse sources. A large potDI .H1
problem I. believed to exist from the
mixture of sources and toxic pollutants -
present In most major urban areas that
are also nonattninmn t for ozone. ‘
Under EPA’s National Air Toxics
Strategy, released In June 1985, the
Admmlntrator stressed the Importance
of usingall available existing authority
to address the air to dcs problem. One
of the principal existing authorities
envisioned for use under the strategy Is
that contained in section 110 of the Act
governing SW development, sInce it had
proveninthspasttobe ff .ii fn
limiting the a98yegate risk to the public.
Based on previous estimates within
EPA’s 6-month study,S? particulate
matter and VOC SIP actions are
believed to have reduced the aWegate
risk from 16 thffwimt toxic pollutants by
about 50 percent during theperlod from
1 7O to 1980 A follow.up study . ests
that additional reductions of 25 perciut .
and more would result from new SIP
control activities. Many of the same
sources caiming the ozone problem will
- U Th. Air Toidga Pr-&1... . I. lbs t *tmd Siaiiu
An AnsI s s C(CIICSILSS. f Bstsctsd Poflutan*s.
u.s. si A. Ma, 311&
be of concern in evolving State air
toxics programs. Thus, for reasons of
regulatory effectiveness, administrative
efficiency, and good sense the
development of ozone SIP’s and State
air toxics control programs should be
well coordinated In their timing and
substance.
Toxics and ozone co*ol programs
should be coordinated at various levels.
First. State and local pro 5 rams will be
encouraged to develop and implement a
toxics component in their ozone pla s
on their own Initiative. This is
conducive to efficient air quality
management because, as stated above,
the ozone and toxics efforts address
many of the same sources. Second, EPA
can promote the adoption of toxics
measures through the way it reviews
Sips. This can take the form either of
discouraging proposed provisions that
are counterproductive to toxics control
or of encouraging productive measures
as part of general determinations of
whether “reasonable efforts” are being
nwL. Third. EPA will consider air
con erns In Its own actions
relative to ozone SIP develop went.
These actions bivlude the possible
development of any nationally
presumptive VOC control measures or
pr nulgnUcn of any measures under
sectIon 110(c) of the Act. Finally, -
increased attention can be paid In
nona RInmPnt new source review
permitting under Part D of the Act to
reflect an in ”n’I.tl consideration of air
toxics.
TheEPAisintheproceesof
eva v kJ..g a variety of potential
strategies for reducing air toxics In the
context of VOC control and estimating
the payoff associated with these various
potential SIP measures. This should
assist State and local agencies hi not
only ma lm total environmental
benefit of the VOC control strategies
selected but also In avoiding control
measures that are counter-productive.
The EPA Intends that this Initial
guidance be available In time to
facilitate lmpl.umantation of the policy -
on ozone and air toxrcs as articulated
above. The EPA solicits co1nI a a on
what this daiwe should consist of and
on the contents of today’s proposed
policy Tot w 1 diuating air toxins OQi,ittul
and ozone SIP developanent
3. Tzaii.ponotion Coat ml Measures.
In many citie, exceeding the omne
NAAQS, niobiln $u tU make up one-
half or more of the VOC .i .da c s. The
CO nonatininnient problem Is almost-
exclusively related to mobile sources.
The EPA recognizes that many cities are
experiencing high rates oI puw1h In
overall VMT. which will OVOzww
reductions from the FMVCP and I/M
programs in the near future. In a few
cities with extremely rapid growth. thi
event has already occurred. The EPA
believes that many metropolitan areas
will, of necessity, evaluate and select for
the control strategy, transportation
measures capable of offsetting the
effects of such growth In the future to
the extent necessary to provide for
attainment and maintenance, and to
meet the required rate of progress.
a. Requirements forAdoption of
Transportation-Related Control
Measures. Emission reductions from the
transportation sector range from short.
term measures that can be developed
and implemented over a few months or
a couple of years and with limited
intergovernmental coordination, to
measures that Involve very complex
plsmnfng and extensive political
processes. The latter measures are
generally referred to as long-term”
measures. These long-term measures
will generally be more difficult to
implement, have higher social impacts,
and therefore have a greater degree of
public interaction. In certain cases,
some of these measures (e.g., tax
disincentives and vehicle restrictions)
could be implemented lii the short-term;
however, the States may choose to
implement these measures later In the
long-term strategies due to the high
social Impacts. In other cases, It may
take a long time to develop these
measures conceptually, develop the
technical details, and secure the
necessary funding (e.g.. major mass
transit projects). While the States may
choose measures as long-term measures
for-these noted reasons, EPA believes
that for the SIP strategy to be credible
and approvable, there must be at least
some minimum “form of adoption” for
these long-term measures. This adoption
maybe somewhat different from that of
the short-term measures that have
implementation commencing In the
Immediate future. However, the long-
term measure adoption must be
sufficiently binding on the State to
assure that the Identified measure will
In fact be implemented according to the
schedule approved in the strategy.
Transportation control measures are
to meet the following criteria in order to
be considered as properly adopted. The
SIP must contain the following:
(1) A complete description of the
measure and Its estimated emission
reduction benefits must be provided;
(2) Evidence that the measure was
properly adopted by the jurisdiction(s)
with legal authority to commit to and
execute such u -nm (e.g., Attorney
General’s certification of adoption);
-------
OI’TIONAL FORhI 99(7.90)
c v
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance for Developing Alternative Reasonably Available Control’
Technology (RACT) Demonstrations for Tulsa Aerospace Industry
FROM: G.T. Helmá, Chief
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch (MD-is)
TO: Chief, Air Branch
Regions 1-Vill, X
Region IX has requested guidance for preparing site•speclflc alternative
RACT demonstrations for control technique guideline (CTG) sources,
particularly in the aerospace Industry. Atta hed is guidance developed by
Region VI with input from the Office of Air Qi al1t Planning and Standards
(OAQPS) for four aerospace facilities in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Region VI. is
requiring all four facilities to submitan alternative RACT demonstration t.
support the tndustry’s request for exemption from the miscellaneous metal
parts and products CTG requirements for certain specialty coatings.
This guidance is based, in part, on the volatile organic compqund (VOC)
checklist for alternative RACT determinations for CTG sources that will be
used next year for uTab le 3 State Implementation plan oversight activities.
Region VI apparently has been successful In sállinj the alternative RACT
guidance to the State of Oklahoma and is conveying the message to the Industry
that they are expected to fully explore all options for reducing VOC emissions
and to document their findings.
If you have any questions, please call John Silvasi (FTS 629-5666) or
David Cole (FTS 629•5565).
Attachment
cc: Air 8ranch Chief, Rag. IX
D. Cole
S. Ifoluan
B. Johnson
1. Schultz
J. S1,lvasl
Ozone/VOC Policy Work Group
FAX TRANSMITTAL
0 4OEC 1989:
-------
ALTERNATE MCI DETERMINATION FOR THE AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
I NTRODUCTION
In the ‘late 1910’s the U.S. Envfronmental Protection Agency ((PA) issued
a series of reports to provide guidance on reasonable levels of control that
are required f a variety of Industries using paints and other coatings.
Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from coatin9 operations can be
reduced by abatement equipment (e.g.,. add-on control devices such as carbon
adsorbers or incinerators) or by process and material changes (e.g., low-VOC
coatings). Many conventional (high-YOC) coatings critical to the aerospace
industry are not available (and may never be available) as a low-VOC
formulation. Several reasons may be that: (1) the technology Is not
possible; (2) the sales volume would not warraflt the researth investment
necessary for Its development; or (3) formulatdrs lack incentives to
Investigate low-VOC alternatives. The latter situation could result from
general waivers or exemptions for certain classes of coatings, failure of
compi lance’ officials to properly enforce certain regu)at ions, or, as In the
case of some Industries, use of excess control in some areas of a plant to
offset the need for emission control elsewhere.
Justification today for an alternative to levels of control that were
deemed reasonable In the late 1970’s requires a detailed engineering review
of each emissions source within an aerospace facility. Any justification for
an alternative must demonstrate that Innovative air ‘management considerations
(including cascading and recirculation conthined with new technological
developments In cleansing air streams) are explored for each source as well as
for the whole facility. Such technology-forcing actions are an Integral part
of defining a reasonable level of control for a specific Industry.
Since the time guidance was published for coating of miscellaneous metal
products and several other high-volume users of coatings, less costly air
pollution control technology has become available. Cost of abatement Is the
key. The technology exists, and has for decades, to achieve any level of
emission reduction desired. The cost, however, has sometimes been more than
EPA was willing to Impose on industry. Cost Is a function of two major
characteristics of the VOC alrstream: (1) the volume of air which must be
treated, and (2) the concentration of VOC within that volume. A number of
innovations within the last several years has significantly reduced, abatement
costs. For example, two manufacturers now offer abatement equipment designed
to cleanse alrstreams with very low VOC concentrations. On one aerospace
spray booth, destruction efficiency Is reported on a stream with only about 30
ppm on the Inlet to the carbon adsorption systäm. Another means of reducing
costs used by a different large. spray painting operation is recirculation of a
significant portion of the exhaust air back thv’ough the spray booth. Only
10 percent Is discharged through the control device and 90 percent of the
exhaust air Is recirculated. This low volume reduces by about the same amount
the capital Investment required for the control system 4 Should incineration
be the abatement system of choice, the resulting increase In VOC content would
also decrease the supplemental fuel costs required for combustion by an even
greater amount. /
-------
2
Another technique used to ashilmize the cost of abatement is ucascadlng.h1
This Is especially applicable In the printing Industry where, rather than
attempt to abate the total flow from all sources within some types of printing
operations, the exhaust air from one operation is used to sweep the VOC from a
second and even a third source. This type of air management scheme can
accomplish the same two major goals for reducing abatement costs as
rec lrculatlon-•reductlon of air volumes to be treated and increases In the VOC
concentrat Ion in the contaminated air.
A new technique for reducing emissions without Investment in abatement
or conversion to totally different coating systems has recently been
introduced. One company has patented, a spray iystea which substitutes liquid
CO for a significant amount of the solvent In’ a coating. Adoption of this
syftem will permit use of a low-solvent version of the same resin system now
Thuss.
Since air management is so critical to minimizing the cost of abatement,
any attempt to justify as reasonable any alternat lve.level of control at an
aerospace facility must clearly demonstrate that all possible Innovative air.
management techniques have been considered. This de onstrat1on will require4
the facility to have detailed knowledge not only of the multiplicity of . -
processes and spray booths, but also the workload ‘within each spray booth.
For example, if two booths are now used, with moderate reschedul I ng of
manufacturing activity, all work could be performed In a single booth.
Consequently, only one-half of the exhaust air, from two booths need be
treated, and the potential cost of abatement would halve.
How are the company’s present booths deslgndd? For 50 years or more,
industry has been primarily concerned with rempvlng paint vapors from a
manufacturing site for safety and employee health reasons. This was
accomplished by maximum air exhaust. Now means of reducing air flows must be
developed to minimize air pollution control costs without Increasing the risk
to plant or employee. This is being accomplished by other users of coatings
in fields where the engineering technology Is far Inferior to that of the,
aerospace Industry. For example, the tens ‘spray booth” is frequently a
misnomer. Some may have an entire side open and often the coating operation
takes place imeedlately outside of the booth with the “booth” used as a hood,
dependent on capture velocity to prevent fugitive emissions. Some spray
booths now in use are merely sections of much 1 arger rooms than the floor area
of the booth and there is no barrier between their conmion floor spaces.
Obviously a fertile place for Innovative air management Is redesign of these
coating areas to contain the fugitive emissions, yet optimize the movement of
parts and people In and out. Enclosures--true spray booths--may be
constructed to permit optimum reduction In air flow. Construction of
enclosures permits the inlet air to the breathing zone of the employees to be
part of the inherent design rather than the unplanned consequence of other
design factors.
-------
.3
Insiry, In order for EPA to Judge a reasonable level of control less
stringent thaw that which has previously been applied to and enforced for
other less sophisticated coaters of metal parts, there must be a showing that
a detailed and Innovative engineering effort has been unable to find alternate
air management schemes that can be incorporated In order to abate at costs
which are reasonable.
If such a finding is demonstrated, ‘then the source must next consider
the level of control that Is achievable using available alternative coatings
and control devices. To make this showing, EPA has developed the followifly
questions to assist the State and each of the aerospace facilities in
preparing the alternative RACT demonstration.
-------
REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ALTERNATE RACT
I. GENERAL
I. Explain why alternate MCI determination Is necessary (I.e., the
State must regulate minor coating sources to obtain SIP approval).
2. DescrIbe the emission hilt and/or control technique for each
applicable operation, that Is being racomeended In the SIP submittal
as an alternate RACT, rather than merely exempting the source.
3. Oescrlbe the air quality and attainment status of the area.
4. If there was an atta1i ent demonstration developed for the area’s
SIP, describe the following:
1. the demonstration Itself (1.e., reductions required, reductions
predicted, attaiflment year)
Ii. Impact of the proposed alternati RACTdeterm lnatlon, (i.e.,
will it protect reasonable further progress)
II. SOURCE UNIQUENESS
1. Explain why the source Is not a typical coating source covered by
CTG document.
2. If the company has other plants in other States with similar
operations, compare regulatory requfrements and justify any
deviation In the alternate RACT.
3. Determine other facilities within the same CTG category which have
complied with RACT requirements by using complying coatings or other
kinds of controls. Discuss any unique circumstances that prevent
the particular source from Implementing the same control measures as
those that are complying with the MCI limitations.
III. TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY OF RACT
A. AVAILABILITY OF LOW-SOLVENT COATINGS
1. Demonstrate that complying low-solvent coatings are unavailable.
This demonstration may be acco$llshed by placing advertisements In
paint trade Journals to describe the application and product
specifications for low-solvent coatings.
This review should show that a detailed and Innovative engineering
effort has been unable to find alternate, even totally different,
coating systems which require less VOC In order to function
properly. One such alternative Is th patented spray system
available from Union Carbide which substitutes liquid CO 2 for a
significant amount of the solvent In a coating.
-------
2. L’st suppliers and trade associations for the industry contacted by
the source to deteriiin. If they have, or could reasonably
develop, complying castings or other controls. Give nemes and phone
numbers of Individuals contacted. Docunent all responses.
3. Document how oany years the company has been investigating the
availability of compliant coatings.
4. DescrIbe any circumstances that would prevent the source from using
compliant coatings if such coatiflgs coUld be Identified. Also,
document tlmefnmes and procedures for resolving the circumstances
that prevent the use of compliant coat1flg that are available.
5. List the feasible alternative coatings with the lowest VOC contents
for each coating operation and not merely provide a total exemption
for any costing used. These need n:ot bá campliant.
8. AVAILABILITY OF ADD-ON GO TROLS
1. Demonstrate what aid -on controls ar/are not technologicalll
feasible. This demonstration say be accomplished by placln
advertisements In pollution control; trade Journal s to describe the
application and product’ specificitlons for add-on abatement
equipment.
2. Investigate, at a minimum, the fällowlng control options:
1. Md-on controls
a. carbon adsorption
b. IncIneratIon/flaring (Including heat recovery)
c. condensation
d. combination of a. and b. above
ii. ‘ Facility redesign -
a recirculation
b. reduced air flows
c. consolidating spray operations to cciivnon area of plant
tnareby combinIng eialss lon points to cornon control
device
III. Alternative application
a. improving transfer efficiency
1. hlgh..volume-low-preSSure spray equipment
2. heated—spray guns (for use ‘with higher Solids
coatings)
3. electrostatIc spray equip’nent
-------
WIth respect to Item 2.1 above, the following presents a minimal
mount of informatIon which Is essential t inalyz1ng the abatement
pbtentIal. for each spraybooth.
a. Daily VOC evaporation rate (lbs/day)
b. Daily booth paint usage rate (hours/day)
c. Concentration of VOC. in the e*haust air (ppm)
d. Quantity of exhaust gas, (ft 1 /irdnute)
a. Spray booth design
f. The effect of potenttal modifications on d and e
With respect to Item 2.11 above, the following presents a minimal
amount of Information which is essential to analyzing spatial an
other relationships between other surcee áiid equipment within the
plant.
a. Proximity of various spraybo ,ths (ft)
b. Proximity of other VOCi soürc s such as a hydrocarbon
degreaser vent (ft)
C. CombUstion sir required for’ on site boilers or other
cccibustion sources (ft 3 jm lnute)
d. Distance to potential s te of abatement equipment (ftl
3. Ust engineering design firms, quipaiei it suppliers and tradi
associations contacted by the source to determine if they
have, or coulg reasonably develop, abatement equipment or other
controls. Give names and phone nwibersof Individuals contacted.
Document .11 responses.
4. Document how many years the facility has been investigating add-on
controls.
5. Describe any physical circumstances, that would prevent the source
from using abatement equipment If such equipment can be Identif led.
Al so, doc a .ent ticieframes and procedures for resol vi ng the
circumstances that prevent the u e of’ the equlpaent that are
available.
6. LIst all technologically feasible control, systems. Note that these
systems need not bring the source Into camp 11 ance.’ Rather, they
should lower emissions.
IV. COST/ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF RACT
A control system cost and economic evaluation must be Included In the package.
Th 4 s evaluation should Include evaluation of control systems, such as add on
controls, input changes, and/or process changes. All.cost evaluaçlons will be
reviewed againpt EPA ’s guidance in the LAB Control Cost Manual , Third Edition,
February 1987, PA.45O/5-8?-OO1A. The evaluation should leet the following
require encs, ae applicable.
-------
I. II? developing the evaluat 4 on:
1. Cost out - all control •optlonsfscenartos found to be
technologically feasible. For tontrol options, present
Innovative approaches to ma 1m1zç control and minimize cost
by techniques-evaluated under section III B.
ii. Account for credits ‘such as recovered products for reuse, use
as fuel, or sale and steem generated) accurately and
consistently.
111. Account for debits (such as fuel, labor, equipment, Interest)
accurately an 1 consistently.
2. State the cost effectiveness ($lton) for each of controL system
options and combinatIons of -opt1ón Investigated under III. B. 2.
3. State the range of control costs for each control device.
4. DIscuss the economic Impacts and preovide supporting calculations of
the economic impact of the control. systems on:
1. productIon costs
ii. c pany rof1ts
ill, product demand
iv. employment
v. product prices (cost 6bsorption vs cost pass—through)
vi. affordability
5. ExplaIn claim of plant-closure, If any.
V. EMISSION REDUCTION CALCULATIONS
1. When evaluating the tonnage of emissions that must be reduced to
achieve compliance with the scenatios jiweaUgated, aLt ca].tttatioM
must be done on a solids basis. This is necessary because when
coating are reformulated to a higher solids content,..asmatler volume
of coating material Is required to deposit the same a ount of solids
‘(I.e., film build). The proper methOd will follow EPAs guidance
document A Guideline for Surface Coating Ca’culatlons” (CPA—340/1-
86-016). Exaoplè six of section fQur illustrates the proper method
for deteriiilning the percent reduction required to meet a gIven pounds
of VOC per gallon limit.
-------
REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ALTERNATE RACT
I. GENERAL
1. ExplaIn why alternate RACT determination is necessary ( .e., the
State must regulate minor coating sources to obtain SIP approval).
2. Describe the emission limit and/or control technique for each
applicable operation, that Is being reconinended in the SIP submittal
as an alternate RACT, rather than merely exempting the source.
3. Describe the air quality and attainment status of the area.
4. If there was an attainment demonstration developed for the area’s
SIP, describe the following:
1. the demonstration itself (i.e., reductions required, reductions
predicted, attainment year)
it. Impact of the proposed alternate RACT determination, (I.e.,
will it protect reasonable further progress)
II. SOURCE UNIQUENESS
1. Explain why the source is not a typical coating source covered by
CTG document.
2. If the company has other plants in other States with similar
operations, compare regulatory requirements and justify any
deviation in the alternate RACT.
3. DetermIne other facilities within the same CTG category which have
complied with RACT requirements by using complying coatings or other
kinds of controls. Discuss any unique circumstances that prevent
the particular source from implementing the same control measures as
those that are complying with the RACT limitations.
III. TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY OF RACT
A. AVAILABILITY OF LOW-SOLVENT COATINGS
1. Demonstrate that complying low-solvent coatings are unavailable.
This demonstration may be accomplished by placing advertisements In
paint trade journals to describe the application and product
specifications for low-solvent coatings.
This review should show that a detailed and innovative engineering
effort has been unable to find alternate, eventotally different,
coating systems which require less VOC in order to function
properly. One such alternative Is the patented spray system
available from Union Carbide which substitutes liquid CO 2 for a
significant amount of the solvent in a coating.
-------
- V4J r L UO.) .) i5j5 i -—________ ____
— — — — ‘PSI
2. List suppliers and trade associations for the industry contacted by
the source to determine if they have, or could reasonably
develop, complying coatings or other controls. Give names and phone
numbers of individuals contacted. Document ll responses.
3. Document how many years the company has been investigating the
availability of compliant coatings.
4. Describe any circumstances that would prevent the source from using
compliant coatings if such coatings could be identified. Also,
document timeframes and procedures for resolving the circumstances
that prevent the use of compliant coatings that are available.
5. List the feasible-alternative coatings with the lowest vOc contents
for each coating operation and not merely provide a total exemption
for any coating used. These need not be “compliant”.
B. AVAILABILITY OF ADD-ON CONTROLS
• 1. Demonstrate what
feasible. This
advertisements in
application and
equipment.
aid-on controls are/are not technologically
demonstration may be accomplished by placing
pollution control trade journals to describe the
product specifications for add-on abatement
2. Investigate, at 3 minimum, the following c r rol options:
1. Add—on controls
a. - carbon adsorption
b. incineration/flaring (including heat recovery)
c. condensation
d. combination of a. and b. above
ii. Facility redesign
a. recirculation
b. reduced air flows
c. consolidating spray operations to coimnon area
thereby combln ng emission points to comon
device
iii. Alternative application
a. improving transfer efficiency
of plant
control
I. high-volume-low-pressure spray equipnent
2. heated-spray guns (for use with higher solids
coatings
3. electrostatic spray equipment
-------
With respect to iter’i 2.1 above, the following presents a minimal
amount of information which Is essential t ânal zing the abatement
potential for each spraybooth.
a. Daily VOC evaporation rate (lbs/day)
b. Daily booth paint usage rate (hours/day)
c. Concentration of VOC In the exhaust air (ppm)
d. Quantity of exhaust gas (ft 3 /minute)
e. Spray booth design
f. The effect of potential modifications on d and e
With respect to item 2.ii above, •the following presents a minimal .
amount of information which Is essential to analyzing spatial and
other relationships between other sources áiid equipment within the
plant.
a. Proximity of various spraybooths(ft)
b. Proximity of other VOC sources such as a hydrocarbon
degreaser vent ft
c. Combustion air required for on site boilers or other
cccibustion sources (ft 3 /minute)
d. Distance to potent al site of abatement equipment (ft)
3. List engineering design firms equipment suppliers and trade
associations contacted by the source to determine if they
iave, or could reasonably develop, aba.tement equipment or other
controls. Give names and phone numbers of individuals contacted.
Document all responses.
4. •Oocument how many years the facility has been investigating add—on
controls.
5. Describe any physical circunstances that would prevent the source
from using abatement equipment if such equipment can be identified.
Also, docurient timeframes and procedures for resolving the
circumstances that prevefft the use of the equipment that are
available. -
6. List all technologically feasible control systems. Note that these
systems need not bring the source into compliance. Rather, they
should lower emissions.
IV. COST/ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF RACT
A control system cost and economic evaluation must be included in the package.
Th 1 s evaluation should include evaluation of control systems, such as add—on
controls, input changes) and/or process changes. All cost evaluations will be
reviewed aga1r t EPA’s guidance in the EAB Control Cost Manual , Third Edition,
February 1987, PA-45O/5-87-OO1A. The evaluation should meet the following
requirements, as applicable.
-------
1,. Ir developing the evaluat on:
i. Cost out a l control options/scenarios found, to be
technologically feasible. For, control options, present
innovative approaches to maximize control and minimize cost
by techniques evaluated under section III B.
ii. Account for credits ‘such as recovered products for reuse, use
as fuel, or sale and steam generated) accurately and
consistently.
iii. Account for debits (such as fuel, labor, equipment, interest)
accurately and consistently.
2. State the cost effectiveness (S/ton) for each of control system
options and combinatio ns of options i-nvestigated under III. B. 2.
3. State the range of control costs for each control device.
4. () scuss the economic impacts and provide supporting calculations of
the economic impact of the control systems on:
1. production costs
il•. company profits
iii. product demand
iv. employment
v. product prices (cost absorptiàn vs cost pass-through)
vi. affordability
5. Explain claim of plant-closure, if any.
V. EMISSION REDUCTION CALCULATIONS
1. When evaluating the tonnage of emissions that must be reduced to
achieve como’t lance with the scenarios investigated 1 all ca]..ulatiofts
must be done on a solids basis. This is necessiry because when
coating are reformulated to a higher solids content, a smaller volume
of coating material is required to deposit the same a iount of solids
(i.e., film build). The proper method will follow EPA’s guidance
document NA Guideline for Surface Coating Ca’culations” (EPA—340/1-
86-016). Example six of section four illustrates the proper method
for determining the percent reduction required to meet a given pounds
of VOC per gallon limit.
-------
SPi, -
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
______ Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
¶p1.
‘1
)O °2
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Reanalysis of Capture Eff ncy (CE) ii nce
FROM: John S. Seitz, Director
Off ice of Air Quality P a ing and S’€anda (MD—b)
TO: Addressees
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with
interim guidance on implementation of the Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) CE protocols. As you know, the
measurement of CE is critical to determining the effectiveness of
air pollution control. ‘Our current test methods are products of
extended investigation by EPA over the past 7 years in response
to the need identified a number of years ago by the EPA Regional
Offices (RO’s) as being essential to compliance determination
efforts.
We have received a number of comments from industry, States,
RO’s, and others expressing concern about the cost of using our
recommended gas-gas and liquid-gas methods that specify a
temporary total enclosure (TTE) to measure CE. In light of the
President’s recent instructions to review .Federal regulations for
ways to minimize their cost to industry, we are attempting to
identify less costly means of determining CE. To that end, the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards is undertaking a 12-
month study to develop and review possible alternatives and the
effect that their approval would have on programs to assure
volatile organic compounds emissions reductions. Clearly, we do
not know of less costly methods that can achieve the measurement
capabilitities of those that use the TTE. Our study will
evaluate the cost and technical aspects of any alternative that
is investigated, and will compare its accuracy and precision with
that of the current reference method. We will also reexplore the
consequences of other alternatives that do not require
measurements, such as engineering, scientific, or policy
judgments.
In addition, we will explore less expensive ways of using
the current method. -For example, in a plant with multiple lines,
perhaps engineering judgment could be used to select what appears
to be the least effective capture system for testing. If that
system proves acceptable by using the TTE method, other lines
within the plant would not require testing. If you have any
-------
‘2
suggestions as to what should be included in this 12-month study,
please contact Gil Wood in the Technical Support Division as soon
as possible at FTS 629—5544.
In the meantime, where States have not yet adopted CE
regulations and wish to defer adoption until after this study,
they should be allowed to do so. In the interim, State
implementation plans (SIP’s) should not, be disapproved for
failure to adopt any or all CE test requirements. This would
include States that have committed to adopt rules for CE testing
but have not yet included test methods or protocols in their
regulations.
Some States have already adopted the recommended TTE methods
into their SIP’s (including the Chicago Federal implementation
plan (FIP)]. Where noncompliance is suspected, EPA’S recommended
method is valid and enforceable and should be used to determine
CE. You should, however, apprise States that have adopted the
recommended TTE methods of EPA’s plans for further study. The -
EPA intends to revise the Chicago FIP to suspend the date for
initial compliance certification until July 1, 1993 for sources
subject to CE testing that use the TTE method (e.g.,
incinerators). This temporary suspension will not apply to
initial compliance determinations where other methods can be
used, such.as Method 24 testing far VOC content of coatings or
the liquid—liquid balance method for carbon adsorbers (test
methods that do not require measurement of CE). You should
inform States that EPA will be receptive to State action with
respect to TTE test requirements, which is similar to the
approach EPA will take on the Chicago FIP.
Any SIP questions’should be directed to David Cole at FTS
629—5565.
Addressees:
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director; Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II -
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
• Region Ill
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticidesand Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
-------
3
• cc: Air Programs Branch Chief, Regions I-X
Air Compliance Chief, Regions I—X
VOC Compliance Work Group
VOC Policy Work Group
Environmental Services Division, Regions I-X
Office of Regional Counsel, Regions I—X
-------
1 19 Federal
Register I
Vol. 57, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 28, 1992 I Proposed Rules
major new sources or major modifications
prior to the adoption of NSR rules meeting
the requirements of the 1990 Amendments.
3 Federal Implementation Plans Remain in
Effect
The NSR permitting program in an existing
FIP remains in effect until a SIP is approved
or a revised F 1P is adopted.
4 Use of Previously.Appr.ved Growth -
Allowances Is Prohibited
Section 173(b) invalidates growth.
allowances in existing SIP’s in areas that
received a SIP call prior to enactment of the
1990 Amendments, or that receive one
thereafter. For NSR permits issued on or after
November 15. 1990. previously-approved
growth allowances cannot be used in these
areas. Construction permits cannot be issued
in SIP-call areas under existing EPA-
approved Part D programs to the extent that
such permits rely on previously approved
growih allowances. Case-by-case emission
offsets must be obtained for any such
permits, and other existing Part D ’
requirements must be met.
5 Existing NSR Permitting Rules Continue To
Apply in the Northeast Ozone Transport
Region (NOTR)
The 1990 Amendments establish a single
ozone transport region comprised of the
States of Connecticut. Delaware. Maine,
Maryland. Massachusetts, New Hampshire.
New jersey. New York. Pennsylvania. Rhode
Island. Vermont. and the CMSA that indudes
District of Columbia and part of the State
of Virginia. For this transport region.
including all attainment areas within its
boundaries, new section 184(b)(2) specifies
that any stationary source that emits or has
the potential to emit at least 50 tons per year
of VOC’s shall be considered a major
stationary source and subject to the
requirements which would be applicable to
major stationary sources if the area were
classified as a moderate ozone
nonattainment area. For NSR purposes, the
requirements.of section 184(b)(2) are not in
effect in a State until the State submits a new
or revised SIP that Includes the requirements
(or EPA imposes a FIP implementing those
requirements). A State In the NOTR has until
November 15, 1992 to submit to EPA the new
or revised NSR rules addressing the new
requirements.
Appendix E
I Introduction
The EPA is issuing this C1’C document
under section 182(b) of the Clean Air Act. as
amended. Under section 182(b). States must
develop RACT rules for sources “covered by
a CTG document issued by the Administrator
between November 15. 1990 and the date of
attainment?’ The State must submit these
RACT rules “within the pei 1 iod set forth by
the Administrator in issuing the relevant CTG
This document is not a technical CTG, but
rather a second type of C’I’G document—a
document that lists the eleven CTC’s EPA
anticipates publishing in accordance with
section 183(a) and establishes time tables for
submittal of RACT rules for sources thai are
not ultimately covered by a CTC issued by
November 15, 1993. The EPA believes that it
Is necessary to issue this document at this
time so that States will be able to determine
which sources and source categories fit
within the RACT rule submittal requirement
for sources that EPA expects to be covered
by a post-enactment CTG. - -
II. LrntofElevenCTG’s
The EPA plans to Issue the following CTG’s
in accordance with section 183(a).
1. SynthetIc organic chemical
manufacturing industry (SOCMI) distillationi
2. SOCMI reactors,
3. Wood furniture
4. Plastic parts coating (business machines);
5. Plastic parts coating (other):
6. Offset Uthography
7. IndustrIal wastewaten
6. Autobody refinishing;
. SO MI batch processing;
10. Volatile organic liquid storage tanks;
and
11. Clean up solvents.
III. Authority
Under section 182(b)(2).’ States must adopt
RACE rules for three general groups of
sources: (A) Those covered by a post-
enactment CTC document (b) those covered
by a pro-enactment CTG: (c) “all other major
stationary sources of VOC’s?’ Section
182(b)(2j also establishes the timing for State
submittal and source implementation of
RACI’ rules for these three groups. For
sources covered by a poet-enactment CTG
document, the State must submit RACT rules
within the period established In the relevant
CTG documenL For the other two groups, the
Act provides specific dates for submittal,
November15. 1992, and implementation. ito
later than May 31, 1995.
Alonei s ibparagraphs (A). (B) and (C) seem
to set forth three distinct groups of sources.
However, the submittal dates under the
second portion of the provision potentially
could biur the line between these three
groups if EPA does not issue before
November 15.1992, a CTG document
covering all sources for which It plans to
issue a CTG under section 183(a). At that’
time, States would need to submit RACT
rules for all other major stationary sources —
IV. Time Table
The EPA Ii establishing the following
general time table for States to submit RACT
rules for sources that it Identifies in a
November 15, 1992 submIttal as being a
source covered by a poet-enactment CI’C
document.
(1) on November 15, 1992, the State must
submit a list of major stall onaly sources that
it anticipates will be’subject to one of the
CrC’s listed In Section II, which EPA plane to
issue by November15, 1993.
(2) For those major sources on the list
submitted by the tate in the 1992 submittal
that are not covered bye CTC that EPA has
issued by November15. 1993. the State must
submit a RACI’ rule by November15. 1994
that requires Implementation of RACF by
May 15, 1995.
(3) For sources covered by a CTC issued
under section 183(a) and for which the State
has not. by the date of such issuance.
adopted an approvable RACT rule, the State
must submit a RACT rule in accordance with
the time schedule set forth in the relevant
CrC.
(4) For sources subject to a RACT rule that
the State adopted and EPA approved under
section 182(b)(2) prior to EPA’s issuance of an
applicable C r C. EPA will work with the
State to determine whether the existing rule
should be revised once a CrC has been
issued that would apply to that source.
(FR Doc. 92-9886 Filed 4-27--92. 8:45 am)
BIWNO cOca ssso-eo-u
document.” One type of ‘CTG document” is a those for which neither a pre-ènactment C’FG
CTC. a CTG is a technical document that sets nor a post-enactment C’I’C document had
forth a presumptive level of RACT controls been issued.
for a source category. The Act provides that The EPA’s obligation to issue the eleven
EPA must issue eleven CTG’e by November CTC’s does not ripen until November 15,
15, 1993. In addition, the Act specifically 1993. and EPA does noLanticipatè issuing all
requires the Agency to prepare CTC’e for of these C’FG’s before November 15, 1992.
aerospace coatings and ship building and Therefore, to the extent EPA does not issue a
repair within the same timeframe. CTC document before November 15,1992,
States would be required to submit non-C’I’G
RACT rules for sources that could in the
future be covered by a CTG. In addition, at
the time the CTC document was issued, the
State could then be required to submit a new
rule, consistent with the CTC document.
thereby duplicating its earlier effort..
In order to relieve the States from being
required to duplicate rules and to relieve
sources from potentially being subject to two
different requirements within a short period.
EPA Is issuing this CrC document to retain
the sharp distinction between the three
different groups in subparagraphs (A), (B).
and (C). If a State believes that one of the
eleven CTG’s listed in Section ll.will cover a
particular major source, the State should
follow the timing provisions of Section IV,
below for submittal of a rule applicable to
that source. The State should identify those
sources in its November 15, 1992 RACE
submittal.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
9 : 1 a
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Determining Applicability for Sources Subject tp
Pending New Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG’s)
FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief
Ozone/CO Programs Branch
TO: Air Branch Chief, Regions, I-X
This memorandum gives guidance to Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Regions and States in determining applicability of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) sources to CTG and non-CTG
reasonably available control technology (RACT,) requirements of
the Clean Air Act (Act). It supersedes the one I sent to Steve
Rothblatt on August 7, 1992. After discussion with the Region
and further review of that memorandum, we noticed several details
that needed to be corrected and clarified. Although this
memorandum replaces the previous memorandum, the overall
conclusiân remains the same. The issue raised and resolved in
the August 1992 memorandum concerned sources that EPA and the
States anticipate will be covered by a post-enactment CTG to be
issued by November 15, 1993 under seótion 183 of the Act. Region
V asked whether emissions from these sources should be included
in determining non-CTG RACT applicability for the November 15,
1992 RACT catch-up submittals due under section 182 (b) (3) of the
Act. Below is our revised response to this question.
The Act requires States to submit rules for sources covered
by a post-enactment CTG in accordance with a schedule specified
in a CTG document. The EPA created a CTG document as Appendix E
to the General Preamble for the Impleipentation of Title I of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 . (57 FR 18070, 18077, April 28,
1992). In Appendix E, EPA interpreted the Act to allowa State
to submit a non-CTG rule by November 15, 1992 or to defer
submittal of a RACT rule for sources that the State anticipates
will be covered by a post-enactment CTG, based on the list of
CTG’s EPA expects to issue to meet the section 183 requirement.
If EPA issues t he CTG by November 15, 1993, the State must submit
a RACT rule in accordance with the schedule in that CTG.
However, if EPA fails to issue a CTG by November 15, 1993, the
responsibility shifts to the State to submit a non-CTG RACT rule
for those sources by November 15, 1994. In accordance with
section 182(b) (2), implementation of that RACT rule should occur
by May 31, 1995.
-------
2
Because EPA and the States anticipate that certain sources
will be subject to a CTG, we suggest that you allow States not to
consider that “new CTG source” as a non-CTG source for purposes -
of determining applicability of the non-CTG RACT requirement for,
the November 15, 1992 submittal deadline. , However, the situation
will change if EPA fails to issue a CTG by November 15, 1993. In
that event, (in accordance with Appendix,E of the General
Premble) the State is required to submi1 a non-CTG RACT rule for
such a source at that time, since it would become a non-CTG
source for purposes of non—CTG applic ability.
If these operations are treated asnew-CTG sources rather
than non-CTG sources, we recognize that a number of smaller non—
CTG sources at the facility will not be subject to RACT if the
sum of the non-CTG sources is less than the applicability cutoff
for the classification of that nonattainment area. For example,
consider a facility that is located in a serious ‘ozone
nonattainment area and that ‘consists of two VOC emission sources
-a 60 ton/year plastic parts coating unit and a 15 ton/year
leather coating unit. The plastic parts coating unit is not now
covered, by a CTG, but EPA is required to issue a CTG for thiè
source category by November 15, 1993. For purposes of its
November 15, 1992 RACT submittal, the State can treat the plastic
parts coating unit as a CTG source and defer’ adoption of a CTG
regulation. Because emissions from the leather coating unit
(which will not be covered by a CTG) are less than 50 tons per
year,- the State would not need to adopt .a non-CTG RACT rule for
that facility to meet the November 15, 1992 requirement.
However, if EPA does not issue the plastic parts coating CTG by
November 15, 1993, the State would need to submit a non-CTG RACT
,rule for both operations by November 15, 1994. In addition, RACT
would need to be implemented by May 31, 1995. In this situation,
we suggest that EPA Regions work with States on a case-by-case
basis to determine RACT for these non-CTG sources.
You may direct any questions to David Cole of my staff at
(919) 541—5565.
cc: Air DivisiOn Directors, Regions I—X
Regional VOC Policy Contacts
Jan Tierney (LE-l32 A)
Bill Johnson (MD—15)
David Sanders (MD-15).
David Cole (MD—l5)
-------
54136
Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 201 / Wednesday. October 20. 1993 / Notices
I the administrative and legal
los of the DLI. EPA Region 111
Lrr. .1 D l i ’s requost for delegation in
a letter dated July 15, 1993. subject to
the terms and conditions stated therein.
EPA retains concurrent Asbestos
NESHAP enforcement authority In
Virginia, which It may exercise
whenever the Agency deems federal
enforcement necessasy to achieve the
objectives of the Clean Air Act.
Effective Immediately, copies of
notifications required pursuant to 40
CFR 81.145(b) for asbestos demolition
and renovation projects to be conducted
within the Commonwealth of Virginia
shall be submitted to the Virginia
Department of Labor and Industry,
Powers-Taylor BuIlding, 13 South
Thirteenth Street, Richmond, Virginia
23219. Separate copies of such
notifications need not be submitted to
the EPA Regional Office.
Aetbority: This notice is Issued under till
authority of sectIons 111 sad 112 of the
aesa Air Act.
Dated: September 13.1993.
Stsnteyt.La skowsld,
Acting ReglonolAdnthilsfriztor.
IFILDOC. 93—25760 FIled 10—19—93; 8:45 am)
OE S 54S-P
irni.- ’ ,FSS l
HONIRACT Interface Draft Guidance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Draft guidance for public
comment.
SUMMARY: This draft guidance describes
an option that States can consider In
implementing Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACI) under the
Ctean’Alr Act. Specifically, the
guidance describes what the EPA Is
calling “presumptive alternative RACI”
(PAR) for emlssionapolnts that are both
affected by the Hazardous Organic
NESHAP (HON) and subject to the
implementation of RACT.
The control strategies used by source
owners end operators to comply with.
the HON can vary. In the absence of
PAR, the implementation of RACT
could create a disincentive to some of
the strategies allowed for HON
compliance. This draft guidance Is
intended to mInImI,!e constraints to
flexibility with compl ’Ing with the
HON that may be created by the
- mentation of RACF, while at the
time attempting not to jeopardize
uission reductions that would be
_..ved by RACT implementation.
FOR FURT1 R INFORMAmN CONTACfl
Mark Morris (telephone: 919—541—
5416). Emission Standards Division
(MD—13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina, 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title I of
the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990
(Act), contains provisions for the
attainment of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone
and other criteria pollutants. Section
182(b)(2) of the Act requires that State
Implementation plans (SIP’s) for certain
ozone nonattainment areas be revised to
require the implementation of RACF for
control of volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions from sources for which
the EPA published pre.enactment
control techniques guidelines (CIG’s),
or for which the EPA will publish a CrC
between the date of enactment of the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (1990
Amendments) and the date an area
achieves ata(nment status. Section
182(b)(2) of the Act also requires the
Implementation of RACI for control of
VOC emissions from major stationary
sources not covered by a CrC.
The EPA has defined RACF generally
as: the lowest emission limitation that a
particular source Is capable of meeting
by the application of control technology
that is reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility
(44 FR 53701). RACT for a particular
source Is determined by the State on a
case-by-case basis, considering the
technological and economic
circumstances of the Individual source.
Further information on CrC’s and the
definition of RACE can be found in the
Federal Register notice cited above.
Prior to amendment of the Act, the
EPA had published 27 Cl’G’s. Each crc
describes techniques available for
reducing emissions of VOC from one or
more categories of sources. The primary
purpose of each CTG is to inform the
State aJd local air pollution control
agencies of the control techniques
available for the class of sources covered
by the CrC. In addition to Information
on control techniques, each CrC
contains recommendations to the States
of what the EPA calls the “presumptive
norm” for RACr, based on the EPA’s
evaluation of the capabilities and
problems general to the Industry. This
means that If the State requires the
control recommended In the crc, then
the EPA will approve such a
requirement as meeting RACI for a
source. On the other hand, if the State
makes a RACT determination that Is less
stringent than the EPA presumptive
norm, then a technological and
economic feasibility analysis must be
performed to justify deviation from the
presumptive norm. SectIon 183(a) of the
Act requires that CTG’s be issued for
thirteen additional categories of
stationery sources of VOC emissions
within three years of enactment of the
1990 Amendments.
Section 112 of the Act requires tb t
emission standards be promulgated for
categories and subcategories of major
sources of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP’s) and such area sources as the
Administrator finds warrant regulation.
One hundred eighty-nine pollutants are
listed as HAP’s, many of which are also
VOC’s. Consequently, standards
promulgated under section 112 will
affect some of the same emission
sources that will be regulated under
section 182(h)(2). The lION Is one such
regulation to be promulgated under
Section 112.
The proposed HON rule was
published In the Federal Register on
December 31, 1992 (57 FR 62608). SInce
the HON has not been promulgated, it
may be revised in response to comments
received from the public. These
revisions could include changes in the
micsions averaging provisions, which
would likely necessitate revision of
today’s draft guidance.
The proposed HON Includes
provisions for process vents, transfer
operations, storage vessels, wastewetor
operations, and equipment leaks
assodated with the manufacture of
synthetic organic chemicals. The
following CrC’s have already been
Issued and address some of the same
emission points as the proposed HON:
(1) The SynthetLc Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry ( 5OCt41) Air
Oxidation Processes CIG (December
1984); and (2) the SOCMI Fugitive
Emissions crc (March 1984). The EPA
anticipates Issuing other CIG’s under
section 183(e) which will nddress othor
HON emission points, including: (1)
The SOCMI Reactor Processes and
Distillation Operations Processes CI’C,
which was published In draft form for
public comment In December. 1991 (56
FR 64785); (2) the Volatile Organic
Liquid (VOL) Storage CTG; and (3) the
Industrial Wnstewater CTG. Drafts of the
latter two are under development and
expected to be published for public
comment soon.
As discussed earlier, the
Implementation of RACI Is required not
only for those sources for which a CrC
has been, or will be, Issued but Is also
required for all other major stationary
sources of VOC emissions. Today’s
notice contains draft guidance to States
on the Interface between the HON and
both CrC RACF rules end non-CI’C
RACF rules for major sources. However.
since CTG’s have been issued, or will be
Issued, for the sources affected by the
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 201 / Wednesday. October 20. 1993 / Notices
54137
HON (axceptfor transfer operations).
the amphasislmthisssotice w1ll beton
the interface between the HON and the
RACE rules developed in accordance
with the applicable CTG’S.
The regulatory framework contained
in the proposed HON and the RACT’
requirement, as Interpreted In the
CTG’s. has two main components. First,
it contains applicability criteria, which
are cthnria used to determine which
emission points will be inquired to
induce their omissions. Second, the
HON end the CTGs contain
(lescriptions of the control technologies
and 1 6 r control technology performance
required (or recommended, in the case
of CTG’s) at the emission points that
meet the applicability criteria. For
otample. the storage vessel p ovisions
for fixed roof tanks In the HON may
have applicability criteria of 40.000
gallons and 0.1 psia. This means that all
tanks that have capacities greater th p
or equal to 40.000 gallons and that atbie
liquids with HAP partial pressures
greater than or equal to 0.1 psi. would
be required to be controlled. The control
requirements of thollON could bernet,,
by the installation of reference control
technologies.
Reference control technologies are
defined simply as those air pollution
control devices which may b&used to
satisfy the control technology
requirements of the HON. In subpart C
of the proposed HON rule (57 FR
62608). reference control technologies
are specified for each kind of emission
point and control efficlendes are
established that each device should
achieve when being used to comply
with the HON. The HON reference
control technologies are Identical to the
control technologies and/or control
technology performance recommended
in the CrC’s for the same emission
points.
in the proposed HON. emission points
that meet the applicability criteria are
called Group I points. Emission points
that emit HAP’s but are not Group I
points are called Group 2 points. For
example, using the applicability criteria
above, a 50.000 gallon tank which stores
a liquid with a HAP partial pressure of
1 psi. would be a Group 1 emission
point. A 50,000 gallon tank which stores
a liquid with a vapor pressure of 0.05.
psi. would be a Group 2 emIssion point.
The terms Group I and Group 2 are not
used In the CFG’s when referring to
emission points. For the purpose of
discussion within this notice, however,
emission point. thatmeetihe
applicabIlI1 cr1tarmaiu1ha1 G wlJlbe
referred to as Group 1CFG points.
Emission pointethat .renot.Groupl
CrC points will be referred to as Group
2 Cl G points.
Owners and operators of sources
affected by the HON are required to
reduce their HAP emissions to a -
specified “allowable” level. This
allowable level of HAP emissions is
calculated by adding .11 Group 2 HON
point emissions to the’emissions from
all Group 1 HON paints that would
continu’ to be emitted afar the
npplicn inn of the !CfPTQT re rn,ntrr’l
tnchnolngies. Complianr with the HON
(i a., achieving the allowable levnl of
HAP emlcsions) can be achieved either
by applying the rofnren”, control
technologiec to all Group I HON points.
by employing emissions averaging, or by
a combination of the two.
Emissions averaging would allow
some Group I HON points to remain
uncontrolled (or undercontrolled) lithe
requisite emissions reductions are
“made up” at other points. Emissions
averaging In the lION consists of
generating HAP emissions “credits” at
some points to offset HAP emissions
“debits” at other points. Credits can be.
generated by reducing HAP emissions at
Group 2 HON points (since these points
are not required to reduce their HAP
emissions) or by redudng HAP
emissions at Group I HON points
beyond the reference control level.
Debits are created when Group 1 HON
points are left uncontrolled, or are
controlled to a level below the reference
control level.
The emission points Included in a
HON emissions average eve chosen by
the plant owner or operator. Group I
points to which the reference control
technologies are applied are neither
credit nor debit generators: Group 2
HON points that are left uncontrolled
are not debit generators, since they are
not required to be controlled. Since the
emission points described above are
neither credit nor debit generators, they.
would not be Induded In HON
emissions averaging: these points
contribute to achieving the allowable
HAP emission level by the application
of reference control technologies where
applicable (i.e., “point-by-point”
application of controls). The emission
points included in a HON emissions
average contribute to achieving the
allowable HAP emission level by
generating enough HAP emissions
credits to offset HAP emissions debits.
More detail on credits and debits can be
found In the proposed HON rule (57 FR
62744).
As previously mentioned. CTG’s
address some of the same emission
agMhe&IQN. .aause ’eouroesmav
besubject to both the HON end the
RACI’ rules developed by States, in
some instances there may be control
requirements from both rules for the
same emission points. In these
instances, the owner or operator of the
source would traditionally be required
to meet the more stringent of the two
control requirnment
As explained shove, en owner or
operator can avoid tha rnnti ’nI
inquirnmonte Irir crniin Cro ’ir I lit U I
pnintc If nrn ’ lnn nvovpglng j ,—.‘i’I f ,
make iur the nn j”i$n nvpj qjnn
iP(hl’Ctiflfl Ur’ ’ nvnm, the epnrifir
emk inn point that an n’ r w
operator niiqht wish (n leeve
uncontrolled n pert ala IIflN
average could still ho subjart to a RACU
control requirement because of It 5 YOU
emissions. As a result. RACT ruIns
could constrain the flexibility pmvi 1 ed
by HON emiasiona averaging. Berrn, a of
this, the EPA began examining optlnns
to minimive constrAints to flexibility
with meeting the HON. while at ttio
same time attempting not to jeorardim
the VOC emission reductions that
would be achieved by installing controls
at Group I CFG points.
The first option considered by the
EPA was to exempt from the CUG’s all
emission points that are affected by the
HON. Emission points that are effected
by the HON do not necessarily have to
be controlled, but may have to meet
other requirements in the regulation,
such as reporting end recordkoaping. In
other words. HON-effected emissinn
points include those points that are
either Group I or Group 2 for the RON,
but not those that have no HAP
emissions. This option of exemption
would be accnptable,if there were some
way to ensure that all Group I CrC
emission points achieved VOC
reductions by the installation of controls
at all Group 1 HON points. However.
the possibility exists where a Group 2
HON emission point could be Group I
for tbe CrG, and compliance, with the
HON for this point would not require
the Installation of controls. Therefore,
this emission point would achieve no
VOC reductions by complying with the
HON. Even if the emission point were
Group 1 for both the HON and the CTG.
lithe point emitted only a small amount
of HAP’s, It could be easily “averaged
out” using emissions averaging in the
HON. Again, this emission point would
remain uncontrolled and no VOC
reductions would be achieved.’Finally,
compliance with the HON may be
achieved by the replacement of a HAP!
VOC with a non-HAP VOC. Since no
HAP’. would be emitted after the
replacement, compliance with the HON
Isachievad. However,no VOC
reductions occur. For the reasons given
above, the option of exemptingihe HON
-------
54138
Federal Register /Vol. 58, No 201 / Wednesday. October 20, 1993 / Notices
points from the CTG’s was considered
unacceptable.
Another option considered was to
allow VOC emissions trading. Under
this option, some Group I CTG points
could remain uncontrolled iIVOC
reductions are achieved elsewhere at the
facility. For example, if HON emissions
averaging is used to “average out” an
e m ission point that is Group I for the
C G. this point may still remain
uncontrolled if sufficient VOC
reductions are achieved at other points.
Such VOC emissions trading is
currently allowed under certain
conditions in the proposed Economic
Incentive Program (ELI’) rules (58 FR
11110).
ElF. are programs that States may
choose to adopt in order to.increase the
flexibility and lower the cost of
attaining and maintaining the NAAQS.
Programs could Include strategies such
as emission fees, marketable peJ mits.
emissions trading, etc. VOC emissions
trading under EIP’s is an acceptable
option for minimizing the constraints to
HON compliance strategies that were
discussed earlier.
The proposed ELI’ rules are general in
nature due to the variety of EIP designs
which may be submitted to the EPA for
approval as part of a SIP. Today’.
guidance is Intended to provide the
States with a specific alternative to
traditional point-by-point RACT
compliance, namely VOC emissions
averaging. Provisions for VOC emissions
averaging among HON-affected points,
which Is the final option to be
discussed, can be Included in a State’s
RACT rule. If such provisions of a
State’s RACT rule comply with today’s
guidance, then they will be approvable
as meeting RACF by the EPA. Such
provisions could also be included in a
State’s En’.
The final option considered was to
recommend a presumptive alternative
RACT (PAR) for emission points
affected by both the HON and RACE
rules. Similar to the HON requirement.
PAR Is met if the VOC emissions from
the HON-affected points are reduced to
a specified allowable level. This
allowable level of VOC emissions is
determined using the same methodology
used in the proposed HON to calculate
the allowable HAP emission level,
except that VOC emissions from the
C r c points are used in the calculation.
In other words, the allowable VOC
emission level for the HON-affected
points is calculated by adding .11 Group
2 C G point VOC emissions to the VOC
emissions from all Group I CTG point.
that would continue to be emitted after
the application of the c rc -
recommended control technologies.
PAR is an alternative RACT in that it
allows for VOC emission reduction
strategies other than the point-by-point
application of the controls
recommended in the CrC’s PAR is
presumptive in that if a State requires
the alternative R.AC1 as described in
this guidance. thenthe EPA will
approve such a raqitirmn”nt as m ”ting
RAC’r for the llOrJ-n liar tad annc ion
points at a plant without the 5fafA
providing an economic or technologk al
feasibility analysis.
As discussed earlier, the control
strategy used to achieve the allowable
HAP emission level is chosen by the
plant owner or operator. These
strategies may consist of a combination
of point-by-point application of cnntrols
at some points and emissions averaging
at other points. Regardless of the control
strategy chosen for HON compliance,
PAR I. met if the VOC emissions from
the HON-affected points are reduced to
the allowable level.
If HON reference control technologies
are applied at an emission point that is
affected by a CrC, then this point’is
automatically meeting PAR, since the
HON reference control technologies and
the Crc-recommended technologies are
Identical. No demonstration of sufficient
VOC emission reduction needs to be
made, since the actual VOC emissions
from this controlled point will always
be equal to the allowable VOC
emissions. However, if the emission
point were Group 2 for the DC. then
the owner or operator may wish to use
the VOC reductions achieved by the
controls as credits to offset VOC
emission debits at other HON-affected
Group I CrC points, In this case, the
VOC reductions from this point would
be induded in a calculation to ensure
that the VOC credits outweigh the VOC
debits. The calculation procedures used
to estimate the emissions from HON
points and the procedures used to
average such emissions are contained in
the proposed HON rule (57 FR 62744).
These same procedures are to be used to
calculate and average VOC emissions
under PAR.
If a HON control strategy does not
reduce the VOC emissions from the
HON-effected points to the allowable
level, then additional reductions would
be necessary to achieve this level. These
additional reductions could be obtained
by reducing VOC emissions further at
one or more of the HON-affected points.
The reductions also could be obtained
by reducing VOC emissions from Group
2 CrC points that ire not effected by the
HON. Reductione achieved at Group I
CrC points that are not affected by the
HON could not be used, unless the VOC
emissions from these points are reduced
beyond the level recommended by tho
CTG (e g . by installing controk that at”
more effective than the recomrnnndarl
control technok.gie ).
flq avplninod earlier. the \‘OC
reductions nacescary to meet PAR are
th’t rtn,npd by thanretirelly eppl tug
the CTG-rar orrtrnend d rnpflrnl
tar bnningiec tu the Group 1 (.1’
tl’, avar, n iii; has ni’t It.”n (and ic
not eiperind to he) iccuoij for ?rpt,ci”r
operations -l horefore EPA vo,,lrl
consider that PAR is met with no
emission reductions from trnncf”,
operations. It should be noted that
emissions from transfer operations era
usually small compared to those from
the other emission points.
It is important to note that s’quiptni’tii
lank emissions are not Incluriorl in
emissions averaging in the proposed
HON. The reasons for their exclusion
are given in the preamble to the
proposed HON rule. One of the reasons
is that there is no fixed performance
level In the equipment leaks standard in
the HON; therefore, there would be no
way to determine what level of
emissions is “allowable”. For the same
reasons that equipment leak emissions
are not included in HON emissions
averaging, the EPA I. proposing that
these emissions not be included in the
averaging under PAR.
Whothor compliance with the IDJN is
achieved by installing the reference
control technologies at Group 1 HON
points or by employing missions’
averaging, all monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping (MRR) requirements for
emission points that meet PAR will be
met if the HON MRR requirements are
met for the same points. In this way.
there will be no duplicative MRR
requirements.
To this point, there has been no
mantion of the period of time within
which a source must maintain it VOC
emissions at or below the allowable
level in order to meet PAR. When
averaging emissions under the lION. a
source must demonstrate that its actual
HAP emissions are at or below the
allowable HAP emission level on a
annual basis. In addition to this
demonstration, the source must
demonstrate that it has not exceeded
specified emission levels on a quarterly
basis. Since the VOC “averaging”
allowed under PAR i. intended to be
identical to the HAP averaging under
the HON. the same demonstrations
would have to be made for the VOC
emissions. However, the purpose of
VOC RACE rules is to reduce VOC
emissions from sources located within
ozone nonattainment areas so that these
areas can achieve attainment status.
Since the ozone NAAQS Is a short-term
-------
Federal_Register I Vol.- .58,No. 201 / Wednesday, October 20 , 1993 I Notices
54139
standard, a 24-hour averaging time is the HON could use the second option to
typically used to construct attainment comply with the RACT requirement.
demonstrations. To resolve the Exam pies of the PAR era given below
difference between averaging times, the for several hypothetical chemical plants.
EPA is proposing that the annual As discussed above. there are several
averaging time be used as long as options available for an eppmoveble
sources can make a statistical showing RACT determination Although each of
that the longer averaging time will not these options could be uced in the
interfere with demonstrations of examples that follow. the e’cemplos are
reasonable further progress (RFP) and intended primarily to i ’ plciin PAR.
(he attainment of short-term NAAQS. it is 1mpott ’ nt to note that the
Since the HON affects mostly explanation given abovi of tiON
continuous processes, there should be emissions averaging, though ncrniretc’.
little difficulty in demonstrating that has been somewhat simplifled. Omitted
emissions averaged on a annual basis from the e’cpl’ns’lon was a description
are eauivalent to those averaged on a of discount fartore. Reductions of HAP’s
daily ssIs. Guidance on making the made at cednin amis ion.pninIa to avoki
equivalency demonstration between 24. the control requIrements at e l ba, points
ho it averaging and Longer-term may be “discounted” L!ysoma factor to
averaging Is currently being developed. en ure that the environment does not
With iL Incorporation of PAR. the suffer from the aUowance of emissions
EPA is proposing that the Agency will averaging. As an e*arnple. lithe
fpprove a State’s RACF determInatIq If discount factor were 0%. then a plant
ft meets ontor more of the fol1ow1n could avoid the controL requirements on
emission redudlon programs: a one ton emission point by reducing
(lIThe traditional presumptive em sslons at other points by one ton. If
RACT. The State requires that each the discount factor were 20%. then 1.2’
Group I crc point apply the control tons of reductions would be necessary
technology recommended In the Cl’G; to avoid the control requirements at the
(2) PAR. The State requires that HON. one ton point. The proposed HON does
affected points, ufter complying with the not specify an exact figure for the
HON. also achieve, in the aggregate, discount factor but seeks comment on a
VOC reductions sufficient to achieve the factor in the range of 0% to 20%. SInce
allowable VOC leveL PAR can be no exact figure has been specified, and
applied whether compliance with the to keep the examples that follow as
HON Is achieved by applying reference simple as possible, the discount factor is
controL technologies at each HON Group assumed to be zero.
1 emission point, or by employing ‘ The plant for the first example is
emissions averaging, If VOC reductions shown in Figure 1. ThIs plant consists
resulting from HON compliance are of a Group 1 HON tank. Group 2 HON,
insufficient to achieve the allowable tank. Group 1 HON vent, Group 2 HON
level, then additional reductions would vent, and some Group I end Group 2
be necessary to meet the requirement; or CTG emission points that are not -
(3) A case-by-case alternative RACT affected by the HON. The Group 1 and
determination. The State requires Group 2 HON points are also Group I
emission reduction technology less and Group 2 for the crc. respectively.
stringent than that recommended In the The HON-affected emission points in
CTG. In such instances of case-by’case this example emit HAPFVOC, that Is,
RACE determinations, the State must HAP’s which are also VOC’s; the
complete a technological end economic emission points that are not effected by
feasibility analysis. the HON are those that emit only VOC’..
The State could also allow VOC In this example, the plant decides to
averaging, such as described under PAR, comply with the HON by applying
and use their alternative technologies reference control technologies to all
and applicability criteria as the basis for Group I HON points. Since these points
determining the necessary VOC apply the controls required by the HON.
reductions, Ifs State allows an they are also meeting PAR.
emissions averaging program that does In Example 1, the troup 2 HON
not comply with this guidance, then the points are also Group 2 For the CTG. and
State must submit the provision as an are not required to be controlled. The
economic incentive program and meet emissiori points at this plant that are not
the requirements outlined In the Eli’ affected by the HON are required to
rules. ‘ meet whatever regulatory requirements
A State could use any combination of apply to them.
the above options within one plant For The plant In the first example also
example, one part of a plant that emits will be used for the second example
no HAP’s could apply option, one or. 4 .., . (FIgure 2). In this example, the plant
three at each emission point; another -. decides to comply with thi HON by
part of the plant that must comply with using a combination of point-by-point
application of controls and emissiens
averaging. The chosen control strategy is
to apply HON reference control
technologies to the v qts end !e ’e the
tenks unrontrnll d The ellowr,hle liAr
emission level is 8 25 tons p T yeqr ‘rh,
Group 2 HON tank and the Group I
lION vnnt rnntrihuite to i:luicving ‘ho
allowable HAP emieqion level by the
point-by-point applicetion efcnn mk
and are not incluclo4 in HON nnii t’t’
averaging haccuiqe they ste neither
credit nor debit g000ratnrc Tho (:u nip
I HON tank is • debit generator. inco
it is loft irnrnntrnlh d: th’ em ’uuut ‘1q l
debit Is 2 ItS tnnc pci l’hn ( r ”p
2 I II )N vent is a rynilil gntln’ntnT’ the
amount of ths rndit is 2 4 tons r’
yonr. Sinre the hAP emission cieclil is
greater than the HAP emission debit.
this plant is in compliance with the
HON.
‘Since the Group 1 HON points and
Group 2 HON points are Group 1 and
Group 2 for the crc. respectively. and
since all emissions from these points are
HAP/VOC, the allowable level of VOC
emissions Is the same as the allowable
HAP level, or 8.25 tons per year.
Consequently. the HON-affected points
are also meeting PAR with the chosen
control strategy. As in Example 1. the
Omission points outside the HON.
affected “source” are required to meet
any applicable regulatory requirements.
The plant for the third example Is
shown in Figure 3. This plant is
identical to those In the first two
examples, except that the Group 2 HON
tank Is now Group I for the CTG. Where
before this tank emitted five tons of a
HAP that was also aVOC, in this
example the tank emits only half a ton
of HAP end 4.5 tons of non-HAP VOC.
The plant decides to comply with (lie
HON by applying reference control
technologies to the Group I HON
points. Since these points apply the
controls required by the lION, they are
also considered to be meeting PAR. The
Group 2 vent can remain uncontrolled,
since it Is Group 2 for both the HON and
the CTG. The Group.2 HON tank,
however, must apply RACF controls
since It I . Group 1 for the CTG, Again,
the effect of regulations on the emission
points outside the HON-affected source
is the same as In the previous examples.
in the fourth example (FIgure 4) the
plant used is identical to the one in
Example 3. The plant decides to comply
with the HON using a comblnsUon of
point-by-point application of controls
and emlslons averaging, The chosen
control strategy is to apply reference
control technologies to the vents end
leave the tanks uncontrolled. The plant
Is allowed to emit five percent of Its
Group I tank emissions, two percent of
-------
54140
Federal RegisteL / Vol. 58, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 20, 1993 / Notices
s Group I vent emissions, and all of its
roup 2 point emissions. So, the
allowed HAP emissions are 3.75 tons
per year. Although the allowable HAP
emissions from this plant are not the
same as the allowable HAP emissions
from the plant in Example 2. the
explanation of how this plant achieves
the allowable HAP emission level is
Identical to the explanation given In
that example.
The allowable VOC emission level is
3.5 tons per year. The Group I CTG vent
contributes to achieving the allowable
VOC emission level by the point-by-
point application of controls and Is not
Included In the VOC emissions
averaging because ft Is neither a credit
nor a debit generator. In this example.
both tanks are debit generators since
they are Group I for the CTG and are
left uncontrolled; the VOC emissi n
debits are 7.6 tons per year. The Group
2 CTG vent Is a credit generator; the
amount of the credit Is 2.94 tons per
year. Since there are not enough VOC
emission credits to offset the debits, the
chosen control strategy does not reduce
‘OC emissions Lb the allowable level.
md 4.66 tons per year of VOC
eductions must be achieved from other
pofnts. These VOC reductions.could be
obtained by controlling the HON.
effected Group I CrG tank, or by
controlling.a Group 2 CTG point that is
outside the HON-affected source. The
reductions also could be obtained by
controlling a Group I CTG point outside
the HON.affected source to a level
beyond that required by the C 1G.
The purpose of this notice Is to seek
comment on guidance for emission
points that are affected by both the HON
end RACT rules. The rationale for
recommending the PAR In this guidance
Is that, although applicability ciiteiia
may differ between the HON and CTG’s.
the control technologies recommended
In the CIC’s end required by the HON
are the same. Therefore, If HON
compliance Is achieved by applying
controls at all Group I HON points.
these points would achieve VOC
reductions equal to those that would be
chleved by the application of the C r C-
recommended controls. In the cases,
where emissions averaging Is used to
comply with the HON. the requirement
of reductions In VOC emissions to a
specified level prevents sacrificing an
VOC reductions that normally would
achieved. In the event that a State’s
RACT rule contains control
rf’quirem nts that are more strin tit
than those in the CTG, PAR may not he
an acceptable option. Nothing pre ents
States from requiring technology that )5
more tring nt than the C rC- -
rocomniended controls. However, the
EPA encourages States to allow PAR as
an option to remove the disincentive tn
HON compliance.
As mentioned previously, todsiy s
notice contains guidance only for the
Interface between the HON and RACT
rules. EPA is considering developing
similar guidance for future CTGs where
the source category is also being
addressed by Section 112 rules.
Comment is welcomed regarding ci,nilar
guidance for the Interface between
future CTG’s and SectIon 112 rules for
categories such as Batch Processes,
Aerospace. Shipbuilding and Repair,
and Wood Furniture. There will be
other opportunities for Interested parties
to comment as these CTC’s and Section
112 rules are being developed.
Dated: October11, 1993.
Michael Shapiro.
Assistant Administret orforAii and
Radiation.
SIUJP4O COO€ SUO-6 -P
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 20, 1993 I Notices
54141
Figure 1: PAR Example 1.
THIS PLANT DECIDES TO COMPLY WITH THE HON BY INSTALUNG THE REFERENCE
CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES AT ALL GROUP 1 HON POINTS.
SINCE THE GROUP 1 HON POINTS INSTALL THE REQUIRED CONTROLS. THESE POINTS
ARE ALSO CONSIDERED TO BE MEETING PAR.
SINCE THE GROUP 2 HON TANK AND VENT ARE GROUP 2 F DA THE CTG. THESE POINTS
ARE NOT REQUIRED TO REDUCE THEIR EMISSIONS. -
THE EMISSION POINTS THAT ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THE HON ARE REQUIRED TO MEET
ANY APPLICABLE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.
COINCIDENTALLY, THE HON CONTROLS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE CTG CONTROLS FOR
TANKS AND VENTS; THEREFORE, THIS PLANT IS ACTUALLY MEETING THE CTG
PRESUMPTIVE NORM FOR RACT.
CYG G J° I
INT
6 TONS
CTG I
POINT
S TONS
CTGG I 2
NT
S T(YIS
-------
‘ 4142
Federal Register / vol. 58, No. 201 / Wednesday. October 20, 1993 I Notices
e 2: P R Eza p1. 2.
THIS PLANT DECIDES TO COMPLY WITH ThE HON USING A COMBINATION OF POINT-
BY-POINT APPLICATION OF CONTROLS AND EMISSIONS AVERAGING. ACCORDING TO
ThE HON. ThE PLANT IS ALLOWED TO EMIT:
*
(.02)(GROUP I VENT HAP EMISSIONS) + GROUP 2 VENT HAP EMISSIONS
+ (.O5HGROUP 1 TANK HA! EMISSIONS) + GROUP 2 TAPJI( HAP
EMISSIONS
(.02)(5 TRY) + 3 TPV’ + (.05)13 TPY) + 5 TRY 8.25 TRY.
01 STRATEGY: CONTROL BOTh VENTS TO 98% AND LEAVE THE TANKS
UNCONTROLLED.
GROUP 2 HON TANK AND GROUP 1 HON VENT COMPLY POINT-BY-POINT.
GROUP 1 HON TANK AND GROUP 2 HON VENT ARE EMISSIONS AVERAGED:
DEBITS = (.95HGROUP 1 HON TANK HAP EMISSIONS) = (.95)13 TPY) = 2.85 TRY
CREDITS (.98)(GROUP 2 HON VENT HAP EMISSIONS) = (.98)(3 TPY) 2.94 TPY
SINCE HAP EMISSION CREDITS> HAP EMISSION DEBITS. THE PLANT IS IN
COMPLIANCE WiTH ThE HON. SINCE ALL EMISSIONS FROM THE HON-AFFECTED
POINTS ARE HAPNOC. THESE POINTS ALSO MEET PAR (THE VOC EMISSION
CALCULATIONS ARE ThE SAME AS THE HAP CALCULATIONS ABOVE). AS IN THE
PREVIOUS EXAMPLE. THE VOC POINTS THAT ARE NOT AFFECTED BY ThE HON HAVE
TO MEET ANY APPLICABLE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.
3 Tcws
CtC C ( P I
S Teds it*Di
4 3 I W5 O•.I P .
5 buS
3 I
,(w,voc
S TOIS
H P
21
-------
Federal Register 1 Vol. 58, No. 201 I Wednesday, October 20, 1993 I Notices
54141
Figure 3: PAR Example 3.
THIS PLANT DECIDES TO COMPLY WITH THE HON BY INSTALLING THE REFERENCE
CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES AT ALL GROUP 1 HON POINTS.
SINCE THE GROUP 1 HON POiiITS INSTALL THE REQUIRED CONTROLS. THESE POINTS
ARE ALSO CONSIDERED TO BE MEETING PAR.
THE GROUP 2 HON TANK IS NOT REQUIRED TO REDUCE ITS EMISSIONS BECAUSE OF
THE HON. BUT IT MUST INSTALL RACT CONTROLS SINCE IT IS GROUP I FOR THE CTG.
THE GROUP 2 HON VENT IS ALSO GROUP 2 FOR THE CTG AND, THEREFORE, REQUIRES
NO CONTROL.
THE EFFECT OF REGULATIONS ON THE EMISSION POINTS OUTSIDE THE HON-AFFECTED
OURCE IS THE SAME AS IN THE PREVIOUS EXAMPLES.
6 ICI”S
6 TU’G
S TO,i5
23
-------
54144
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 201 / Wndn s’Thy, Octct nr 2U, I )93 I Nnii.e.s
gure 4:PJ R Ezaaple 4.
THIS PLANT DECIDES TO COMPLY WITH THE HON USING A COMBINATION OF POINT-
BY-POINT APPLICATION OF CONTROLS AND EMISSIONS AVERAGING. ACCORDING TO
THE HON. THE PLANT IS ALLOWED TO EMIT:
(.O2HGROUP 1 HON VENT HAP EMISSIONS) + GROUP 2 HON VENT HAP
EMISSIONS + (.05)(GROUP 1 HON TANK HAP EMISSIONS) + GROUP 2
HON TANK HAP MISSIONS
— (02)(5 TPYJ + 3 TPY + (.05)(3 TPY) + 5 TPY 3.75 TPY.
E PLANT WILL CONTROL BOTH VENTS TO 98%. THIS PLANT ACHIEVES THE
iOWABLEHAP,EMISSION LEVEL ASIN EXAMPLE 2.
THE VOC EMISSIONS ALLOWED TO BE EMITTED FROM THE HON-AFFECTED POINTS
ARE:
=
(.02)(GROUP 1 CTG VENT VOC EMISSIONS) + GROUP 2 CTG VENT VOC
EMISSIONS + (.O5)(GROUP 1 CTG TANK VOC EMISSIONS)
= (.02115 TPY) + 3 TPY + (.05)(3 TPY + 5 TPY) = 3.5 TPY.
THE GROUP 1 CTG VENT COMPLIES POINT-BY-POINT. SINCE THE HON REFERENCE
CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES ARE APPLIEb.
THE VOC EMISSIONS FROM THE TANKS AND THE GROUP 2 CIG VEN I ARE TO BE
AVERAGED:
DEBITS = (.95)(GROUP I CTG TANK VOC EMISSiONS) = (.95)(8 TPY) = 7.6 TPY
CREDITS (.9 3HGROUP 2 CTG VENT VOC EMISSIONS) — 9fl113 T Y) — 7.91 irv
TilE VOC CREDI1S DO NOT OUTWEIGH 1IIE VOC DEBI1S, ANt) 4.66 1PY 5 OF VI)C
REDUCTIONS ARE NEEDED TO ACHIEVE THE ALLOWABLE VOC EMISSION LEVEL. IIIESE
REDUCTIONS CAN BE OBTAINED BY CONTROLLING THE 5 TPY GROUP 1 CTG TANK
WITHIN THE HON-AFFECTED SOURCE. OR BY CONTROLLING A GROUP 2 CTG POINT
OUTSIDE THE HONAFFECTED SOURCE.
IFR Doc. 93—25778 F lIed 10—19—93; 8:45 ainI
- - O COOE 161040-C
I TOI PO.- P VOC
6 T(’ 5
H8PI WOC . p,voC
dc ‘t I
mINT
6 TCP S
-S
c-’(;
mu NT
S T 5
25
-------
cO
- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
L
FEB — i°93
ORANDUM
SUBJECT: Revised Capture Efficiency Guidance for Coni
Volatile Organic Compound,21U.ssions
FROM: John S. Seitz, Director
Office of Air Quality P1 nn iug and Standards
( , 1
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides nd Toxic Management
Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI -
Director, Air and Toxic Division,
Regions VII, ylli, IX, and X
In a icfemorandum dated March 20, 1992, I announced that the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) was
undertaking -a study to find less expensive alternatives to our
current temporary total enclosure (TTE) methods for determining
capture efficiency (CE) performance of volatile organic compound
(VOC) emission control systems. I also announced that during the
period of this study the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
was instituting a limited moratorium suspending temporarily
certain CE testing and related enforcement activities.
The purpose of this memorandum is three-fold: (1) to release
the attached technical document entitled “Guidelines for
Determining Capture Efficiency” which presents details of the EPA
approved test methods f or determining CE; (2) to provide you with
revised guidance on implementing these CE test methods; and (3)
to announce the end of the CE moratorium and to provide you with
guidance on moratorium closure.
Backaround -
As you know, the measurement of CE is critical to
determining the effectiveness of VOC emission control systems.
Our current TTE test methods are the products of an extended•
investigation by EPA over 7 years in response to the need
identified a number of years ago by the EPA Regional Offices
(RO’s) as being essential to compliance determination efforts.
-------
vU/’ .J’ .J UO.LU L.f- L L¼
2
We received a number of comments from industry, States,
RO’s, and others expressing concern about the cost of using our
recommended gas-gas and liquid-gas methods that specify a TTE to
measure CE. In light of the President’s instructions to review
Federal regulations for ways to minimize their cost to industry,
OAQPS in March 1992 embarked: on a 12—month study to develop and
review possible alternatives and the effect that their approval
would have on programs to assure volatile organic compound
emissions reductions. Clearly, when the study began, we did not
know of less costly methods with measurement capabilities
equivalent to those methods using the TTE.
To ensure that all aspects of the issue were considered, the
study was a cooperative effort involving all the divisions in
OAQPS. I would also lj e to thank the Can Manufacturers
Institute (CMI) for their participation in the study. The
comparison field test CMI conducted not only demonstrated that
the TTE methods are the xnost’precise procedures available for
determining CE but also provided useful data in the’ development
of the approved alternative CE protocols.
The CE study and moratorium were extended beyond our
originally ‘planned 12 months to utilize the additional data front
the CMI field test and more detailed analyses of CE protocol
options. Our CE study was completed in early November of this
year.
Guidelines for Determinijia C pturc Efficiency Document
The attached document, “Guidelines f or Determining Capture
Efficiency,” provides the, technical details of the EPA approved
CE test methods, including the data quality objective (DQO) and
lower confidence limit (LCL) test methods recently developed
during OAQPS’s CE study. Appendix A contains a complete
description of the TTE test methods, incorporating several minor
revisions, such as reduced length of test runs, to the TTE test
methods provided in earlier documents. Any future reference
citations regarding EPA’s TTE test methods should be made to
Appendix A of this document.
This guideline document presents the TTE methods as EPA’S
recommended procedures. As indicated from our earlier
investigation leading to the development of the TTE methods and
confirmed by the CMI field study, the TTE methods are the most
precise procedures for measuring CE.
Nevertheless, to provide flexibility and to reduce costs,
EPA has developed,two alternative methods, DQO and LCL, for
determining CE which do not require a TTE. Moreover, these
alternatives offer additional flexibility in that they do not
require specific testing procedures for measuring process
parameters and f or liquid and gas analyses; but only specify a
-------
Uo/U3/ UO.J ,O 4iiU. t 1
3
limited set of guidelines on the data quality. The DQO and LCL
methods are sets of approval criteria which, when met by the data
obtained with any given protocol of process parameter measurement
procedures, may be used to determine VOC capture system
compliance with a CE standard.
To add further flexibility, the guideline document also
describes an aggregate sampling method where the building may be
used as an enclosure for testing and for multiple lines which
share a common VOC control device such as an incinerator or
adsorber system.
ImDLementation of CaDture Efficiency Guidance
In accordance with the technical guidance provided in the
attached document “Guidelines for Determining Capture Efficiency”
and the, policy guidance set forth here, the EPA recommends the
use of these TTE and alternative test methods to the States and
local agencies for determining CE.
For the purpose of CE testing to determine compliance with
VOC Reasonably Available Control Technolbgy (RACT) requirements,
any of the CE testing methods described in the attached document
are acceptable to EPA. Such testing includes initial compliance
certification, enforcement actions where noncompliance is
suspected, and periodic testing as may be required pursuant to
EPA’s enhanced monitoring rules. The LCL should not be used,
however, for enforcement purposes to confirm noncompliance;
sufficient test runs should be run to meet the DQO protocol.
To allow the use of the aggregate sampling method for CE
compliance determinations, the State should provide in its SIP
that aggregate sampling requires a site-specific SIP or FIP .
revision to establish a federally enforceable CE RACT for the
building. The building RACT should provide VOC emission
reductions equivalent to the reductions obtained when all the VOC
emission sources within the building are meeting their individual
RAcT. In testing multiple lines connected to a common control
device as a group, the CE determined for the group should comply
with the highest (most stringent) CE RACT of, any individual line
in the group. -
In those situations where CE testing is done to determine
emission reductions for the purpose of establishing emission
credits for offsets, shutdowns, and trading, the LCL method is
not, appropriate for these applications. Sources who have used
the LCL method for ‘CE’contpliance determinations, however, may use
their same testing procedures and perform sufficient test runs to
meet the requirements of the DQO method.
-------
4
States that have already adopted the ‘rTE test methods into
their SIPS and want to allow the use of any or all of these
alternative methods should revise their SIPS accordingly.
For those States which did not adopt CE test methods and/or
compliance regulations in their SIPs, they should submit to EPA
as soon as possible SIPS with complete CE rules in accordance
with the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA).
With regard to FIPs, I am requesting that Regional Offices
make the necessary revisions as soon as possible to the FIPS in
their regions ‘to allow the use of CE test methods described in
the attached technical guidance and to make the FIPs consistent
with the CE polióy set forth here.
The EPA wishes to expedite making this CE guidance available.
to the State and local agencies, industry, and the public. I am
therefore requesting that Regional Offices distribute copies of
this memorandum and its attachment to the appropriate contacts in
the State and local agency offices within their regions. This CE
guidance is also being made available’ on EPA’S TTh bulletin -
board.
CaDture Efficiency Moratorium Closure
With the CE study now completed, I am announcing the end of
the CE moratorium which has been in effect since March 20, 1992.
The effective date for termination of the moratorium is
February 15, 1995.
I am asking the Regional Offices to notify the appropriate
authorities in the State and local agency offices within their
regions that the CE moratorium is ending and to inform those
authorities of those actions they need to take to resume CE
compliance determinations suspended by the moratorium.
If you have any questions concerning the guidance document
please contact Candace Sorrell at (919) 541—1064. All policy and
implementation questions should be directed to Bob Stallings at
(919) 541—7649.
Attachment
cc: Air Programs Branch Chief, Regions I-X
Air Compliance Chief, Regions I-X
VOC Compliance Work Group
VOC Policy Work Group
Environmental Services Division, Regions I-X
Office of Regional Counsel, Regions I-X
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
4 L PgoIt
FEB 81995
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Issues Concerning Bakery RACT Re u nts
FROM: hn S. Seitz, Direct
Office of Air Quality P n ng rid Standards (MD-b)
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and óxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
We recently met with representatives from the American
Bakers Association (ABA) who have raised several concerns with
the way EPA and the States are implementing RACT for major source
bakeries. Through our discussions with the ABA, we believe we
have established significant areas of common ground, arid have
identified ways to address many of their specific concerns.
We continue to believe that RACT should result in VOC
emissions reductions of- 80 to 95 percent for large bakery
operations. The EPA supports providing industry with flexibili
to achieve this level of emissions reductions, e.g., through th
use of innovative technology, pollution prevention, or other
approaches such as those presented in our economic incentive
program rules (59 FR l66 O, April 7, 1994). In those cases where
achieving 80 to 95 perce:rit overall emissions reductions might be
technically feasible but would not be economically reasonable due
to factors specifiq to a particular site, EPA may allow the State
to determine what level of control would be reasonable through an
alternative-RACT determination.
In addition to the above policy, we support the following
approaches:
1. Small emitting oven exemption . In many cases, 80 to 95
percent controls on individual, small emitting ovens may not be
-------
02/09/95 17:42 1 41 U 24
iYii -ULUi\C. -s-v
‘ Jvu.J, vul
1
2
economically reasonable based on the cost per ton of VOC
emissions reduced. Because of this, we recommend that EPA allow
States to establish appropriate exemption levels for small
emitting ovens, provided that they include a justification of the
exemption as part of thE!ir SIP submittal. The justification must
include cost data and technical justification that demonstrate
that requiring controls on those umits would not be reasonable.
In some cases, it may be feasible to duct several small
emitting ovens together into one control device and, thereby,
achieve PACT control. Therefore, the State’s SIP submittal
should include an analysis demonstr ating that ducting such ovens
together is not economically reasonable at each facility subject
to the rule. As an altErnative to providing such an analysis,
the State may establish a generic, plantwide cap on the total
actual VOC emissions tha.t may be emitted from the exempted ovens
and,then generically demonstrate that controlling the capped
emissions from exempted ovens would not be economically
reasonable., After such a demonstration, individual, source-
specific RACT analyses ou1d not be required for ovens which are
below the exemption levels established by th State.
‘2. Alternative-RACT process . Obtaining an alternative-PACT
determination is often a lengthy process because it entails both
State and EPA rulemaking to approve it as a source-specific SIP
revision. Rather than relying exclusively on source—specific SIP
revisions, we recommend that to the extent a State is aware of a
need for specific alternative-PACT determinations, it include
such determinations in its bakery regulation up front. The State
may either specify by nanie the specific source or group of
sources to which the alternative provision would apply, or•
specify a set of parameters which could define such sources. In
its SIP submittal, the State would need to justify such
alternative-PACT provisions by demonstrating that controls less
than 8O percent constitute RACT for a given source or group of
sources by providing the appropriate economic and technical data.
Where it is not feasible to identify those sources requiring
alternative-PACT determinations in the regulation, States may
still use source—specific SIP revisions.
States should work with EPA to ensure that the appropriate
data are provided in the State’s SIP submittal to support an
alternative-PACT determination. Some of the critical items to
consider include the typ.3s of controls considered, the
practicality of implementing such controls, tk e associated
capital and operating co ;ts, the tons of pollutants abated, the
remaining useful life of the plant and/or production equipment,
and the size and space consi4erations of the physical plant.
Appendix C of EPA’s “Alternative Control Technology Document for
BakeryOven Emissions (ACT),” (December 1992) offers an example
of some of the factors that may be included in the cost analysis.
-------
3
3. Emissions calcu]at:ion for applicability determinations . The
ACT includes a predictive formula to estimate emissions. The ABA
has asked EPA to allow for the use of this, formula to estimate
emissions for applicability purposes, rather than require stack
testing. In many cases 1 the formula found in chapter 2 of the
ACT would accurately predict uncontrolled emissions. The EPA is
aware, however, that in certain cases, the equation leads to
inaccurate estimates. I’or this reason, States may allow for the
use of predictive formu].as for calculating uncontrolled
emissions, but should a].so retain the ability to require stack
testing. Where stack tEst data deviate from the predictive
formula estimates, the stack test data should take precedence.
4. Monitoring requirements . - The ABA has raised a concern over
the high cost of using a continuous emissions monitoring system
(CEMS) on ovens. We are not aware, however, of any requirement
that would mandate the use of CEMS on ovens subject to RACT. The
EPA’S ACT does not specify monitoring requirements for RACT.’
Similarly, the EPA’S proposed enhanced monitoring rule does not
propose to mandate CEMS. States may require either CEMS or
alternative monitoring requirements, provided that the RACT rule
is enforceable.
We believe that the approach outlined above ‘will achieve
RACT emissions reductions from major source bakeries in a cost-
effective manner.
-------
W. Small Business
-------
W. Small Business Assistance Programs
W.l. Guidelines for Implementation of Section 507 of the 1990
clean Air Act Amendments - - January 1992 -
W.2. Definition of Small Business -- June 23, 1992 note from Jan
Tierney
W.3. Approval and Promulgation of Title V. Section 507, Small
Business Statibnary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance
Assistance Program for Massachusetts, 59 FR 1695 (Jan. 12, 1994)
(assistance to other than small businesses) -
W.4. Approval and Promulgation, Small Business Stationary Source
Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Program for
Minnesota, 59 FR 12165 (March 16, 1994) (more than 7 members in
CAP)
W.5. Clean Air Act Approval and Promulgation of Title V. Section
507, Small Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental
Compliance Assistance Program for Louisiana, 59 FR 32355 (June
23, 1994) (deviation in selection of CAP)
W.6. Enforcement Response Policy for Treatment of Information
Obtained Through Clean Air Act Section 507 Small Business
Asèistance Programs - - Aug. 12, 1994 memo from Steven A. Herman
W.7.. Clean Air Act Approval and Promulgation of Title ‘1, Section
507, Small Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental
Compliance Assistance Program for Texas, 59 FR 42759 (Aug. 19,
1994) (deviation in selection of CAP)
-------
LUI
GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF SECIION 507 OF THE
1990 CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS
FINAL GUIDELINES
U.S. EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
January 1992
-------
TABLE OF CONTE S
•1l ltltSl5•l •Sssslsssls..sl ISS••lS •Sl •s...ll Ill...... I I • V
1.0 II’ ’I’RODiJC1IOl I .. . 1
1.lEPAObligationsUnder.Section5O7 ....................... . 2
1.2StateObligationsUnderSection5O7 .............................. 6
2.0 GENERALREQUIREMENTSFORSIPAPPROVAL....................... 12
3.0 COMPONENTS OF A STATE SMALL BUSiNESS STATIONARY SOURCE TECHMCAL
AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPUANCE ASSISTANCE
PROORA}vf(I’ROGR 1 4 141) ................s...s.s.s................. ‘17
3.1 Designation of a State Office to Serve as Ombudsman For Small Business. 17
3.2 Establishment of a Sm 11 Business Assistance Program (SBAP) . . ....... 20
3.2.1 Methods for Disseminating Technical and Compliance Information to
Sin2llBusinesses .....,........................ ........ 21
3.2.2 Assistance to Sm 1I Businesses on Methods of Pollution Prevention
andAccidentalReleasePreventionandDetection ............. 26
3.2.3 Establishment ‘of Compliance Assistance for Determining Small
Stationaiy Source Applicability Requirements and
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
Business
ermltting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.4. Methods for Notifying Small Businesses of their Rights on a r e1y
3.2.5 EstablishinentofanAuditPrograrn ........
3.2.6 Procedures for Consideration of Requests from Small Business
Stationary Sources for Modifications of Work Practices or
Technological Methods of Compliance ...........
3.3 Establishment of State Compliance Advisory Panels .... .. .
3.3.1 Authority and Functions of the State Compliance Advisory Panel..
3.3.2 Selection of Panel Members . . . . . . . . . . s’s • s • . . s s . . . . . . s .
3.3.3 Implementation of the Compliance Advisory Panel . .. ......
30
31
32
33
34
34
35
35
111
-------
UST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1 Major Stationary Sources as Defined in Titles I and III of the Act ... 9
Table 2 Ways of Implementing the Proactive and Reactive Components of
InformationDissen inntiontoSmaIIBusinesses................ 27
Figure 1 Information Transfer System on Compliance and
Technology Inforniation . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... •.....•• .. •. 25
Lv
-------
P1 EFACE
Implementation of the provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
(Amendments) will more likely require regulation of small businesses in order to attain and
maintain the national ambicnt air quality standards (NAAQS) and control air toxic
emissions. These small businesses frequently lack the technical ‘expertise and financial
resources necessary to evaluate State regulations and determine the appropriate mechanisms
for compliance. The Congress, in anticipation of this new burden on small businesses,
added provisions designed to be implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the States to provide technical assistance and compliance information to small
businesses. This document is intended to delineate the Federal and State roles in meeting
these new statutory provisions and to provide guidance to the States on submitting an
acceptable State implementation plan (SIP).
The material included in this document is meant to provide guidance to States in the
adoption of a SmaliBusiness Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance
Assistance Program. The ‘EPA describes the statutory requirements set forth in section 507
.of the amended Clean Air Act (Act) and presents recommended interpretations of those
requirements. The State must comply with all statutory requirements of the Act however,
to the extent that EPA is interpreting the Act requirements, these interpretations are not.
binding on the States, and EPA will independently evaluate each State plan in light of the
Act’s requirements.
Section 507 of the Amendments (42 U.S.C. *2661f) requires each State to submit a
revision to the federally-approved SIP by November 15, 1992 to establish a Small Business
Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Program. Failure
of the States to adequately respond could result in the imposition of one or more penalties
(sanctions) included in the statute. The EPA recognizes that most States have active
technical support programs to assist regulated sources. The EPA encourages States to
continue any ongoing technical and compliance assistance programs and, wherever possible,
v
-------
to include all appropriate State agenàies in the process of proactive and reactive support to
small businesses. The EPA interprets the statute as granting the States substantial flexibility
in desigiilng and implementing programs to assist applicable sources. The EPA has
designed its guidance, as set forth in the following chapters, such that it does not overburden
the States with prescribed methods of meeting the statute. The EPA believes that States
and associated local agencies are the best sources of information to small businesses and can
provide the most efficient service to the regulated community. Although the Act does not
require local agencies to develop small business technical and conipliaqce assistance
programs, the States may find it appropriate to cooperatively work with such local agencies
whenever such agencies can be supportive of the SIP required program.
The EPA desires that States be as innovative as possible in program design and
implementatinn. To that end, the Agency is eiamining some of the existing technical
assistance programs at State and local levels designed to provide general and/or specific
technical support to small businesses. While these programs may not have been designed
to meet the provisions of section 507 or may address environmental pollutants other than
those encompassed by the Act 1: programs can demonstrate the approaches envisioned
by section 507. The EPA will provide this information to States as soon as it is available.
In the interim, EPA encourages State-to .State communications to investigate methods for
providing proactive and reactive support to mn11 busiiesses.
The following three terms used in this guideline are important to understand: State
office to serve as Ombuftcm2n for sm 11 business (Sf1211 Business Ombudsman); the small
business assistance program (SBAP); and the Compliance Advisory PaneL The combination
of these three terms’is referred to as the PROGRAM. The core of the PROGRA is the
SBAP. This is where the actual assistance to mal1 businesses occurs. The Small Business
Ombudstmm is to serve as a representative for çmall businesses in the implementation of
the State’s responsibility under section 507. The Compliance Advisory Panel is to render
advisory opinions, submit reports to EPA on the PROGRAM effectiveness, and review
information to assure that it is understandable by the ayperson.
vi
-------
1.0 INTRODUC11ON
Congress adopted Title V, scction &7, of the Amendments for the purpose of
ensuring that m l1 businesses would have access to the technical and compliance
information necessary to comply with the Act. Toward achieving this objective, section 507
includes requirements that apply to the EPA as well as other requirements that States must
meet. In addition to these m2ndated requirements, section 507 also provides EPA and
States with the opportunity to exercise discretion in certain areas of program
implementation. Snmmaries of the EPA and State mandatory and discretionazy provisions
contained in section 507 are presented in Subchapters 1.1 and 1.2, respectively. To assist
States in meeting both the mpndatory and discretioflary provisions contained in section 507,
EPA has developed this guidance document for States to use in developing and
implementing a small business technical and environmental compliance assistance program
(herein referred to as the ?ROGRAM ’). In general, the PROGRAM includes three key
components: (component #1) the designation of a State office to serve as Ombudsman for
small businesses in connection with the implementation of the Act; (component #2) the
establishment of a small business assistance program (SBAP) for providing technical and
compliance assistance tà small’ businesses; and (component #3) the creation of a
Compliance Adviiory Panel for determining the overall effectiveness of the SBAP.
Chapter 2.0 of this guidance document describes the general requirements for States
to follow in providing a demonstration to EPA of the adequacy of their PROGRAM in
order to receive approval of the PROGRAM as part of the SIP. Chapter 3.0 addresses the
three key components of a State’s PROGRAM.
1
-------
1.1 EPA Obligations Under Section 507
Within nine months after enactment of the Amendments, section 507(b) requires
EPA to establish a Federal progra’m. The functions of the program will include (1) assisting
States in developing a 5m2fl business technical and environmental compliance assistance
program; (2) issuing technical guidance for the States to use during implementation of the
PROGRAM, including guidance on alternative control technologies, pollution prevention,
and accidental release prevention methods for ni fl business stationary sources; and (3)
providing for the implementation of a portion of the PROGRAM under section 507(a)(4)
if a State fails to submit such a program. Toward meeting the first requirement, EPA is
issuing this guideline document. Furthermore, EPA will follow-up with individual assistance’
to States that request such help.. States’are encouraged to work with the appropriate EPA
Regional Office to resolve issues or to discuss additional interpretations of these provisions.
In order for EPA to meet its second obligation of provi’Hng technical assistance to States,
EPA is utili’ing its current technical support services such as the Control TechnoIo Center
(CrC), the Pmicsions Measurement Technical Information Center (EMTIC), the Emergency
P1aLnn ng and Community Right-to-Know Hotline, and the Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse (PPIC). A brief description of these services is provided in the following
paragraph. These technical support centers and offices can provide the States with up-to-
date information on new methods, control techniques, and upcoming regulations. In
meeting the third requirement, EPA is designing and will operate a small business technical
and compliance assistance program by utilfring contractors under EPA supervision and the
aforementioned technical support services, which will be available if a State fails to
implement the provisions of section 507.
The EPA currently has various technical support services that the Agency anticipates
will be able to provide technical ass’ctance to the States. The Cit is a no-cost, technical
assistance service for all State and local air pollution control agencies and Regional Offices.
It offers quick access to EPA experts via the Cit Hotlinc and in-depth technical support
through source-specific engineering assistance projects. The EMTIC is an information
2
-------
exchange network for the promotion of consistent, u i oriv pplication of stationaiy source
emission test methods in the development and enfoi ce.ment o A)ission control programs
on a national basis . The Emergency Planning arid Community Right-to-Know Hotline
provides ancillary technical services for EPA’S Chemical Emergency Preparedness and
Prevention Office CEPPO). The CEPPO is primarily responsible for programs involving
accidental releases of hazardous chemical substances. Under the authority of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 or SARA Title III, CEPPO
helps States and local entities plan what to do in the event of a chemical emergency. The
CEPPO’s purview also extends to fostering the prevention and minimii ation of the
consequences of accidental releases, mainly under the accidental release provisions of the
Amendments. The prevention program, in particular, cont2inc a strong outreach component -
directed to sma ller businesses that manufacture, store, distribute, or use hazardous chemicals
in other ways. Its aim is to increase the understanding and application of good prevention
practices and technologies, using an approach known as chemical process safety
management. The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Hotline answers
questions concerning chemical accident prevention and the accidental release provisions of
the Amendments. It also deals with questions concerning chemical emergency preparedness
and other questions related to SARA Title HI. The Hotline staff can be reached at 1-800-
535-0202. Finally, PPIC provides information on pollution prevention programs through
a variety of activities including a hard copy reference library, an electronic database, a toll-
free Hotline, and other outreach efforts such as distributing information packets and
conducting workshops.
Other services provided by the EPA will include (1) coordination with the Federal
regulatory development programs within EPA and other involved agencies to assure that
small business needs and permitting issues are addressed during standards setting and
control techniques guideline (CTG) development; (2) preparation of small business
instructional materials along with the development of any standards or Cl G’s that present
the information in easy-to-understand language (to include sample permits, simplified permit
application instructions, etc.); (3) preparation of alternative control téchniques (ACT)
3
-------
documents for sources that are affected by State programs but ai e not expected to be
regulated by Federal j ógran s in the near future (efforts will be concentrated in those areas
that will benefit the most States); and (4) coordination with State SBAP’s to develop, as
necessary and appropriate, materials for other small businesses.
In addition to these general requirements, section 507(c) containc a discretionary
provision that allows ‘EPA to consider modifications to the eligibility criteria for determining
if certain small businesses may be excluded from the requirements of section 507, or if small
businesses have the technical and fhiancial capability to meet the requirements ofi the Act
without the application of Section 507. The Agency will evaluate a State’s request to
exclude sources from the SBAP based upon the statutory reasons for including such sources,
for technical assistance, i.e., financial and technical capability to assess control alternatives.
In xerdsing this discretion, EPA must provide notice and an opportunity for public
comment and consultation with the Administrator of the Small Business Administration
(SBA).
Under section 507(d), EPA must establish a monitoring program through the EPA
Ombudsman’s Office to monitor the effectiveness of each State PROGRAM under section
507. In so doing Congress has charged EPA with a continuing oversight responsibility. To
this end, EPA has established an Ombudsman through the Office of Small and
Disadvantaged BusinesS Utilization in the Office of the Administrator to monitor and report
to Congress on the effectiveness of this program. This Office can be reached at 703-537 -
1938. The EPA Ombudsman is required to (1) render advisory opinions on the overall
effectiveness of each State PROGRAM; (2) report periodically to, Congress on the
compliance status of the EPA and State agencies with the requirements of the Papezwork
Reduction Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the Equal Access to Justice Act (see next’
paragraph below); (3) review information (e.g., enabling documents) issued by the
responsible Federal and State PROGRAM officials to ensure that it is understandable to
the layman; and (4) have the responsible Federal and State PROGRAM officials serve as
the secretariat for the development and dissemination of reports to Congress and advisory
-4
-------
opinions. The EPA’s Sm211 Business Ombudsrn2n Office would extend its progLald to sri 1F
businesses in that particular State, to the extent resources permit, if that State fails to
designate a State office as Ombudsman to 5m211 businesses. In addition, the EPA Regional
Offices m .intain a ni H business liaison for assisting States on matters relating to all
environmental media. A listing of these Regional contacts is contained in Appendix A.
The statute requires the EPA Ombudsman (and the State Compliance Advisory
Panel) to monitor each State PROGRAM for compliance with the Paperwork Reduction
Act, the Regulatory flexibility Act, and the Equal Access to Justice Act As such, the
Agency will monitor the State PROGRAM to determine whether it is following the broad
intent of these provisions.
In carrying out this oversight responsibility, there are a number of questions that may
help EPA evaluate the efficacy of each State PROGRAM. Examples of some potentially I
relevant questions are contained in Appendix B.
Where the Agency has the responsibility for permitting and collecting fees, EPA may.
reduce the fees required under the Act for ma1l business stationary sources by considering
their available financial resources [ section 507(f)). While EPA has not established specific
criteria to be used in the process of determining whether fee reduction is appropriate, the
Agency will be guided by the statutory intent that such fees not detract from the
implementation of control objectives. Requests for fee reductions will be assessed on a
case-by-case basis. The Agency does not intend of its own volition to grant broad fee
reductions for small businesses. Further, EPA is obligated under the Act to (1) consider the
necessity and appropriateness of continuous emissions monitoring (CEM) requirements for
small business stationary sources when developing regulations and CTG’s that require
CEWs pursuant to the Act [ section 507(g)); and (2) consider the size, type and technical
5
-------
capabilities of sm 1 business stationary sources in the development of CFG’s for small
business stationary iources (sect rn 5O7 b)i.
1.2 State Obligations Uuder Section 507
States are requiràd to establish and implement a PROGRAM as part of the State’s
responsibility to have a fully-approved and implemented SIP. The SIP revisions which
incorporate this PROGRAM must be submitted to EPA within 24 months after enactment
of the Amendments (by November 15, 1992). The Agency interprets the Act as requiring
the State tç submit, as a SIP revision, plans for establishing its PROGRAM. These plans
should provide for timely phising in of the program elements with implementation to fullyq
comply with the statutory provisions of the PROGRAM by the effective date of the State’s
operating permit program i.e., not later than November 15, 1994. This thning is necessary
so that small businesses that will be subject to the permit requirements will have available
the guidance the PROGRAM is required to provide. As discussed in Chapter 2.0, in order
to receive approval of the section 507 portion of the SIP, the State must submit schedules
and commitments to have in place and/or to have operational all elements of the
PROGRAM. These program elements are discussed below. Where the State chooses to
submit schedules and commitments as the plan, these schedules and commitments must
specify how and when each element will be placed into full operation (i.e., the Governor
may not have specific ‘authority to initiate a particular element, and the plan must
demonstrate the efforts to pin legiclative approval and subsequent implementation if the
Governor does not presently have specific authority to initiate an element of the
PROGRAM).
In reviewing and approving section 507 SIP revisions submitted by the State, EPA will
fully approve each program element that is either fully implemented in accordance with the
statute and this guideline, or for which the schedules and commitments will ensure
.6
-------
implementation by November 1994. Elements of submitted PkOGRAMS for which the
State submits a schedule and commitment will be evaluated against the principles
established by the statute and this guideline.
The following program elements must be addressed in the SIP revision in order to
satisfy the requirements of section 507(a) regarding implementation of, the PROGRAM:
1. , Development, collection, and coordin2tion of’ information on
compliance methods and technologies for m 11 business stationary
sources.
2. Assistance tosm ii business stationary sources on methods of pollution
prevention and accidental release prevention and detection, including
providing informatipn concerning alternative echno1ogies, process
changes, products and methods of operation that help reduce air
pollution.
3. Designation of a State office to serve as an Ombudsmpn for small
businesses in implementing the requirements of the Act.
4. Establkhnient of a çni I1 business stationary source compliance
itcictance program for determining applicable requirements and permit
issuance.
5. Adequate mechanisms for notifying sni fl business stationary sources
on a timely basis of their rights under the Act.
6. Adequate medl2nhms for informing small business stationary sources
of their obligations under the Act, including a program for referring
sources to qualified auditors or for the State to provide for audits of
the operations of such sources to determine compliance with this Act.
7. Expedited procedures to respond to requests from ma11 business
stationary sources for modification of any work practice or technical
method of compliance, or schedule of milestones for implementing
such work practice or method of compliance preceding any applicable
compliance date, based on the technological and financial capability of
any such çmall business Stationary source. No such modification may
be granted unless it is in compliance with the applicable requirements
of the Act including the requirements of the SIP.
8. Creation of a Compliance Advisory Panel.
7.
-------
Unless otherwise approved by EPA, the plan must demonstrate that all small business
stationary sources Will be eligible for a.ssi nce undc. the State program. Section 507(c).
defines a small business stationary source as a stationary source that:
1. is owned or operated by a person that employs 100 or fewer
individuals;
2. is a mn1l business concern as defined in the Small Business Act (see
definition on page 10);
is not a major stationary source as defined in Titles I and UI of the
Amefldments (these definitions are listed in Table 1);
4. does not emit 50 tons or more per year of any regulated pollutant 1 ;
and
5. emits less than 75 tons per year of all regulated pollutants.
This demonstration can take the form of enabling documents defining eligible sources -
State certification that eligible sources will not be excluded from the PROGRAM without
prior EPA approval.
Section 507(c) allows States, after notice and opportuni y for public comment, to
extend the definition of eligible source to include m U business stationary sources which
Regulated air pdflut nt’ means the followin
(1) Nitrogen oiid s (NOi) or any vo e organic compound.
(2) Any pollutant for which a national ambient air quality standard has been promulgated.
(3) Any pollutant that in subject to any standard promulgate4 under section 111 of the Act
(4). __
(5) Any pollutant subject to a standard promulgated under section 112 or other requirements
established nn 4 er section 112 of the Act üiduding section 112(r).
(6) Any pollutant subject to requirements under section 112(J) of the Act Such pollutant shall be
considered to be regulated at the time the Administrator does not promulgate a standard by
the date established pursuant to section 112(e) of the Act.
(7) Any poll ntnt for which the requirements of sedjee 112(g)(2) of the Act have been met, but
only with respect to the individual source subject to . edini 112(g 2)requiremcnt.
8
-------
Table 1. Major Stationaiy Sources as Defined in Titles 1 and 111 of the Amendments 2
flTLEI
‘Sources subject to the nonatthinment area provisions of Thie 1 Part D, with the
potential to emit poUutants in the following or greater amounts
TONS PER YEAR (tpy)
(1) Ozone (VOCs and NOx) 3
Serious 50
Thns ,ort regions not
+ severe or extreme 50(VOC only)
Severe 25
Extreme, 10
(ii) Carbon monoxide
Serious (where statlonaiy
Sources contribute sfg iflcandy) 50
‘(iii) Particulate Matter (PM.10). -
Serious 70 -
TITLE II I
Air toxics sources, as-defined in section 112 of the Act, with the potential to emit
• 10 tpy or more of any hazardous air pollutant, 25 tpy or more of any combination
of hazardous air pollutants, or a lesser quantity of a given poThftant if the
Administrator so specifies.
SS c.+’
2 The EPA reeo uP that several definitions mig foe the term major dationaty sourcc. The EPA is
including this definition in this document to dearly define those sources for which the State is
responsibile to provide te 4 nkal and compliance assistance under Section 507.
For this perpose, Tide I treats v ht1l organic Compounds (VOC’s) and ondes of nitrogen (NOx)
sources differently. In arw qualifying for an -eiemption undri! section 182( 1), NOx sources with the
potential to emit less than 100 t vu1d not be omsidered major sources under Part D of Thin L In
areas not qualifying for this mpdon, NOx sow arc subject to the’ lower thresholds created by
section 182(1). In ‘ e transport regions , a lower threshold c(5O tpy for VOC sources is created by
anction 184(b). Because section 1 8 2(f) does not refer to se4km 184(b), the lower threshold in ozone
tran pwt regions applies to VOC suu a , but not to NOx sources. Whatever ite location, any 100 nv
source wi IuId be considered a major SOw under section 302 . ‘
—
9
-------
do not meet the criteria of subparagraphs (3), (4), or (5) above, but do not emit more than
100 tons per year of all regulated pollutants. As these provisions of this guideline intend
to establish minimum criteria, the Agency does not intend to disapprove such expansions
that fit within the 507(c) exception. Should States fail to implement the PROGRAM,
however, EPA intends to implement the PROGRAM based upon the statutoly criteria.
The Small Business Act defines a small business as any business which is independently
owned and operated and not domin2nt in its field as defined by Small Business
Aiiniinictration (SBA) regulations under section 3 of the Small Business Act. The
definitions for a 5 mall business 1 ünder SBA regulations can be found in 13 CFR Part 121 and
are listed by Standard Industrial Code (SIC) categories. For further assistance in
determining the size cut-off for defining a Small business, States should consult with the
SBA’s Office of Policy Analysis. States may contact SBA’s Office of Policy Analysis at 202-
205-6530.
Section 507(c)(3)(B) also allows States to exclude from the maII business tationary
source definition under section 507 those categories of small business stationaiy sources
which the State determines to have sufficient financial and technical support to meet the
requirements of the Act without the application of section 507. In exercising this discretion,
States must provide notice and opportunity for public comment and consult with the
Administrator of the EPA and the SBA. Such exclusions may not be implemented unless
approved by EPA as part of the appropriate SIP. In making its determination, EPA will
consult with the Mminictrator ofSBA, taking into consideration public comments received
by the State, and the State’s demonstration that the class of sources to be excluded are
financially and technically capable of implementing the Act.
Section 507(e) requires States to create a Compliance Ad uisory Panel to cariy out the
same duties required by the EPA Small Business Ombudsman Given the short response
time and the need to coordinate with the legislature EPA believes that it is in the best
interest of the State to establish this panel as early as possible in this process. However, as
10
-------
already discussed in this subchapter,.a State may submit a schedule committing the State to
establish this panel no later than November 1994.
Fin lly, section 507(0, allows States the flexibility to reduce any fees required under the
Act for small business stationaiy sources by considering their available flnancial resources.
The basic intent of section 507 appears to suggest that States remove or diminich the
burdens imposed on 5m211 sources to assist in complying with the provisions of the Act.
Where States reduce fees, however, the modification to the fee structure must demonstrate
that the effectiveness of the PROGRAM will not be affected as a result.
11
-------
2.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SIP APPROVAL
Under the Act, the State is not required to have the PROGRAM in place at the time
it submits the SIP revision, but rather to have a plan for PROGRAM implementation. As
a result, the State’s submittal should consist of a description of the activities the State will
undertake and the infrastructure established (or to be established) to ensure each
component of the PROGRAM is accomplished (see Chapter 1.0). In order to receive EPA
approval of this required aspect of the SIP the State should demonstrate that the
requirements in section 507 can be met by the implementation of the State’s existing and
anticipated PROGRAM. The submittal by the State must address each of the required
eight elements presented in Subchapter 12 and discuss how each of the elements a ’
implemented by the State will meet the requirements established by the Act.
In addition to submitting the required plan revision to the appropriate Regional Office
no later than November 15, 1992, each State must demonstrate that the submitted plan,
including implemented and yet-to-be implemented elements, is capable of meeting the
requirements of the Act. In contrast to other types of plan revisions with clearly definable
objectives (i.e., awiinment of the NAAQS), the demonstration is more of an abstract
analysis of how each element of the State progr..m will work in concert with the overall
program to ensure that eligible cm2Il businesses are provided with the technical assistance
and compliance information envisioned by section 507. - As explained in Chapter 1.0, the
State, in addition to any elements which have been implemented, may submit schedules and
commitments as part of the submittal due on November 15, 1992. Schedules and
commitments submitted must provide for implementation of the full program, as defined in
Chapter 3.0, nOt later thin November 15, 1994.
Although the Act requires the State to submit “plans for establhhing a (PROGRAM]”
by November 15, 1992, the Act does not specify when the PROGRAM must be fully
implemented. However, since States may begin to implement a federally enforceable source
operating permit PROGRAM by November 15, 1994, the Agency believes it is necessary for
12
-------
States to have their PROGRAMS operational by that time. Since mpny aspects of the
PROGRAM conceri informing the States about and aiding them with the permit program
requirements, the States need to be prepared at that point to provide these services.
In some cases, the measure of program adequacy is clear and easily quantified (i.e., the
designation of the StAte office to serve as Ombudsman). In other cases, the demonstration
is more subjective (sources will have access to appropriate technical information/staff to
assist in complying with the statutory provisions). In addition, in preparing these guidelines,
EPA has attempted to allow States the maximum degree of flexibility in designing and
implementing the PROGRAM. The easier option, from an EPA review perspective, would
have been to design a highly prescriptive PROGRAM. While this would have simplified
EPA’s review responsibility, such a PROGRAM would not have recognized the differences
in State infrastructures and could have imposed substantial burdens on the States to design
and implement this PROGRAM. Since this program is substantially different from many
)ther SIP programs, it is logical for each State to ask, in advance of the State’s efforts to
meet these requirements and design a PROGRAM, what PROGRAM is acceptable to EPA
in order to receive approval of their State PROGRAM for incorporation into the federally-
approved SIP.
The State must demonstrate that the State PROGRAM clearly addresses each of the
eight statutorily imrndated elements of the PROGRAM. The PROGRAM described in
Chapter 3.0 requires the State to develop an information dissemination system accessible
to small businesses (PROGRAM component #2). The State must demonstrate that it has
in place and operational an accountability system that serves cmall businesses in a reactive
mode (i.e., that the system components, however assembled and integrated, respond to
requests from eligible sources and provide such sources with the information regarding
compliance with State and Federal rules as required under the Act). Section 507(a)(5) of
the Act requires the State to develop and implement ‘outreach” programs. The State must
therefore demonstrate a proactive aspect of the PROGRAM which actively seeks to inform
sm l1 businesses of these rights, as well as the source’s obligations under the Act. A
13
-------
PROGRAM without one or the other of these modes of operation is not approvable. The
Act also requires the State tO evaluate the effectiveness of the State PROGRAM in
achieving these objectives. The EPA will examfrie the Stateestablished procedures for
internal PROGRAM review designed to ensure maximum PROGRAM effectiveness. This
internal review process includes the Compliance Advisory Panel. ft is advisable that the
Panel be functional at a time sufficiently in advance of the time required for full
PROGRAM implementation t assist in the design and initial implementation of the
PROGRAM, such that the panel can effectively perform oversight of the PROGRAM at 1 .
a later date.
As noted in Chapter 1.0, two of the components of the PROGRAM are the State
Ombudsman and the SBAP. The EPA anticipates that the priinazy responsibility for these
activities will be placed within State offices. ,The EPA does not prescribe the placement of
the Ombudsman Office 4 or the office to be charged with implementation cf an SBAP.
An Ombudsman, as- defined in Web ter’s dictionary,. is a deputy or representative, it
would appear.that Congress, in establishing the requirement for designation of a State office
to serve as Ombudsman for small businesses (PROGRAM component #1), desired to.
ensure that ma11 businesses have a represCntative in the infrastructure being established
that understands the needs of small businesses. As such, EPA believes that in designating
the office, States should carefully examine how this office can represent the interests of
small businesses, especially in relation to ensuring that small businesses receive the technical
and compliance assistance demanded by section 507. A S discussed in Chapter 3.0, there are
many duties that can be ascribed to The Ombudsman The critical test for EPA approval,
with respect to this element Of the PROGRAM, will be whether (1) the designated office
is encumbered with activities that prevent it from performing effectively, (2) sufficient
The term office is used interchangeably in this document to mean either a specific, designated State
official, the title of a State o dal , or an org tional unit or department within the State’s
Executive Branch.
14
-------
expertiseexists to represent sm U businesses; and (3) no conflicts of interest exist within the
office that would prevent the Ombudsman from serving effectively.
The Act requires that the State create a Compliance Advisory Panel (PROGRAM
component #3) for the primary purpose of performing oversight of the State’s section 507
responsibilities. In submitting this component, the State must demonstrate that the Panel
is legally adopted and duly constituted as described in section 507. The panel must be
empowered to perform the statutory function as explained in Chapter 3.0 and must be
sufficiently funded to cari ’ out these responsibilities.
The EPA, in review of the State PROGRAM as prescribed in the submitted SIP
revision, will attempt to assess whether the PROGRAM as designed by the State is capable
of meeting the statutory requirements. The EPA will assess each aspect of the SiP revision
as it relates to the goal of providing technical and compliance ssi ctance to the affected
community. State assurances of PROGRAM operational capability should clearly describe
• each PROGRAM element and demonstrate coordin2ted action between organizations,
whether State or local agencies, wherever the responsibilities are separite. To the extent
that several different governmental units are involved in implementation of the PROGRAM,
the State should demonstrate each office’s responsibility and accountability under the
PROGRAM. In addition, the State must demonstrate the technical capability and sufficient
resource allocations for each office charged with implementing any element of the
PROGRAM. This demonstration may take the form of a memorandum of understanding
between the various governmental units or directives issued by the appropriate governmental
authority.
In addition, the State must demonstrate that adequate legal authority exists to
implement the PROGRAM (i.e., interdepartmental coordin2tion, ability to establish and
maintain the Compliance Advisory Panel, etc.), that adequate comn1 trnent of resources
exists to implement the proposed PROGRAM (i.e., available staff, established hotlines,
designated Ombudsm2n, etc.), and that the PROGRAM has been duly adopted and
15
-------
subjected to public review as defined in the Act and 40 CFR Part 51 Subpart F. Where
elements of the PROGRAM are not in place at the time of SIP submittal, the State must
demonstrate activity to implement the element. This could include, but would not be
limited to, requests for legislative authority to develop and implement the program elements,
budgetary requests for program support, allocation of resources from fees collected, and
contract bids for elements to be supported by nongovernmental personneL
Irrespective of the manner in which a State chooses to design and implement the
PROGRAM, it is incumbent upon the State tO demonstrate the PROGRAM capabilities
in order to receive EPA approval. As discussed previously, EPA believes that States should
be provided with the maximum degree. of flexibility to develop and implement this r
PROGRAM within the constraints of the statute. This means that there is no single
acceptable PROGRAM. In fact, EPA anticipates that States will use many different and
innovative approaches to ensure that the appropriate information is available to small
businesses. The EPA recognizes that many State and local agencies hav provided technical
assistance to the regulated industry. The EPA trusts that States will be able to formalize
existing activities to meet rn 2 iiy of the provisions of these guidelines.
16
-------
3.0 COMPONENTS OF A STATE SMALL BUSINESS STATIONARY SOURCE
TECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM’
(PROGRAM)
In order to comply with the provisions of section 507 requiring States to develop plans
for establishing a PROGRAM,, States must incorporate three key components: (1)
designating a State office to serve as the Ombudsm2n,for small businesses; (2) establishing
a Small Business Assistance Program (SBAP) that contains the necessary procedures for
meeting the objectives of section 507; and (3) establishing a Compliance AdvisOry !anel for
determining the overall effectiveness of the SBAP. This chapter provides guidance to States
for implementing these three key, components of the PROGRAM. Specifically, Subchapter
3.1 provides guidance on the establishment of i State office to serve as Ombudsman for,
small business (Sm ll Business Ombudsman) (PROGRAM component #1), Subchapter 3.2
provides guidance for establishing an SBAP to provide assistance to small businesses subject
to the requirements of the Act (PROGRAM component #2), and Subchapter 3.3 provides
guidance for establiching a Compliance Advisory Panel to provide oversight of the’
PROGRAM (PROGRAM component #3).
3.1 DesIgnation of a State Office to Serve as Ombudsman For Small Business
The first key component which States must consider in implementing a PROGRAM is
the designation of a Sm 11 Business Ombudsman One of the primary functions of the
Ombudsman is to represent m ll businesses to the appropriate gâvernmental organizations.
The following discussion describes methods for satisfying the provisions of section 507(a)(3)
for designating an office within the State government to serve as an Ombudsmpn for small
business stationary sources. -
In designating the Ombwkman the State may find it appropriate to identify a specific
State official or office. Recognizing that many States may already have an existing
Ombudsman office, the State may desire to expand the current duties of the Ombudsman
to include representing m 1l businesses as the State implements the provisions of the Act.
17
-------
Prior to or simultaneously with designating a specific official or State office, the State should
ensure that the office is provided adequate additional staff and funiiing to effectivel)
represent maH businesses.
The EPA’s review of the criteria set forth in Chapter 2.0 for approval of any State
office to serve as Ombudsman will consider the following
• Is the Office capable of representing small business concerns to the State air
pollution control agency? In some cases this may require independent status;
• Will the Office have direct access to individuals or other government units to
ensure the views and needs of small business are considered? This may
include access to the Governor, the head of the State environmental control
authority, the head of the State economic developmentaL agency, the Attorney
• General, or other secretaiy equivalent level officers;
• Is the Office authorized to provide reports to and communicate with
appropriate personnel (e.g State Legislators, Governor’s office, the head of
the State environmental control authority, the head of the State economic
developmental agency, the Attorney General, or other secretary equivalent
level officers)?;
• Is the Office granted sufficient independent authority to identify problems and
make recommendations as they relate to implementation of the SBAP?
The EPA encourages the early appointment of the State Ombu m n to assist in the
development of the SBAP. In addition, early involvement in the planning process will
enable the Ombud nI2n to assist in the oversight role ensuring that srn2ll business concerns
are represented. At a minimum, the SIP revision should either dearly identify the
placement of the Ombudsman and indicate that this office has been designated prior to the
date of the SIP revision submittal or present a schedule based upon the necessary steps to
authorize establishment of the Ombudsm2n
The State Ombu km2n Office for m II businesses, in order to represent 5 m H business
effectively, maybe charged with the following duties:
18
-------
Vi i Ron Rifler (913) 551-7308
EJA - Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenuà
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
Vifi Cheryl Crisler (303) 293-1723
EPA - Region VIII Mail Code: 8HWM-ERB
One Denver Place
999.18th Street
Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80202-2405
IX Kathleen Shirnmin (415) 744-2100
Office of Health and Emergency Planning M-1-2
EPA-Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94105
X, Walt Jaspers (206) 553-4349
EPA - Region X Mail Code: HW093
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
-------
• Conduct independent evaluations, of all aspects of the SBAP;
• Review and provide comments and recommendations to the EPA
and State/local air pollution control authorities regarding the
development and implementation of regulations that impact
small businesses;
• Facilitate and promote the participation of mafl businesses in the
development of new regulations that impact small businesses;
• Assist in providing reports to higher authorities and the public
regarding the applicability of the requirements of the Act to small
business;
• Aid in the dissemination of information (i.e., upcoming air regulations,’
control tàchnologies, etc.) to small businesses and other interested
parties;
• Participate in and sponsor meetings and conferences with State/local
regulatory officials, industry groups, and small business representatives;
• Aid in investigating and resolving complaints and disputes from $1n211
businesses against the State/local air pollution control authorities;
., Periodically review the work and services provided by the SBAP with
trade associations and small business representatives;
• Operate a telephone Hotline (possibly toll-free) to provide confidential
help on individual source problems and grievances;
• Refer small businesses to the appropriate specialists in the SBAP where
they may obtain information and cistance on affordable alternative
technologies, process changes, products and operational methods to help
reduce air pollution and accidental releases;
• Arrange for and -sist in the preparation of guideline documents by the
SBAP tO ensure that the language is readily understandable by the lay
person;
• Work with trade associations and small businesses to bring about voluntaiy
compliance with regulations under the Act;
• Interface with Regional and State offices of the Small Business
Administration, the Department of Commerce and/or other State and
19
-------
Federal agencies that may have programs to finpncially assist small
businesses in need of funds to comply with environmental regulations;
• Interface with private sector financial institutions to assist final ! businesses
in locating sources of funds to comply With State/local air pollution control
requirements; and
• Conduct studies to evaluate the impacts of the Act on the State’s economy,
local economies, and ma11 businesses.
States are encouraged to establish a network for sharing information on small
businesses. These efforts could be coordinated through the Ombudsman’s àfflce.
The second key component that States must consider in implementing a PROGRAM
is the establishment of an SBAP. The SBAP should provide sufficient communications with
small businesses through the collection and dissemination of information to the small
business on matters of (1) determining applicable requirements under the Act and permit
issuance; (2) the rights of sn’ ll businesses under the 4ct; (3) compliance methods and
acceptable control technologies; (4) pollution prevention and accidental release prevention
and detection;’ and (5) audit programs. The SBAP should also act as an information
clearinghouse by referring small businesses to State technical experts specifically trained to
handle specific questions relevant to achieving compliance with the Act. For example, the
SBAP could operate a toll-free telephone hotline to respond to inquiries from small
businesses. Small businesses could learn about the services provided by the SBAP either
through direct óontact with the SBAP or through information outreach programs with Such
organizations as industry groups and trade associations.
In general, the SBAP may be coordinated directly through or under the direction of the
State air pollution control agency as an identifiable unit, but not be limited to this entity.
For EPA to approve an SBAP that is separate from the State air pollution control agency,
the State must demonstrate that the SBAP has the technical staff necessary to provide the
-------
technical information requested. A contact person(s) in the State SBAP should be
established and a toll-free Hotline is also recommended.
In establishing an SBAP in accordance with this chapter, States must satisfy several of
the required program elements listed in Subchapter 12 under section 507(a). Specifically,
these elements are (1) developing, collecting, and coordinating information exchange on
compliance methods and control technologies; (2) providing assistance to 5m211 businçss
stationary sources with pollution prevention and accidental release prevention and detection;
(3) providing assistance for determining applicable requirements under the Act and permit
issuance; (4) determining adequate mechanisms for notifying nt 1I business stationary
sources of their rights under the Act on a timely basis;’ (5) determining adequate,
mechanisms for informing sn,211 bus ness stationary sources of their obligations under the
Act, including a program for referring sources to qualified auditors or for the State to
provide for such audits to determine compliance with this Act; and (6) procedures for
considering requests from sn l1 business stationary’ sources for modifications of work
practices or technological methods of compliance or compliance procedures. The SBAP
would provide information and/or compliance and technical,asshtance relevant to each of
these elements to sm ii busnesses. Information relative to procedures for implementing
each of these required elements is contained in the following subchapters.
3.2.1 Methods for Disseminating Technical and Compliance Information to Small
Businesses
Each SIP revision developed in response to section 507 must contain procedures for
disseminating information (easily understandable to the laymnn) on compliance issues and
control technologies. In addition, States must provide a means of handling small business
inquiries on specific methods ‘for achieving compliance with State air pollution control
regulations. In general, this flow of information process involves two components: a
proactive component and a reactive component. The proactive component involves
adequate communication with and information outreach to small businesses in the form of
21
-------
easily discernable information which specifically details their obligations under the Act. The
reactive component- involves the establishment of a clearinghouse for handling incoming
inquiries from small businesses regarding methods for, achieving compliance with air
pollution control requirements under the Act. Ways in which the proactive and reactive
components of the information disseminption process can be implemented are described in
the following paragraphs.
In implementing the proactive aspect of information dissernin tion, there are numerous
ways information could be disseminated to small businesses. One way would be for thç
State’s small business programs to prepare information p ckets which describe in layman
terms compliance and technical information relevant to a small business stationary source’s
obligation under the Act. These packets would be distributed to the small business
community via an outreach program. The outreach program would consist of industry
groups, trade associations, and other orpnizations all assisting in distributing this
information to small businesses. Information packets could be mailed to small businesses
through the State air pollution control agency or Ombuti cm n office. Public serviàe
announcements on small business assistance could be made on the radio or TV. The State’s
pollution prevention technical assistance program for miall businesses, if one exists, could
be contacted to see how efforts on information disseniin tion could be coordinated:
Possibly, the pollution prevention program could sponsor senhim rs or training to the small
business on the State’s SBAP and its services Mditionaliy, the use of the SBA, SBA field
offices, State economic development comnhicsibns, Senior Corps of Retired Executives
(SCORE), Small Business institutes, State ma1l business associations, major chemical
distributors, the Ch niber of Commerce local Emergency Plpnning Committees, and small
business development centers for information and referral serv ces should be considered as
avenues to assist cmall businesses in obtaining environmental and technical information. It
should be left to the State’s air compliance program, however, to provide answers or advice
on questions about regulations or permits.
22
-------
Trade associations could. alsc be cncouraged to establish “circuit riders” to reach out
and assist small businesses with generic problems. This type of outreach program could also
bà invaluable in coordinating the preparation of permit applications.
By the time State outreach programs distribute informational materials for small
businesses, a system will need to be in place for answering specific questions from small
businesses concerning regulatory requirements, appropriate control technologies, and
compliance monitoring equipment (if appropriate). In some instances, the ii formationa1
materials may never reach some $m ll businesses. Such small businesses may instead learn
about the State SBAP and the need to control or prevent air pollution through contact with
peers. In either case, maiI businesses will need to direct their questions to an information
clearinghouse. The following describes ways of implementing the reactive cornpone it of the
i formation dissemination process.
As stated earlier, the State should establish a contact person(s) within the SBAP, and
a toll-free Hotline is recommended. This contact person(s) and/or Hotline could direct
incoming phone calls to ,a core group of State technical experts (assigned specific areas of
expertise based on their experience and training backgrounds) to provide the appropriate
technical assistance to small businesses. The EPA anticipates that the technical experts
relied upon will be part of the present technical staff in the State air program control
agency. Each technical expert would have a thorough knowledge of the methods, control
technologies, approaches, and applicable regulations in his/her field of responsibility. This
suggests that the technical specialists must have technical backgrounds in engineering or the
physical sciences, as well as expertise in risk management, regulatory development,
supervision, implementation, and communications. It is important to note that the
information clearinghouse will need to interface with the various technical groups within the
State environmental agency. These groups would include agency sections that handle
engineering, regulatory development, permitting, inspections, and compliance issues. The
amount of diversity contained within the SBAP will determine the extent of interaction
required among the groups. The EPA expects that some of the most common questions
23
-------
which small businesses will ask are (1) what are the regulatory requirements for a specific
process; (2) what are the types of control technologies to control a specific process; (3) what
methods exist for esthn ting emissions (e.g., use of emission factors) for completing a permit
application; (4) what are the types of processes that may generate regulated pollutants; and
(5) what are the type(s) of’process substitutes that can be used to”prevent emissions of
regulated pollutants. The technical experts should, however, understand the relationship of
the above questions tO Tn2ll business óapabilities.
In the event that the technical experts at the State level cannot provide adequate or
complete information to the small businesses, the BAP should obtain the necessaxy
information from a number of other sources. These other sources include (1). tecbnica1
support services such as the CI EMTIC, and the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Hotline established by EPA; (2) EPA Regional Offices; (3) other States’ air
programs; (4) trade associations; and (5) industry groups.
States should also consider the use of se tions 1,2 and 3 of the EPA’s Cit manual
for developing and implementing an information clearinghouse center. Specifically, sections
1 and 2 provide a structure on which the various technical groups interface in the Cit
Section 3, which provides the operating prqtocol of the CTC, can be used for its scope and
rationale in the development of an SBAP; States that are interested in obtaining a copy of
the C rC manual may contact the Cit at 919-541-0800.
The SBAP information clearinghouse would not only answer technical questions from
the business community, but would. also be involved in identifying technical problems not
yet addressed by EPA’s Cit or other informational sources. Incoming questions would be
stored in a State’s computer tracking system or accumulated in sonic other mani er.
Compilation of frequently asked but inaitcwered questions could establish possible areas of
research for either State agencies or EPA to pursue. Figure 1 shows how such an
information transfer system on compliance and technolo information between States and
EPA could worL State programs are also encouraged to establish networks with
24
-------
information Transfer System on Compliance and
Technology Information
professional organizations such as the State. and Territorial Air Pollution Programs
Adniinictrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials
(STAPPA/ALAPCO), the Air and Waste Management Association (AWMA), and the
American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AICHE) to exchange technical information and
experiences.
F n 11y, States could also exchange information and/or suggestions on compliance and
technolo r relevant to small businesses throujh direct contact with other State air pollution
control agencies or by the use of. an electronic bulletin board. Interested States would log
onto the btille n board system and search for information on their topic of inte est using
FIgure 1.
25
-------
key words. Questions entered into the system would be in question-and-answer form. The
bulletin board system would also contain updates on the late t method , procedures, and
tecbno1o ’. Currently, the EPA Office of Air Quality Plsnning and Standards (OAQPS)
operates a computerized technology transfer network bulletin board which could serve such
a purpose. In addition, the Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse is available for
States to exchange ideas on pollution prevention methodologies. States may contact
OAQPS at 919-541-5635 for additional information on services provided by these offices.
Table 2 provides a summary of the ways in which the proactive and reactive components o&
the information dissemination process can be implemented.
3.2.2 Assistance to Small Businesses on Methods of Pollution Prevention and Accidental
Release Prevention and Detection
The SIP revisions in response to section 507 must address the ways in which the needs
of small businesses ‘ iill be met in the areas of pollution prevention, as defined in the
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, and accidental release prevention provisions contained in
Title UI of the Amendments. States may want to consider the use of the State SBAP
information clearinghouse des ribed in Subchapter 3.2.3 as a means to provide information
on these subjects to Sm21 1 businesses.
For dissemin2tihg information relevant to methods of pollution prevention and
accidental release prevention and detection, States should. encQpr e national trade
associations and their State counterparts to establish ange rograms within
industry-specific groups that could help others use new pollution prevention techniques and
information and accidental release prevention technologies and management practices.
State Economic Development Commissions should be encouraged to sponsor workshops to
provide technical assistance to cniall businesses. Other valuable sources of information
include trade associations; technical and professional societies; environmental organizations
and other public interest groups; civic orgarIi7 ations (e.g., League of Woman Voters); media,
• (both broadcast and print); libraries; and community colleges and specialized training
26
-------
Table 2. Ways of Implementing the Proactive and Reactive Components of Information Dissemination to Small
- Businesses
PROACTIVE COMPONENT
(Con municatlon/Outreach)
- State Air “pollution Control Agency -
- State Ombudsm2n Office -
- Newspapers
- Small Business Admini- tration (SBA)
- SBA Field Offices
- State Economic Development Commissions
- Senior Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE)
- Small Business Institutes
- State’s Small Business Association
- Major Chemical Distributors
- Chamber of Commerce
- Small Business Development Centers or equivalent
- Trade Associations
• Industiy Groups
- State Pollution Prevention Program
- State Emergency Respons Commissions
- Local Emergency Response Committees
REACIIVE COMPONENT
(Infonnatlon aearlnghouse)
- SBAP Clearinghouse
- EPA Small Business Technical Assistance Center
- EPA Regional Offices
- Other States Programs (direct contact or
electronic bulletin board)
- Trade Associations
- Industiy Groups
- Associations and Professional Organizations (i.e.,
STAPPA/ALAPCO, AWMA, AICHE)
- Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse
- Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Hothne -
-
-------
institutes. Specific information relevant to pollution prevention and accidental release
prevention and detection follows.
Pollution Prevention
The EPA has established a Pollution Prevention Office, and the Office of Research
and Development (ORD) and other Agency offices are implementing pollution prevention
programs. In addition to these programs, many States have developed comprehensive
pollution prevention and regulatory compliance technical assistance programs. Many of
these State programs target their complementai nonregulatoty technical assistance towards
small and medium size businesses. States have developed pollution prevention training
programs, workshops and seminars and conducted on-site pollution prevention opportunity
assessments for industry and small businesses.
The SIP revisions should address bow the State plans to’ coordinate with any existing
pollution prevention program in the respective State. States may contact the National
Roundtable of State Pollution Prevention Programs at 612-379-5995 or the Pollution
Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC) at 703-8214800 for additional information
on pollution prevention programs for niaH businesses. Mditional resources include
Pollution Prevention Training Opportunities in 1991 and Pollution Prevention 1991: Progress
on Reducing Industrial Pollutants . both of which can be obtained from PPIC.
Finally, a listing of Regional coordinators who may provide assistance to States
regarding pollution prevention programs for smali businesses is contained in Appendix ‘C.
Accidental Release Prevention and Detection
Within EPA, the responsibility for programs related to the prevention, detection, and
monitoring of accidental chemical releases lies with CEPPO. This Office will generate and
provide to States much of the information needed to assht small businesses in this area.
28
-------
Depending on the nature of the structure each State chooses for its SBAP, States
should be able to answer questions or refer questions to specialists on a number of aspects
of chemical accident prevention, as well as detection and monitoring. Prevention, in the
broadest sense, also includes chemical process safety m2nagement. Basic information on.
prevention should cover four areas: (1) requirements under th accidental release provisions
of the Amendments; (2) complementaxy and closely related requirements under the
Emergency Pl rnning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 or SARA Thie III; (3) the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) process safety standard as required
by the AmendmCnts; and (4) general information on prevention practices and technologies.
Concerning the first two areas, specific questions may be referred to the SBAP, which’
may in turn consult with EPA preparedness coordinators in the Regions, the Emergency
Pl2nning and Community Right-to-Know Hotline, specialists within CEPPO, or other
appropriate EPA program offices. A listing of Regional coordinntors along with their
respective phone numbers is contained in Appendix D.. The EPA’s Chemical Accident
Prevention Program produces publications on different aspects of prevention and has
materials that specifically relate to the concerns of sm l1er businesses. These materials will
be made available to the State SBAP. In addition, EPA’s Prevention Program may sponsor
workshops or, other events, and announcements of these events will be directed to the States
in a timely way. Through the Accidental Release Information Program, which is part of the
Chemical Accident Prevention Program, States may obtain information from a database that
expmines the causes of accidents. The Chemidal Action Prevention Program’s Chemical
Safety Audit Program provides a type of consultative audit that can assist facilities in
improving their prevention practices. States may contact the Emergency Pt2nning and
Community Right-to-Know Hotline at 1-800-535-0202 for information provided by this
Program office.
29
-------
Concerning the third areag for information on the OSHA process safety standard, (for
which the statutory deadlin is November 15, 1991), States are advised to contact OSHA
directly. This standard, which covers process safety in the workplace, is very closely linked
to the accidental release provisions that cover the environment and the public, for which
EPA has responsibility.
For the fourth area of general prevention information, EPA can make available to the
State’s SBAP a resource guide that lists relevant organizations that States can contact.
States may contact the Emergency Phinning and Community Right-to-Know Hotline to
obtain a copy of this resource guide. The following types of orpnizations could be useful.
• State Emergency Response Coninthsions
• Local Emergency PI nning Committees
• State ómergcncy ni nagement offices
• Fire service
• First responder agencies
• Trade associations (such as the Chemical Manufacturer’s Association)
• Professional societies (such as the Center for Chemical Process Safety of the
American Institute of Chemical Engineers)
• Unions and worker orgnni . tions
• Environmental organizations.
3.2.3 Establishment of Compliance Assistance for Determining Small Business
Statlonaiy Source Applicability Requirements and Permitting
Compliance assistance may provide for direét and timely, one-on-one assistance to small
businesses to identify applicable requirements under the Act (e.g., SIP and new source
requirements) and obtain needed assistance in complying with,those requirements, including
preparation of permit applications.
30
-------
The SBAP could have the following specific roles in providing conipliance assistance:
• Provide advice and assistance to small , businesses in the
interpretation of applicable SIP requirements and in obtaining
needed technical and compliance assistance. This would
include (1) identifying applicable rules; (2) dcterminng whether
a permit is needed; and (3) identifying alternatives for achieving
compliance with applicable State/local regulations such as
process changes, recycling programs, material substitutions, and
other methods/processes which may reduce or eliminate
pollutant emissions.
• Explain permitting procedures such as fees, when/where to
apply, the length of time necessaxy to receive a permit, the
consequences of operating in violation,, fines, and appeal’
decisions.
3.2.4 Methods for NotlfjIng Small Businesses of their Rights on a Timely Basis
section 507(a)(5) states that the SIP submittal required under section 507 must include
adequate mechanisms to ensure that small businesses receive notice of their rights under the
Act with sufficient lead time to evaluate compliance methods and the pplicable
requirements. Notifying a ma11 business stationaiy source of its rights would include (but
not be limited to) letting small businesses know of their legal rights under the Act. For
example, ma1l businesses need to know their legal recourse should they be notified of a SIP
violation.
It is important that SiP revisions addressing section 507 contain adequate procedures
to ensure that information which clearly delineates all legal rights entitled to a small
business under the Act is adequately disseminated to small businesses on a timely basis.’
Some examples of ways in which to disseminate this information to small businesses would
be distributing easy-to-read pamphlets, training field inspectors to properly inform small
bus nesses of their rights during site visits, using public service messages, and making
presentations at trade association and chamber of commerce meetingi. Other dissemi ation
31
-------
processes would b through other Statc programs that have mass mailings to small
businesses and through business licensing programs.
3.2.5 Establishment of an Audit Program
Each SIP revision addressing section 507 must contain procedures explpining how their
SBAP will provide m 1l businesses with a listing of qualified auditors or, at the option of
the State, provide audits of the operations of a source to determine compliance. The
auditor would provide the in ll business with technical assistance on pollution prevention
opportunities or control options to comply with the applicable regulations. The auditor
should strive to promote pollution prevention as discussed in the Pollution Prevention’ Act
of 1990. Qualified auditors could be (1) inspectors from the State air program; (2) State
technical assistance personnel from the pollution prevention chemical accident prevention,
and waste reduction programs; (3) environmental consulting companies; or (4) individuals
with air pollution control knowledge or experience such as former State or Federal air
inspectors or professional engineers. Such audits would be performed as a part of an
outreach program and could include an evaluation of work practices, recommendations on
whether compliance monitoring procedures are being correctly followed, and
recommendations for making records orderly and atcessible. It is discretionary whether
States or the auditors choose to charge sources for this service.
The EPA recognizes that a voluntary audit may discover that a source is not in
compliance with applicable State regulations. The EPA cannot approve an SBAP that
grants immunity to sources for compliance problems discovered during such audits. The
EPA recognizes the statutory intent, however, that voluntary audits be a major component
of the SBAP. As such, the voluntary audits are designed to assist 5 m2U businesses in
complying with the applicable regulations. Should a compliance problem be uncovered
during a voluntary audit, the State should determine appropriate action in the first instance,
If EPA decides to take any action in response to such a compliance problem, the Agency
will consider how the information was obtained in ’ determining appropriate action.
32
-------
3.2.6 Procedures for Consideration of Requests from Small Business Stationary Sc c
for Modifications of Work Practices or Technological Methods of Compliance
The SIP revision must include procedures for handling requests from small businesses
for modifications of work practices or alternate control methods. In general, States must’
develop adminictrative procedures for receiving requests from cmall businesses to modify
the provisions of State-adopted regulations. These all’nintctrative procedures should clearly
indicate the format of such requests and indicate how the State will review and act upon
each submitted request In those cases where State and/or Federal law requires a public
hàaring, the procedures must state in what manner public notice will be provided and how
public comment will be incorporated into the final decision. Where applicable, the
procedures must indicate that the federally-approved SIP will not be affected by the State’s
approval of such modifications until such time as formal approval is granted by the EPA.
The EPA believes that in most cases States have in place appropriate mechanisms for
review of source specific modification o the applicable State regulation and that additional
procedures will not be required. -The State must demonstrate, however, that such
procedures clearly identify to the small business the manner and content of the request.
States must also coordinate such requests with EPA where the requests relate to Federal
standards, and the specific authority to address such a request has not been delegated to the
State.
The procedures must also ensure that no such modification may be granted unless it
is in compliance with the applicable requirements of the Act, including the requirements of
the applicable SIP. Where such applicable requirements are set ‘fdrth in Federal
regulations, only modifications authorized in such ràgulations may be allowed. Requests for
such modifications should also be reviewed by the State Small Business Ombudsman.
33
-------
33 Establishment of State Compliance AdvisOry Panels
The’ third key component in the establishment, oc the PROGRAM is the creation of a
State Compliance’ Advisory Panel for determining the overall effectiveness of the State
SBAP. The following subchapters discàss the methodo!o r for States to use in appointing
an advisory panel to determine the ov all effectiveness of the SBAP. Specifically,
Subchapter 3.3.1 addresses the authority and fu nction of the advisory panel, Subchapter 3.32
discusses the’ requirements for selecting panel members, and Subchapter 33.3 describes
methods for implementing the advisory paneL
33.1 AuthorIty and Functions of the State Compliance Advisory Panel
Section 507(e) requires each State to c eate a Compliance Advisory Pane! consisting
of at least seven individualt The Compliance M risory Panel has the following specific
functions:
(a) Render advisory opinions on the effectiveness of the PROGRAM,
difficultiS encountered, and degree and severity of enforcenient
(b) Prepare periodic reports to the EPA 01 the compliance status of the
PROGRAM following the intent of the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act the Regulatory flexibility Act, and the Equal Access to
Justice Act; and
(c) Review information for pnnl l business stationary sources to assure such
information is understandable to the laypersot
The PROGRAM is required to serve as the Secretariat for the development and
dissemination of panel reports and advisory opinions and — provide ad inM istrative and
logistical support to the PaneL
34
-------
33.2 SelectIon of Panel Members
Section 507(e) requires the selection of panel members by the following method:
(a) The Governor of the State shall select two members who are not owners
or representatives of owners of small business stationary sources to
represent the general public
(b) The head of the State air pollution agency responsible for issuing
operating permits shall select one member to represent that agency;
(c) The State legislature shall select four members who are owners or
representatives of owners of small business stationary sources. In the
case of a unicameral legislature, two members shall be selected by the
majority leadership and two members selected by the minority leadership.
In the case of a bicameral legislature, both the majority and minority
leadership in the upper and lower houses of the legislature shall each
appoint one member of the panel.
3.3.3 Implementation of the Compliance Advisory Panel
The Compliance Advisory Panel is an integral portion of a State PROGRAM to assist
small businesses. The Panel independently oversees the SBAP and the Ombudsman,
determines their effectiveness, reports its finding to EPA and examines information
disseminated to small businesses to ensure that it is understandable for non-technical
persons. While the Panel is not specifically referenced in section 507(a) as an element of
the PROGRAM, it is an integral portion of a State PROGRAM and will need to be
involved in numerous activities carried out by the SBAP and the Ombud man Therefore,
the independent requirements of Subsection (1) through (7) draw the Panel into the SIP
submittal requirement. During the House debate, Congressman Wyden recognized the
Panel’s importance within the PROGRAM, stating “ [ tjhe Compliance Advisory Panel.., is
an essential element of any State assistance program — without a panel to provide guidance
and feedback, it would be difficult to ensure that a program would adequately address the
needs of small business stationary sources. The EPA should only approve State
35
-------
implementation plans that include compliance assistance panels.N 136 Cong. Rec. H 12884
:daily ed. Oct. 26; 1990) (state ent of Rep. Wyden). States should establish their
Compliance Advisory Panel early on in the planning of the PROGRAM The panel could
initially serve as an advisory group for the’ development of the State PROGRAM.
36
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
EPA REGIONAL SMALL BUSINESS LIAISONS
The following are EPA Regional Office Small Business liaisons who may provide States
with compliance and technical assistance.
REGION CONTACT PHONE NUMBER
I Mr. Lester Sutton (617) 565-3617
Small Business Liaison
Region I - EPA
John F. Kennedy Federal
Building - WAA -
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
II Mr.StevenRiva (212)264-4711
Sm211 Business Liaison
Region II- EPA
26 Federal Plaza
New York New York 10278
III Ms, Evelyn MacKnight (215) 597-9807
Small Business Liaison
Region III- EPA
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
IV Mr. Thomas L Nessmith (404) 347-7109
Small Business Liaison
Region IV - EPA
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, eorgia 30365
V Ms. Margaret McCue (312) 353-2000
Sm fl Business Liaison
Region V - EPA
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, illinois 60604
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
VI Mr. Phillip A. Charles (214) 655 6444
Sf1211 Business Liaison
Region VI-EPA
1445 Ross Avenue
12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, Texas 75202
VII Mr. Charles Hensley (913) 551-5177
Small Business Liaison
Region VII- EPA
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
VIII Mr. Charles Stevens (303) 294-1111
Sf1211 Business Liaison
Region VIII- EPA
999 - 10th Street, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80202.2405
IX Ms. Marsha Harris (415) 744-1305
Sm 1I Business liaison
Region IX - EPA
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94106
X Ms. Mazy Neilson (206) 5534280
Sf1211 Business Liaison
Region X - EPA
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
MONITORING BY EPA ON THE EFFECI’lVENESS OF THE PROGRAM
The EPA will need to answer a variety of questions when ex mining the effectiveness.
of each State PROGRAM. Examples of potentially relevant questions are:
(a) Have the States established and implemented a PROGRAM on a timely basis?
Is the State Ombudsm2n’s o ce independent from the State air pollution control
agency (although this is not required by the Act)?
(b) How effective have the State Compliance Advisory Panels been in evaluating their
State SBAPs?
(c) What problems were identified by the State Compliance Advisory Panels? What
corrective action was taken?
(d) What are the findings of the State Compliance Advisory Panels regarding the
State’s adhering to the intent of the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act,
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Equal Access to Justice Act?
(e) What has been the economià impact on sm2ll businesses as a result of the
- implementation.of the Act?
(f) Has there been adequate outreach/technical assistance to the affected small
business community?
(g) What improvements need to be made?
(h) Is the State Ombudsman carrying out his/her role in providing oversight and in
handling complaints and problems in a timely mpnner?
-------
EPA REGIONAL POLLtTTION PREVENTION CONTACrS
The following EPA Regional contacts may provide assistance to States pertaining to
pollution prevention programs for mit1I businesses.
REGION 1 CONTACT PHONE NUMBER
I Abby Swaine (617) 565-4523
EPA. Region I Mail Code: 9111
JFK Federal Building
One Congress Street
Boston, Massachuetts 02203
II Janet Sapadin (212) 264 -1 25
EPA - Region H - Mail Code: 9243
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
III Roy Denm2rk (215) 597-8327
EPA - Region Ill - Mail Code: 3ES43
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
IV Carol Monell (404) 347-7109
EPA - Region N - Mail Code: EPA9420
345 Courltnad Sfreet, NE.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
V Linda Glass (312) 886-1019
EPA-RegionV-MailCode:5MA14
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
VI Laura Townsend (214) 655-6444
EPA - Region VI-Mail Code:6M-P
1445 Ross Avenue
12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, Texas 75202
VU Alan Wehrneyer (913) 5517339
EPA - Region VII - Mail Code: EPAA967O
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
-------
VIII Don Patton (303)293-1456
EPA- Region VIII. Mail Code: EPA9840
909 18th Street - Suite 0O
Denver, Colorado 80202-2405
IX Alisa Greene (415) 744-2190
EPA - Region IX - Mail Code: H-I-B
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, ‘California 94105
X Carolyn Gangin rk (206) 442-4072
EPA-Region X-MailCode: 100
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
EPA REGIONAL ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION AND DETECTION
PREPAREDNESS CONTACTS
The following EPA Regional Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention
(CEPP) Coordinators may provide States with answers to specific questions regar4ing (I)
requirements under the accidental release provisions of the Amendments; arid (2)
complementary and closely related requirements under the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 or SARA Title ilL
PHONE
Ray DiNardo,
EPA - Region I Mail Code: BEE-LEX (617) 860-4300
New England Regional laboratory
60 Westview Street
Lexington, Massachusetts 02173
U John Ulshoefer (201) 321-6620
EPA- Region U Mail Code:211
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, New Jersey 08837-3679
Ill Dave Wright (215) 597-6006
EPA - Region UI Mail Code’,3HW34
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
IV Hen r y Huds on (404) 347-1033
EPA-Region IV
345 Courtland Street, Northeast
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
V Mark Horwitz (312) 886-1964
EPA - Region V Mail Code: 5HS-TUB-6
230 South Dearborn
mi 60604
VI Jim Staves (214) 655-2270
EPA-RegionVlMailCode:6E-E
Interstate Bank Tower
1445 Ross Avenue
Da l las, Texas 75202-2733
-------
4
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
June 23, 1992
Raqueline --
We spoke.earlier today about states that may want to provide
coverage under the SBAP to sources that fall outside the CAA
definition of “small business.” The CAA establishes a definition
of small business and provides limited methods of changing that
definition. Therefore, states should carefully follow this
definition in developing their SBAP. If the state wishes to
provide assistance to other sources, they should provide for such
assistance in an independent manner. In other words, they should
not do it by expanding the definition of small business. In
addition, the state should consider whether it should limit
assistance that it gives to those additional sources -- e.g.,
perhaps the state would only provide telephone assistance, but
would not include such’sources on its distribution lists. To the
extent a state wishes to provide assistance to other than small
businesses, they must’ provide assurance that such assistance will
not negatively impact the primary purpose of the program --
assisting small businesses.
Call if you have any questions.
-------
- Federal Register /.Vol 59, No... 8 / - Wednesday, January, 12;. 994 - /tProposed Rü1es - •- 1695
Secretariat for the development and . - Control, Air Quality Management . it is a program under which small. 4;’.
dissemination of CAP reDorts. Section. Program Implementation will businesses may elect to take advantage
In addition to establishing the “ begin no later than January 1.1994. The - of assistance provided by the state.
minimum membership of the CAP the’ Secretary of DE DNREC will appoint the Therefore, because the EPA’s approval
CAA delineates four responsibilities of - Ombudsman by July 1, 1993 and hire - of this program does not Impose any
the Panel: (A) to render advisory ‘ . the staff dedicated to implementing the new regulators requirements on small
opinions concerning the effectiveness of program. An Executive Order businesses, I certify that It does not have
the SBAP, difficulties encountered and establishing the Compliance Advisory asignificant economic impact on any
the degree and severity of enforcement - Panel will be executed by the Governor small entities aff ted.” - ‘ ‘ - - -
-- . IS .-
actions; (B) to review and assure that of the State of Delaware by March 1, “ This action has been classifledasa
information for small business -. - :- 1993. In this action; EPA Is approving . - Table 2 actIon for signature bythé - -
stationary sources is easily
the SIP revision submittal by the State Regional Administrator under the-U
understandable; (C) to develop and of Delaware. Accordingly, § 52.460 is procedures published In the Federal
disseminate the reports and advisory ‘ added to 40 CFR part 52, subpart I-.,, . p gi t on January 19, 1989 (54 FR
opinions made through the SBAP; and, Delaware to reflect EPA’s approval ‘ 2214—2225), as revlied by an October 4,
(D) to periodically report to EPA ... action and the fact that It is consIdered, 1993 memorandum from Michael it -.
concerning the SBAP’s adherence to the part of the Delaware’s SIP. ‘ -. - Shapiro, Acting Asslst*nce ;“ ..- - -
principles of the Paperwork Reduction, EPA Is proposing to approve the ‘ MminIstrat r for Air and Radiation. On
Act, the Equal Access to Justice Act, and Delaware SIP revision for establishing a january 6.1989, the Offià of-! .• 1.
the Regulatory F1e dbility Act. (Section, (Small Business Stationary SOUrCe --‘ ManageiIieni and Budget (0MB) waived
507(eli1)(B)requirestheCAPioreport TechnicalandEnv lronemental Table2andTable3,SlPrevlsjonsfroin’
on the compli .mce of the SBAP with. ‘ Compli*nce Assistance PrO T 5Ifl, WhiCh the requlreiiaeiits .ofsectlon3 of
these three statutes. However, since ,, , , WU Submitted OD January11. 1993. EPA Eiiiutlve Order 122911ora”perIädof.
state agencies are not’requlredto , . Is solicitinipublic ommants’on -thé two yéars.EP has iubrñlttea a reqizest.
comply with them, EPA believes thit” ’ issues dlscuiied In thiS flOtICO 97 fl ‘ fora permanent w Iver for Table 2 and”
the state Program must merely require’; - Other relevant matters. Iliose comments • 3 sw revisIons. 0MB has.agreed to r
the CAP to report on whether the SBAP’ will be consldáed before taking fluial continue the waiver until such time as -
is adhering to the general principles of - action. Interested parties may ‘ It rulesoaEPA’i re4ue t This request;
these Federal statutes.) The duties and • participate In the Federal rufemal g -J is u apnlicable’thder Eàãitlve Order
responsibilities described In Delaware’s Procedure by s mitting written. - 12888, wfr1ëJriuj éseded Ex utlii’
submittal Indicate that the De . comments to the EPARegIonal office Order 12291 on Septembel’ 30,1993.* .
CAP will be responsible fá ll four of ., listed In the Addzesèes section of thu.
• the activities listed above, except that . document. 2 ‘ - Ustof Subjects OFPart
theDelawareOmbu.ISm.inwilL . . : . . Pre Ji ’ . ’- - ‘‘nvImnmetalptectlonlr.
disseminate reports. - EPA is paópósing to approve -. pollution control, Small business
4.SourceEligibilfty . Delaware’splanfortheestablfahmentof aam thncePro an ,
Section 507(c)(1) of the CAA defines S Small Business Stationary Source. AuthorIty: 42 U .C 74O1—7671q - - , ,• -
the term “ gnuiII business stationary’ .,-. Technical and Environmental - . Dated: October22. 1993. .L ’ - - ,
source” as a stationary source that - - Compliance Asalctance Program.
(A) Is owned or operated by a person Nothing In this action should be - w1 rlswskJ,.., :‘ .‘- ‘
AcngRegiona1AdthlnlstwJc Region lii.
• who employs 100 or fewer Individuals; construed as permitting or alloWing OT LFR Dec. 94-759 Filed 2-11-44; 8:45 am)
(B) Is a i ma1I bualness concern as - - establishing a precedent for any future ____ _____
sa nm coes i - - - - . -
defined In the Small Buslneis A . . ! 5 UOst for revision to any SIP. E&ch - . ‘. ‘. ‘ -
(C)Isnotamajorstatlonarysource; . iuestforrevlsiontothe5IPsha11be ‘ - - .- .- .‘ . -
(D)Doesnotemlt5otonsperyear conslderedseparatelylnlightofspeciflc OC Par - ‘ - ; .‘: - -
(tpy) or more of any regulated pollutant; technical, economic, and environmental
and - - factors and In relation to relevant ‘ -
(B) Emits less than 75 tpy of all - statutory and regulatory requirements. - . Approval and Promulgation of Title V. -
re ilated,pollutants. “ - Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, soi sinan Business Stationary
Do ware s submittal duplicates the - 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare Source Technical and Environmental
language of CAA section 507(c)(1) In a regulatory flexibility analysis Compliance Assistance Program for.
defining eligible stationary sources. It assessing the Impact of any proposed or sachues ” “ - ‘-. - - - ,- * -
also providesior the state, after - final rule on small entitIes. 5 U.S.C. 603 • - - . • .. - - - -
consultation with’ the Administrator and and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify - AGENCY: Environmental Protection
the Administrator of the Small Business that the rãle will not haves significant Agency (EPA). ,‘. ‘ . : ‘ - -‘
Administration and notice and • impact on a substantial number of small ACTiON: Proposed ruls. - ‘
opportunity for public comment, to , entities. Small entities include small -
include or exclude a category or - businesses, small not-for-profit - ‘ SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to’
subcategory of sources. ,- - enterprises, and government entities conditiâñally approve the State
with jurisdiction over populations of Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
I lL Summary of SIP Revision - less than 50,000. - submitted by the Commonwealth of
Delaware has submitted a SIP revision In this action, EPA Is approving a Massachusetts for the purpose of
requiring Implementation of each of the state program created for the purpose of establishing a small business Stationary
program elements required by CAA - assisting small businesses In complying source technical and environmental’
section 507. As previously stated, the - ,‘ with existing statutory and regulatory ‘ compliance assistance program. The SIP
authority to implement the SBAP has requirements. The program being revision was submitted by the State to
• been delegated to the Department of -. approved does not impose any new satisfy. the Federal mandate to ensure’ -
Natural Resources and Environmental regulatory burden on small businesses; that small businesses have access to the
-------
•1696. . - - -Fedir8l.&egider l- VoL 59, No.- 8 1 Wednesday, Jam ary 12. 1994 /?ro oséd Ruis
terhnit 1 easlstance and regulataiy -., order to satisfy the requirements of Assistance (CT A) will provide help 1n
Information necessary to comply with sectIon 507. In order to gain full- : - Identifying pollution prevention.
the Clean M -A -(C ALThe rationale- - appru nli the State-submittal must — opportunlties.•These services are
for the conditional app ia1 Is set forth provide far each of the following provided at no charge. Additionally, the
‘In this proposab additional Information PROGRAM elementr: - - SBAP staff will provide small boslness
Is available at the address IndIcated (1) The es i fl g ofa stationary sources with Information and
below. - business assistance progr (SMP) to referral to appropriate Sources regarding
DATE& Comments must be received on pr vid tethui i and pH - requirements related to acddental
or before February 11, 1994.-- - assistan to ll busin e . release detection and prevention. -
oo eses Comments maybe mailed to (2)The estab1t’bm n of a State mi11 The third req iIrement Is to develops
Lf ada PL Murphy, Director, Mr, - bn4I4n q bi d t compliance ano technical assistance -
Pestiddes end Twdcs Management - - interests of m 11 bni 1n the program for business 51511011 517
Dlvlskm,U.S, -Environment,1 Protection rogulatoly process; and sources which assists mn ll businesses
Agency. RegIon 1, JFK Fedeial Bldg.,:: - 3) The aestlon of a Cnmpllimce -. lii det. .imtn1’ig applicable zequltenients
Boston , MA 02203. CopIes of the State Advisory Panel (CAP) to de’emdne and and In receiving rm1ts under the Act
submittal and D’A’s technical support report on the overall in a timely and emcreut manner. The
.1 s . ... i.n.. - - ... --:. - State has met this requirement. As:
IUiIW IA AV VSUWJIV MD -- - - . - -‘ - - . • - _______
Inspection during normal buatnee , - stated earlier, responsibultZjor the
h b tmerrt at the Mr - U Analysis. - . Implementation of the mnau bu lness
Pe.tlddL and T n 4 -
___ the SBAP to var aluu1ta coordination lying with the
-.ei.. m : _r-tIA — r withintbeExecutlveOffice of bnahuiss ombudsman and SBAP staff LE
Twu uI WL I& W M . .i I * &% 2 aL’ r.- - A - ...2I ...i. I I A .. I .. -
. zv . . . fli U I £%I 3L ! , A g%J auu iue - w , uiOB U i £ 1I 2 I 5IIWIM . -. -
- Department EZWIruuw Protection air quality - at D - - :
‘ ‘ “ • (DEP). SBAP staff will be located bithe, ReglonaloMce vIlI provide ‘ 1simco
r .mr1u jr, u 17 j - OfflàofTediulcal Assistance. Primary to m U boniness stationary sources In .-:
IUPREMBITMY TPOSIL - - ... responsibility far promam overslghi - the foliowbr Identifying applicable
L Backg o,md - development, amicoordinaijon will ll rules, determining their need far
- - - - - . with the m imi ! business ombudsman pesmits , explanation of th perndttInj -
us . - -• - -- -c - the nouss iiy
the Mr Act of 1? oo. Section 507(a) sets forth six -i - - forms and applications, and usIsUng’
req re r 1 ithm of mar” rojrernentj’ that the State must meet - .them In preparing the req dzsd -
so areas may . —... . - • en . d ’ ’i” so .. -
W W& VUW J . AI WSI. -, - -
maintain the National ambient air estabi g ..A -‘ - The fourth requirement Is to develo
lity standards (NAAQS) and reduce _____ p Jj g . adequats m a’i4 rna to assure that -
Pmlm 4 on of air to,dce. Sinill ‘ and coordinating Infn’n .*Hon. - - -. - smailbusiness stationary Sources - - - -
businesses epiently lack the 4 5 .-1 ’vifr l COT4 I1I1 1 mathoda receive notice of their rights under the
expertise and “ ‘ I resources - far fl - In ____ as to
necessary to evaluate such regulations sssuró reasonably adequate time for -.
an to e appropriate - - - urage lawful cooperation among - - such sources to evaluate compliance
m hi.n1mn . for compnance.In - - p to -- methods and lay rele ,a ,t Or applicable
anticipation of th act of these — ___ ,iü ti’e - proposed or final regulations or -
requ lren ,entson bnoInP .sea , — - state has met this requirement by - - Standards Issued under the Ad The
CAA equires that States adopt a “ - ‘ ve and reactive - - State has met this requirement by
business stationary source t I h1,fr!al and annr h g ig - - - -- providing that the DEP’I Division of Mr
environmental compH*It ,II assistance - - dismiihtitlna Information on - - -. QUality Control (DAQC) will be
program (PROGRAM), and submit this ___ d - - responsible for the development of
PROGRAM ass revision to the Y echn I This onroach Inchrdes pohcles and regulations for
approv . i , - - jfl f n’A+jo - - - Implementing the prov1slo ,s of the -
directs the Environmentaj Protection ‘ - - - - CAA.Thestaff lnthatofficewjfl
Agency (EP to oversee n ’ me second vøvrnIva ment is to - - provide assistance In Identifying -
business assistance programs and report estabiisii - - applicable rules. Additionally, that -: -
- to Congress on their Implementation. - ________ -____ - - office will provide the -
requirenien ng a souroà with nollution nrevention and Orflla on regarding
PROGRAM are set out In section 507 of d A procedures for complying with Federal
title V of the CM.. In February 1992, - inciuttino nroviiirno end state laws and regulations.
EPA issued Guidelines for the - - - alt I - Furthermore, It will be the DA ’s
Implementation of SectIon 507 of the - t l s, responsibility to inform businesses of
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, in - r tT ,j ’ - their rights through brochures and
o er to Federal and State . worhahops. - - - -
roles In meeting the new statUtory this ‘ “ ent h . , Sta t ” that the - - The iiithrequuemmit is to develop
provisions and as a tool to provide - - - In ()ffi - - adequate n’ h rnI e for Informing
further guidance to the States on- - - - small bnein ss stationary sources of
submitting acceptable SIP revisions. ‘A ., of irtim - their obligations under the Act, -
- The Commonwealth of Massachusetts , - -- Including mechRniemg for referring such
has submitted a SIP revision to EPA in dIsc ed In the next aectico. - sources to qualified auditors-or, at the
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 8 I Wednesday, January 12, 1994 1 Proposed Rules
1697
Option of the State. For providing audits
of the operations of such sources to
determine compliance with (be Act. The
SIP revision providos that the DAQC is
responsible for the development of
policies and regulations for
implementing the provisions of the
CAA. The SBAP 6(aff will also be
responsible tor providing audits. These
include on-site assessments by the OTA
and through audit referrals. On-site
assessments will be arranged In
conjunction with technical staff from
the OTA. Audit referrals will be
arranged by having the staff provide a
list of qualified private sector auditors
or consultants to small business
stationary sources.
The sixth requirement is to develop
procedures for consideration of requests
From a small business stationary source
for modification of: (A) Any work
practice or technological method of
compliance, or (B) the schedule of
milestones for Implementing such work
practice or method of compliance
preceding any applicable compliance
date, based on the technological and
financial capability of any such small
business stationary source. The SIP
revision provides Lhat specific
regulations for modifications of work
practices or technological methods of
compliance will be submitted in
November 1993. These regulations will
include: (1) Procedures for receiving
requests [ ruin small businesses to
modify the provisions of State-adopted
regulations; (2) format for such requests;
(3) procedures for how requests will be
reviewed and acted upon; and (4)
requirements to ensure that nosuch
modification may be granted unless it Is
in compliance with the applicable
requirements of the CA.A, the SIP and
the applicable Federal regulations.
2. Ombudsman
Section 507( )(3) requires the
designation of a State office to serve as
the ombudsman for small business
stationary sources. The State has met
this requirement by designating the
small business ombudsman within tho
EOEA. The EOEA is a secretariat
answering directly to the Governor. The
designation of a small business
ombudsmen within the
Commonwealth’s envlrthinioii(ai
secretariat but outside of the
secretariat’s regulatory agency will:
(1) Enhance impartiality in resolving
disputes involving compliance and
enforcement;
(2) Reduce potential for áonfiicLs of
interest:
(3) Improve utilization by the
business community:
(4) Allow for a high level of
independence, authority, and
communication;
(5) Allow the small business
ombudsman to build upon established
contacts with the business community
and other government offices and
agencies; and
(6) Strengthen the ombudsman’s
ability to provide program oversight and
evaluation.
3. Compliance Advisozy Panel
Section 507(e) requires (ha State to
establish a Compliance Advisory Panel
(CAP) that must include two members
selected by the Governor who are not
owners or representatives of owners of
small businesses; four members selected
by the State legislature who are owners,
or represent owners, of small
businesses; and one member selected by
the head of the agency in charge of the
Air Pollution Permit Program. The State
has not fully met this requirement due
td the lack of adequate statutory
authority to establish the CAP.
however, EPA expects Massachusetts to
submit a legislative resolve to EPA
when It is finally approved. The SIP
revision provides that legislative
approval and selection of CAP members
will be corn ploted by January 30, 1994.
In addition to establishing the
minimum membership of the CAP the
CAA delineates four responsibilities for
it: (1) To render advisory opinions
concerning the effectiveness of the
SOAP, difficulties encountered and the
degree and severity of enforcement
actions; (2) to periodically report to EPA
concerning the SOAP’s adherence to (he
principles of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, the Equal Access to Justice Act, and
the Regulatory Flexibility Act 2; (3) to
review and assure that Information for
small business stationary sources is
easily understandable; and (4) to
develop and disseminate the reports and
advisory-opinions made through the.
SUM’. The State has met those
requirements in the SIP revision by
authorizing the panel to: render
advisory opinions on the effectiveness
of the small business assistance
program; prepare periodic reports to
EPA on the status of the SOAP with
regard to the Paper Work Reduction Act.
(ho Rcgulatory Flexibility Act, and thu
Equal Access to Justice Act; and review
information for small business
stationary sources to assure such
‘Soctien 507(ellhh(B) requires the CAP to report
on the compliance of the SBAP with these three
Foderalitaiutos. However, since State agencies are
not required to comply with them. EPA believes
that the State PROGRAM must merely require the
CAP to report on whether the SBAP is adhering to
the general principles of these Federal statutes.
information is understandable by the
layperson. Additionally, the SIP
revisions provide the small business
ombudsman with the authority to
oversee all aspects of the SOAP and
allows for the ombudsman to act as
seaetariat to the panel.
4. Eligibilily
Section 507(c)(1) of the CAA defines
the term “small business stationary
source” as a stationary source that:
(A) Is owned or operated by a person
who employs 100 or fewer individuals,
(B) Is a small business concern as
defined In the Small Business Act;
(C) Is not a major stationary source;
(Di Does not emit 50 tons per year
(tpy) or more of any regulated pollutant;
and
(El Emits less than 75 (py of all
regulated pollutants. -
The SIP revision states that ft is the
general policy of the EOEA and the DEP
to assist all businesses in Identifying
applicable regulations and in meeting
their obligations under the requirements
of the CAA. However, recognizing the
special needs of the small business
stationary sources, EOEA. and DEP shall,
wherever resources become a limiting
factor in providing such assistance, give
priority to businesses which meet the
definitIon of small business stationary
source under title V. section 507(c)(1)of
the Clean Air Act. Additionally, the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts allows
businesses that do not meet the
provisions of sections 507(c)(1)(C)-(E) to
petition the SBAP for assistance in
accordance with the procedures
established In section 507(c)(2) of the
CAA.
The SOAP staff, with the advice of the
ombudsman and the CAP, may consider
the development of provisions for
excluding any category or subcalegory
of sources with sufficient financial and
technical resources, from receiving
assistance under the SOAP in
accordance with the provisions of the
Act.
III. Proposed Action
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
has submitted a SIP revision
implementing each of the required
PROGRAM ok’iimniits roqtii rod by ui.I lumi
507 of the CAA. The State expects all
the elements of the PROGRAM to be
fully operational by November 14. 1994.
The State needs full adequate legal
authority to Implement the PROGRAM
before EPA can fully approve this SIP
revision. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
conditionally approve the
Massachusetts SIP revision for the small
business stationary source technical and
-------
1698
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 8 1 Wednesday, January 12, 1994 / Proposed Rules
environmental compliance assistance
program, which was submitted on
November 13. 1993 upon the condition
that Massachusetts submits the
additional legal authority necessary to
fully implement the PROGRAM.
EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this proposal or
on other relevant matters. Those
comments will be considered before
EPA takes final action. Interested parties
may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting
written comments to the EPA Regional
office listed in the Addresses section of
this action.
Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to conditionally
approve the small business stationary
source technical and environmental
compliance assistance program
submitted on November 13, 1992 and
July 22,1993. The one outstanding Issue
with this SIP revision concerns
Massachusetts’ lack of adequate legal
authority to establish and Implement a
compliance advisory panel. The State
plans to address this Issue In a
legislative resolve which It will forward
to EPA by November 14, 1994. For this
reason EPaS Is proposing to
condilionaflE approve this SIP revision
on the conditIqn that the State meet its
commitment to’submit a legislative
resolve allowing a compliance panel to
be established and implemented,
Incorporating all the elements listed in
• sectIon 507(e) of the Clean Air Act and
have the program fully operational by
November 14, 1994. Under section
110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA may
conditionally approve a plan based on
a commitment from the State to adopt
specific enforceable measures by a date
certain, but not later than 1 year from
the date of approval, If EPA takes final
conditional approval on the
commitment, the State must meet its
commitment to have the program fully
operational by November 14, 1994. II
the State fails to do so, this approval
will become a disapproval on that date.
EPA will notify the State by letter that
this action has occurred. At that time,
this commitment will no longer be a
part of the approved Massachusetts SIP.
EPA subsequently will publish a notice
in the notice section of the Federal
Register notifying the public that the
conditional approval automatically
converted to a disapproval. If the State
meets its commitment, within the
applicable time frame, the conditionally
approved submission will remain a part
of the SIP until EPA takes final action
approving or disapproving the new
legislative authority. If EPA disapproves
the new submittal, the conditionally
approved smallbusiness program will
also be disapproved at that time. If EPA
approves the submittal, the small
business program will be fully approved
in its entirety and replace the
conditionally approved program In the
SIP.
If EPA determines that it cannot Issue
a final conditional approval or if the
conditional approval is converted to a
disapproval, such action will trigger
EPA’s authority to impose sanctions
under section 110(m) of the CA.A at the
time EPA issues the final disapproval or
on the date the State fails to meet Its
commitment. In thelatter case, EPA will
notify the State by letter that the
conditional approval has been
converted to a disapproval and that
EPA’s sanctions authority has been
triggered. In addition, the final -
disapproval triggers the Federal
Implementation plan (FIP) requirement
under sectIon 110(c). Pursuant to
section 507(b)(3), EPA will provldâ for
Implementation of the program
provisions required under section
507(a)(4) in any State that fails to submit
such a program under that subsection.
Therefore, EPA would have to provide
for a compliance assistance program
which assists small business stationary
sources In determining applicable
requirements and in receiving permits
under the CAA.
This action has been classified a a
Table 2 Action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures
published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214—2225) as
revised by an October 4, 1993,
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administer for Air and
Radiation. On January 6 1989 the Office
of Management and Budget (0MB)
waived Table 2 and 3 SIP revisIons (54
FR 2222) from the requirement of
section 3 of Executive Order 12291 for
a period of two years. EPA has
submitted a request for a permanent
waiver for Table 2 and Table 3 SIP
revisions. The 0MB has agreed to
continue the waiver until such time as
it rules on EPA’s request. This request
continues In effect under Executive
Order 12866 which superseded
Executive Order 12291 on September
30, 1993.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA inustprepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis
assessing the impact of any proposed or
final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603
and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify
that the rule will not have a significant
Impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities Include’ small
businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and government entities
with jurisdiction over populations of
less than 50,000.
By today’s action, EPA is -
conditionally approving a State prog
created for the purpose of assisting
small businesses in complying with
existing statutory and regulatory
requirements. The program being
proposed for conditional approval today
does not Impose any new regulatory
burden on small businesses; it is a
program under which small businesses
may elect to take advantage of assistance
provided by the state. Therefore,
because the EPA’s conditional approval
of this program does not impose any
new regulatory requirements on small
businesses, I certify that it does not have
- a significant economic impact on any
small entities affected.
The Regional Administratgr’s
decision to approve or disapprove the
SIP revision will be based on whether
It meets the requirements of sections
110(a)(2)(A)-(K) and 110(a)(3) of the
Clean Air Act, as amended, and EPA
regulations In 40 CFR part 51.
List of Subjects In 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
r latIons, Small business assistance
program.
Authority: 42 U.S.C 7401—76?lq.
Dated; December 21, 1993.
Paul C. Keough, -
Acting Regional Administrator. Region L
(FR Doc. 94—760 Flied 1—11-94; O 45 amj
mu o coos use
4OCFR Part52
(CA-46-.3-6054; FRL-4825-7)
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; California State
implementation Plan Revision;
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District; Santa Barbara
County Air Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking .
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) adopted by
the Sacramento Metropolitan Air
Quality Management District
(SMAQMD) on February 23, 1993, and
by the Santa Barbara County Air
PollutIon Control District (SBCAPCD)
on December 10, 1991. The California
Air Resources Board (CARB) submitte-’
these revisions to EPA on April 6, 191
and June 19, 1992. respectIvely. The
revisions concern SMAQMD’s Rule 4
-------
Federal RegistirJ VoL 59,.:Nó S1 hWednes Ma h 16 jgg4 .1:Riiie a ‘j :I . izi
‘tential copyright owners have filed a - (2) Statements of Intent must indudei ’:. Dated: Maich 8.199..
oplete and timely Statement of Intent (i) The title(s) of the work(s) for which - Barbara Ringer. - . - - ‘
.th the Copyright Office. copyright restoration is sought; (ii) ---s:’ A in g Register of Co yrights
(b) Definitions. For purposes of this nation of first fixation; (iii) nation of - -
section. the followingdeflnitions apply: first publication; (iv) date of first - - - - - H. Bd1in ton, -: - - -,
(1) Eff ecu ye filing. To be effective a - publication; (v) name and mailing * TheLibrerion of Congress. -
Statement of Intent must be complete address (and telephone and telefax, if 1 Do .94 122 Filed 3—15-94; 8:45 aml
and timely. . available) of the potential copyright - -. BILLI Q 000E I41 O7- -
(2) Eligible work means any motion - owner of the worlq (vi) the following ‘
picture that was first fixed ot published certification (in its entirety); signed j .-. -. . . .- .. - - . -
In Mexico or Canada, and any woric ,• dated by the potential copyright ‘owner ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
Included In such motion picture that - : or authorized agent: :i. . - .. •. ,, AGENCY 5 : • .. • - .
wasfirstflxedorpubhshedwiththis . . - S
motion picture, if theworkentered the Jherebyceitify thateachofthe abovetitled p 5 . - .. .
hc domain in the Umtid States ______ ___
use i Pu 0 domthi in the United States ofAmerica. ‘ i -• . - i -- i’ ‘ -
January 1, 1978, and.before March 1. because it was 6rst fished on or after , Approval and Promulgation, Small .
1989, without the notice required by 17 j m y and befàie Mjrch.1, 1989,, Business Statlqnary Source TechnlcaI
U. 401,, 402, -or 403,the absence of . , ‘without the notice required bytheáopyrlght: ;- and Environmental Compliance
which has not been excused by the - - - ‘- law of the United States-of Añiezica then In. L AS5I SD’nIIraIII for t1liu esota
operation of ’17 US C. effect £ certify that the Information given s, -
were herein Is tore and 1 4l ct to the best of my; ’ AGENCY I nfted States Envh -
.p eTf - • - ‘ knowledge. and nderatend thM ? 1 ProtecticrfAgency (US A).
•1 in ‘ WilUul falsification olnatedal ik Ja
. facts may result in - -
inaCdpyoiphOnthecoad U.SC1OO1
-byoiundertheauthârltyoftheauthor.ç: (3)Statei
IssufficIentlypermanentorstableto ” zeceivedinthe’
permit It • dor befubir
otherwise . - (4) t t - j
morethani - -
corn
tar,belflgtr an In1tted,iS whitej -
:D a of th1itftle If a fl iat1on of the 1 e 1 Fee S . . ° -
..ogmadlmultineouslywlth: “• -. - . n’ eofhoCleanAirAct(CAi___
- . , S requiring a ensure that emell udn ces have a’ .
141 Potential cc owner means ,. -. - -. , - ‘. to the technical assistance and
tii ’ wiio 4 il liave -: (f) Effective dote of restomtioà of ; i regulatory Information nècessaiy o .t
‘of tl e° usivó rights comprised in a copyright protectibn..(1) Potential comply-with the CAA Thè iatlonale for
cc - ‘ “t In the United States in a - copyright owners of eljgible works who the approval is set forth in’ this actioni-
li bi° ’ ‘—‘ ‘trest rati n and : file a complete and timely Statement of:: additional Information Is available atY
NfrFA if th ro had n ot ià°llen i Intent with the Copyright Office will the address Indláted -
thepubllcdoiiraliiforfailuzetocomply have copyright protection restored In . 0ATESThisfl1ule1Ilb IIve )
with the statutory nbtlce requirements - these WOrks e fectiVe J8flUa!Y ,1. 1995,. May 16, 1 unless notice is received;
in effect at the time of first publication (2) The. new sectfr .n,17 U.S.C. lO4ALc) by AprIl 15, 1994 that someone wishes
orany successor In Interest to such a - createdbytheNAFFAJmplementat1on- ; to submit adverse orcritlcal comment&
n yc * - • . - • ‘ -‘ - - Act gives a one year exemption to U.S.’ , If the effeétlve date Is delayed. ftmely
r Published means distribution of - - natiOflals or domidhiarles who.made or notice will be published in the Federal’
coplesofaworktothepublicbysale- edccp 0fam0tionP 1 0T R star’ ‘ - -L ’it . .- .
or other transferof ownership, or by ‘ U)fltefltS before D000inber 8,1993,.,.’ ‘ADORESSES Càinnientscan be mailed to
rental, lease, or lending. The offering t - the date of enactment of the - “ ‘. William L’MOcDowell, Air and - -
distribute copies to a group of persons - imPle1om g act These individuals or - Radiation Division, (AE-17J), U;S.
for purposes of further dIstribution, -- entities may continue to sell, distribute, Environmental Protection Agency..
public performance,orpubliá display, or perform publicly suthworks without — Region 5,77 West Jackson Boulevardv.
conitftutes publication. A-public - - liability for a period of one .year c. ;- ancago. iuinois’6o604-35o9;..
performance or display of a work does fo11b emg the Copyright Office’s : •- -, Copies of the State’s submittal and
not of Itself constitute publication. - - - publication in the Federal Register of.: USEPA’S teihnfrnl support document . -
(c)Fomis.TheCopyrIgbtOfflcedoes the list of the works determined tobe ‘ are available for Inspection during
not provide Statement of Intent forms - - - properly qualified for protection and for noimal business hours it-the following
for the use of potential copyright - which complete and timely.Statements ‘-.‘- locations: U.S. Environmental -(-. -
who want to restore copyright - of Intent have been filed., - . - . . - . Protection Agency (AE —l7fl. Region 5.
protection In eligible works. - - (g) Registration of works whose ‘ - Air Enforcement Branch, 77 West
(d) Itequirements for effective - copyright has-been restored. After - - Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IllinOis.
atements of Intent. (1) The document - January 1, 1995, the Copyright Office - - 60604-3509, Office of Air and Ra,4iatio
ild be clearly designated as a ‘ - encourages potential copyright owners (OAR), Docket and Information Center,
ftement of Intent to restore copyright to make voluntary copyright registrition:- (Air Docket 6102), Room M1500. U.S.
tection In the United States In -. - in accordance with 17 U.S.C. 408 for --‘ - Environmental Protectloir Agency; 401 -
ac rdance with the North American - works that have had copyright restored - M Street,- SW.; WachlngtonDC 2046&. -- -
FreeTrade ..Agreement”: - . in accordance with NAFFA.. -‘ - (202) 26O -7548 and Mr. Leo Raudys,
submitted by I
- the
-------
12166 Federal Register L-Vol. 59, No. 51 I Wednesday, March- 16, 1994 I Rules and Regulations
Program Development Section, Air IL Analysis . . ,. sources with pollution prevention and
Quality Division, Minnesota Pollution s “ ‘M c ,,.,.. - accidental release detection and
Control Agency, 520 LaFayette Road, St. mUM Dussness ‘ ‘. ‘A ’ - - - prevention, including providing
Paul, Minnesota 55155—3898. - The Minnesota legislation charged the information concerning alteinative
Commissioner of the MPCA to establish nologies. process changes, product
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: - a SBAP to provide direct and timely methods of operation that help redu
Anne E. Tenner, U.S. Environmental technical assistance to small businesses, air pollution. The MPCA has met the
Protection Agency (AE—17fl, Region 5, The SBAP plan was submitted to the requirement by requiring the SBAP t o,
Air Enforcement Branch 77 West USEPA as SIP revision on November Identify and develop needed and -
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 9,1992. Full implementation of the appropriate pthited resources to provide
60604 —3509,.telephone (312) 353—3849. SBAP be*ins in Novembeil994. ‘ .. informatioñon pollution prevention-
ARY FORMAT ON• -:. — However, elements of the program ire - opportunities for specific small business. -
-. being Implemented earlier. For example, source categories or processes which
L Bad ground , .. -. the Compliance Advisory Council ‘ havö proposed standards, and Identify,
- - . :- - ‘ - which Is establl hed umechmii nic to dissemInat
Implementation ofihe provisions of has progriin c i tosniall ‘,.
the C1ean Mr Act (CAA),.ai amended i11 held its flrit i newsletters, trade
199O, w1llequlieil tlOnbfniafly . An oinbudsiij . - . ‘ -
small büsIness so thifâreas may 19 and the SBAP h
attain and maintain the National . . ,
ambient alrqü lity standards (NAAQS) small • .. . - extensjo
and reduce the e’ 1 {on of air toxica.: Technical As’ilstana P ägr iñ (MnV P),:- The SBAP 1 - shor
Small businesses frequently lack the,: . established In 1984 at theV lvérs1ty of :1- scheduled for early 1994, as one’
technical exper ise and-finandab :‘• ‘ - t Minnesota, while smt yet available m,1lt1n for inform
resourées necessarj aaIuatesuch --: air pollution control ofth need
regulations-and to dot 1ñejhe provide nori-regulato iand amiccions
appropil ate mechanisms ‘ : act as an Information. !eqUhement,IS to
compliance Inent Idpat Ionofth t ana neededbè sI ’. .tó] assIstanceprcgi n;i
1m w 4 nf thesimniiIv mi nt onsnialF - to implement the - - lESS statlonaiy SOnIC
- I_I 1. LI 11
b isIneãà .t ie CM requires that States provide technical ‘! u OSS Sifl
ado t tSmalTBüshie t StaUonary .- to implement the L
Source TééhnTâl and Environmental provide technical - -
ComplIlI WJ ASSistRflce p ’, tO evaluate ai -
(program), and’sübn lt this progrvã às &--.
ievls1 totheiederally-appyoed SIP PI U
In idditlon. the CM directs the United
StatesEivironmental ProtecUon . ; e an a oveblö
- (USEPA)jo.oyeriee these email budinesi -s L iedT to
aislstanne pieg!ams’ and report to - - ____ to assist the
Congresson their implementatlon The - P,nay m ii emi t ion control or emission
requirements for establishing aprogram.. CAMS to establish equate meded by hail Iiuslñesses,,
are set out In Section 507 of the CA4 - . . mer ’Iurntemi for pi ng, ect ing - The fourth requirement Isto develop.
In Febifnaiy 1992, USEPA issued - and coordinating info on-: ” -. - - adei 5 uate merh*nlsms to assure tha;(
“Guidelines for the Implementation of - conceniing compliance methods .- - small business statIon ry sources
SectIon 50? of the 1990 Clean Air Act - technologies for mall business - . - - receive notice of their rights under the.
Amendments,” in order to delineate the stationary-sources, and activities to - - Act In such manner and form as to
Federal and State roles-In meeting the encourage lawful ration among .. assure reasonably adequate time for -
new statutory provisions and ass tool such sources and other pOisons to - - -‘ - such sources to evaluate compLiance’
to providi further guidance to the States - further compliance with methods and any relevant or applicable
on submitting acceptable SIP revisions. .— MPCA has met this requirement by - opd or fin ultioi ondad
The Minnesota Pollution Control- - providing that the SBAP, deülopand - - ; ue viu Iu . , AP puu iS u u;
Agency (MPCALoñ November 9, 1992, prepare -Inforniation packets which : :. t r t a t e ll inessS ‘
submitted aSW revision to USEPA. To describe Inlayperson S terms the- - , : or o” rator with the SBAP iaff-
.gankill’approvaJ;the MPCA ’s -. - - compliance and technical Information - and maldn vailable information-. -
submittal must provide for each of thi - relevaitto a smt II b ’einsts stationary. - applicable to amtiol technologies id
following program elements (1) The .. sourms obligation underwu Act.--: -legal rights. The plan Includes
- establieinnent of a Small Business - - - iueflthy appropawte £I . opportunities for emAil businesses to
Assistance Pro*iam (SBAP) to provide - - wss miflatiofl • attend workshops focused on selected:
technical and compliance assistance to mu uwj1sms anu u ip to w5!eflluiate -- source categories, and will include pie-.
small businesses; (2) the establishment - wt.wucaianu compuance uuOflflaUOfl printed source material and formI to -
of the State Small Business Ombudsman toSfliau oUSifleSSeS. . - -‘ - - optimize the technical and complience
• . ii - uO seCOflu requirement .5 ifl . . - - -
to represent we interests oz smau - t blish ad ’uate mechenknis-for- — - assistance services provided by. the. -.
businesses In the regulatory process; - - esu• smTh 6usiness statI nr ., - SBAP staff. - .. - . -
and (3) the creation of a Compliance - as - - . -‘- -- The fifth requirement Is to develop.
Advisory Panel (CAP) to determine and ‘A adequate mechenisins for informing
report on th overall effectiveness of the ‘ - small business stationary sources ol
SBAP. - — - -- - - discussed In the next section. - -‘ - - - their obligations under the Act, .
-------
Fede1 àI Rë lstek / VOL tNo..5I:/ Wed. ”] i; l 6,- 994 ./RiiIes aiidR tilatióiis iiI 6 j
• ‘duding med nn sifls for referringsuth-’ implementing the MinneSota Regulatory flexibility Act 2; ) to “
ices to qualified auditors or. at the Environmental Review Prcgrani—(M p review and assure that information for
áon of the State for providing audits The function of MERP is to avoid and-’ small business statioifary sources is 5
of the operations of such sources to minimize damage to Minnesota’s - easily understan lablo; and (4) to’
determine compliance with the Act. The environmental resources caused by develop and disseminate the reports and.
MPCA SIP meets this requirement by: public and private development by advisozy opinions made through the
holding information workshops requiring that proposed actions which - SBAP. The Minnesota legislation and
requirilig the SBAP to develop and have the potential for significant . plan charge the council with carrying
.znaintain a list of qualified auditors, environmental effects undergo special out all but the last• of these - -
based upon criteria established by the review procedures in addition to any : responsibiliffes. The last of these
SBAP in coordination with MPCA Air other required approvals and permits ::’ . responsibilities is found in the plan as
Qu lity Division technical staff and The USEPA believes that the . . a responsibility of the SBAP propani
MnTAP. •. . - ombudsman has sufficient authority,. -. staff to carry out. Since the SBAP staff -
The sixth requirenient is to develop - ana is adequately located for terhnirRl -:s. will be supervised by the ombudsrnan
pn cedures for consideration of requests : and program support pUrposes, to. the USEPA believes this is sufficient to
for a small business stationary sourm’ - monitor the small businass stationary- -, satisfy this requirement. rc. : :
for modification of any work practice or source technical and environmental . - - - - - - - ,. .‘-
technological method of compliance, or compliance assistance program .. - ‘8’ tY - . .. , . .
the schedule of milestones for .- .. ,,- -,. Section 507(c)(1) of the CAAdefiuias
Implementing such work practice or . •c. • wmpdance vSOi7 ufl :-• . ‘ tiie term “smau business statinnarv
- J
method otconipliance preceding any . - Section 507(e) requ1re we State to source” as a tionary source that. X:
applicablecompliance date based on establish a Compliinire&Ivis -
the technologthal’and financial ‘ ( ) Includeiwo i
capabllityof any auth naIl business selected by the Governor who aisi
stationary sowce. The MPCA addresses owners or representatives of owners Oil I
this requirement b committing the . small businesses (otir members sal ni
SBAP to develop administrative - by the State le islatr . bUZUOfl 5I3 5015
proced roe, by November15. 1994. to oi’represent owners, of smal ‘ “
handle requests f this niture. Existing- businesses; and one member
Minnesota statutes requirethe MPCA. ‘ - the head of the agenc . - - -. -
when iroposIn rules which may affect Air Pollution Permit - (E) Emits less than
unall £uslnesses;to consider the . r Minnesota legislation is consistent wi!h - regulated pollutants.
‘owing-methods for reducing the these guidelines awl satisfies th ?: 1’he State ofMinne
act cmiiII buelnesson the --. requirement by establli Mnjth • - - established amechanfsisini
ablisbment of performance standards Minnesota SmallB ès-AIrQuilIty” - plan for aseer* ining the ° 11 m
required in the rule, and exempting - Compliance AssIstthi ce A SOtY : ’ g ° to receive assistance
small businesses from any or a l Council, referred to In the plan as the program, induding an evaluation of a - -
requirements of the State rule. The -. Compliance AdviSory c dLTh o: .: source a eligibility using the cnteria In.. .
USEPA believes this responds to the - requirements for the council m1iststt Sectlon 507(c)(1) of the CAA.. The
spirit of the guidance yet any such -. In the State lgialatIon’bfAprI1 9199Z ! USEPA believes this m*ni m 1 h
streamlining of existing rules or The legislature however ncreaseathe - Includes the cnterla ioted above,
development of new rules affecting membership of th Coundilby req lMng correspqnds with the Acts requirements
comoliance to avoid unreasonable . - -the participation of tWaaddltlonal stàtb’ .;and the Agency a guldeUnes.
burcfen on small businesses will be agencies: the Dlrectoiof the Minnesota - The State of Minnesota has provided,’
required to go through the public -- - Office of Waste Management or the-- for public notice-and comment on grants.,.
pmcesses An ad quate oppwtunlty will Director’s designee, and the - - ‘ -. - f eligibility to soiftces that do not meet ,.
exist for comment by the public and by . Commissioner of Departi entof Trade - the provisions of sections 507(cRIRC) ..;.
USEPA. - ,, - ‘ - and Economic Development or the ‘. - . ‘(I)), and (EJof the CAA but do not emit -
- Commi ,oner’s designee. The more than 100 tpy of all regulated
2. Onib’JdSniai) - - -. - - ‘ legislature’s action to Increase the size pollutants. - - -. . -- . .
Section 507(a)(3) r quires the :: of theCoundl is considered to b. - -. The State of Minnesota has ‘provided’
designatlonofaStateofficetoserveas - withinthescopeoftheCAAandis - ? forexclusionfronithesmallbusiness - -
the Ombudsman for small business satisfactory to the USEPA because the stationary source definition, after ‘: •
stationary souroes The Minnesota - CAA requires the size of the CAP to be. consultation with the USEPA and the--
legislation: requires the ? WCA not less than 7 indivIduals, specifying. :‘ • Small Business Administration
Commissioner to appoint an - - the minimum number rather than the Administrator and after providing : -
ombudsman, speci Ies the dutieiof the maximum. . : :! : .“ -- ‘. - notice and opportunity for public z -
office, insures independence of action, - In addition to establishing the - . comment, of any category or
and details the candidates - - minimum membership of the CAP, the subcatégory of sources that the State
qualifications. In this case, the - - CAA delineates four responsibilities of determines to have sufficient technical:
Commissioner, MPCA, placed the the Panel: (1) To render advlsor3r -.. ‘- and financial capabilities to meet the
ombudsman in the’Environmental opinions concerning the effectiveness of requirements of the CM . ..., -.
Analysis Office (EAO) of the MPCA.. The the SBAPP difficulties encountered and - - . -
MPCA SIP states that the ombudsman, the degree and severityof enforcement 2S.I4 so7(.kixrn requires the AP to repert -
d in August 1993, has authority, actions; (2) to periodically’ report to - ‘ on the cosnplIan of the SBAP with these three - -
‘. “ èr section 8, subdivIsion (3) of the . USEPA concerning the SBAP’s — Federal statutes. However. since State ages es err
lI Business Air-Quality COmpliance adherence to the principles’of the-’. : -
-Assistance-Act, to act independently of Paperwork Reduction Act, the Equal - t on whether the SBAP Is adhering to the, -
the MPCkThe LAO is responsible for Access to Justice Act, and the - - - - general principles of these Federal statutes
-------
12168 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 1994 / Rules and Regu1atlons .. -
IlL The USEPA’s Action - impose any new regulatory. - - for enhanced ozone monitoring in the
In this action, USEPA is approving requirements on small businesses, I . . Clean Air Act (Ad) and regulations...
final the SIP revision submitted by the certify that it does not have a significant promulgated pursuant to the Act. T’-
State of Minnesota. The State of economic impact on any small entities regulations require the State to pro 1
Minnesota has submitted a si revisrnn affected. - for the establishment and maintena
Implementing each of the program - 1.1st of Subjects in 40 CFR of an enhanced ambient air quality
elements required by section 507 of the . . monitoring network in the form of
CAA For each of the three essential Environmental protection, Air.. photochemical assessment monitoring
elements of the Program: the Small pollution control, Incorporation by - stations (PAMS) by November 12,1993.
Business Assistance ‘ “ the reference, Small business assistance - -. DATES: This final rule will be effective
element is curren yopetional or the ogra - -. ‘ - . . - . - May 16, 1994 unless notice Is received
State has submitted a schedule for that I)ated: January 14, 1994. •- . -. by April 15, 1994 that someone wishes
element indicating implementation by. Wi11i m 8. Muno,:.’ - .. - .:• -. to submit adv!rse comments. If the.:
November 15,1994. The USEPA is - - Acting BegionoiAdminisfrutor .- . . effective date is delayed, timely notice.
therefore approving this iubmittaL This . Part 52, chapte l , title 40 of the ( wilpubhshed In the Federal
action has been classified 85 alable 2 of Federal D Is ded ____
Action by theRegional Mministrator follows: :: - ‘ : ‘ ‘ - ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision
• under the procedures published in the . - .; . . and USEPA $ analysis are available for.-
FederalRegistaronJanuaiyl9,1989- PART52.—(AMENDED] : - - InspectlonatthefollowlngaddresrOt
(54 FR 2214-2225). On January 6, 1989.. . - ‘ -; - •, Is recommended that you telephone
the Office of Manasement and Budget 1. The authority citation for part 52 - i Mark Palermo at (312) 886-6082, before’.
(0MB) waIved Table 2 and 3 SIP continues to read as follows:.. - visiting the RegIon 5 Office) US -’.
revisIons (54 FR 2222) from the AuthorIty 42 U.S.C 74O1_7671q. i ’ .- Environmental Protection Agency,
requirement of section 6 of Executive ‘ — ‘ ! - RegIon 5, AIr and Radiation DivisiOn,. 77 - .
Order 12866 for a period of two years. S )Pa 1 Y—(An*idedJ ‘ ‘ West Jachson Boulevard, Chgo r
USEr - - — -. . . .. . . -- , :.- 3 . z ,. fllin’ 4 ‘ - ‘
sil iwu a request ior a- . - ., ,., - - . - .. - —-
- - . 1 .U7._ 3 J •. UI -
nmman flt waiver for Table 2 and Table . . . - . . mmen .sen% iOjr..
iIrevislon&TheOMBhasagreedto. ome
continue the waiver until such time as -- 0 OWL - . . ‘ ... D l pin it Section, -RegulatIon -
It rules on tJSEPA’srequest. - §52.1220 W lonâfpIsi Development Branch (AR-18fl.U S. J
Because USEPA considers this action • * — * * - * c’- . . . . Environmental Protection Agency, 77
noncontroversial end routine, we are ( * * *,. -, < ‘ “ West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, ‘
approving Itwithout proposal. The -. (28) On November 9 , 1992,the State IllinoiS 60604 r — 1
action will become effective on May 16, of Miuinesota submitted the Small • FOR FURTHER NIFORMATION CONTACT
1994. However If the USEPSA receives • Business Stationary Source Technical - Mark Palermo, Regulation Dâelop
notice April 15, 1994 that someone I - - and Environmental Cnmuliance - : -. Section (AR—18fl, Regulatlon -;
wishes to submit substantive and Assistance p aiL This. sü 6 mlttaI satisfies... Development Branch, U.S. - ‘
- critical comments, then USEPA will, - the requirements of section 507.of the . - ;-Envlronmental Protection Agency,-::
publish: (1) A document that withdraws - Clean Mr-Act, -as amended. -. RegIon 5, ChlCigO,fllinoli, 60604, (312)
this action; and (2) a document that - - . - Ii) Incorporation.by Eeference. -‘ — . . 8 8 6-60 8 :. - - . - -. - -
begins a new rulemnlnng by proposing (A) Minnesota Laws Chapter 546. - SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
the action and estabhshlng a comment sections 5 through 0 enacted by the - - -
period. . .‘ - . - - - Legislature, and signed Into Lawnn L Background . - - - - -‘ :‘
Under the Regulatory Flexibthty Act, April 29,1992.... - - Section 182(c)(1) of the Act, as
5USCGOOetseq,USEPAmu5t a * a * amended ln l99o,requ lresthatthe
prepare a regulatory flexibility ana1 sis - - (FR 94-5go7Fil d - - • . USEPA promulgate rules for .enhijn d
assessingthe Impact of any proposed or-: , , .!nonitoring of ozone, oxides of nitrogen
final rule on small entitles. 5 U.S.C. 603 : . - - . - (NO), and volatile organic compounds
and 604. Alternatively. USEPA may -: - - . - , .. - .... . . (VOC) no later than 18 monthsafter the
cert llythattherulewi l lnothavea - .. - . . .. . . . dateoftheonactmentofthei990 -
significant Impact on a substantial -- .- ‘ - - - Amendments. In addition, the Act. - -
number of cm*II entities. Small entities - -. - - - - - - .-. requires that following the promulgation
include small bushiesses, small not-for-, • . of the rules relating to enhanced . . . . -
profit enterprise , and government. - wuIUuiJQuuI. UI IaI - ambient monitoring, the State must
entities with jurisdiction over - . - “I”? IaII 101’ - - - commence actions to adopt and
populations of less than 50,000. - -- ‘ “ “ : - . ‘ . Implement a program based on these.
By this action, I3SEPA Is approving in . - rules, including a revision to each SIP
final a State program created for the - AGENCY: Environnienta Protection -.. affecting areas classified serloui and
purpose of assisting small businesses In. Agency. - . - - . - above for ozone. See also the April 16,
complying with existing statutory and ACTION: Final rule. - - - . - - 1992 General Preamble for the -
regulatory requirements. The. program - - - Implementation of Title I of the Clean -‘
‘being approved does not Impose any SUMMARY: The United States S..-. - - Air Act Amendments of 1990 (General
new regulatory burdenon small-- - Environmental Protqctlon Agency - - Preamble), 57 FR 13498,13515. . -
businesses; it is a program under which (USEPA) iiapproving a revision to the - - On February 12,1993, USEPA -
small businesses may elect to take - Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) promulgated regulations providing for
advantage of assistance provided by the for ozone. U SEPA’s éction is based upon the establishment and maintenance of
State. Therefore, because the USEPA’s a revision request WhiCh was submitted the PAMS program (58 FR 8452).
approval of this program does not by the State to satisfy the requirements Section 58.40(a) f 40 CFR pert 58-
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No; 120 1 Thursday...lune 23. :1994 I Rules and Regulatio&s . - 323S3
to EPA. and proposed for approval into
the California SIP by EPA on the -
following dates:
• IIAAQMD Regu]ation 8 Rule 17. Petroleum.
Dry Cleaning Operations—adapted I
September 5. 1990. submitted April 5
1991. and proposed September 28, 19 i2
(57 FR 44542);
• .SJVUAPCD Rule 468.1. Rubber Tire
Manufacturing Operations-adopted M4y
16. tgqi, submitted October 25, 1991,
and proposed September11. 1992 (57 FR
417l6 ); and
• SCAQMD Rule 1104, Wood Flat Stock
Coaling Operations-adopted March 1.
1991, submitted October 25, 1991. and
proposed September11. 1992 (57 FR
41718).
These rules were submitted in -
response to EPA’s t988 SIP-Call and the
CM section 182(a)(2XA) requirement
that nonattainnient areas fix their
reasonably available control technology
(RAcr) rules for ozone In accord nce.
• with EPA guidance that Interpreted the
• requirementi of the preeniendmeni Act.:
A detailed discuSon of the background
for each of the above rules and
nonattainment areas is provided In the
notices of proposed rulemakings -.
(NPRMs) cited above.
EPA has evaluated all of the above
rules for consistency with the
requirements of the CM and EP4
regulations and EPA Interpretation of -
these requirements as expressed li i the
various EPA policy guidance documents .-
referenced In the t’iPRMs cited above.
EPAhasfouSthattherulesmeett! le -
- applicable EPA requirements. A -
detailed discussion of the rule
provisions and evaluations has been
provided In 57 FR44542 and 57 FR
41718 and in technical support
documents (TSDs) available at EPA’s
Region IX office (TSDs dated June1992.
BAAQMI) Regulation 8. Rule 17; June
1992, SJVUAPCD Rule 468.1; and May
1992, SCAQMD Rule 1104). -
Response to Public Comments
Both proposals provided 30-day
public comment periods (57 FR 44542
and 57 FR 41716), and EPA received no
comments on its proposals to approve
these revisions. -
EPA Action
EPA is finalizing action to approve
the above rules for inclusion into the
California SIP. EPA is approving the
submittal under section 1 iO(k)(3) as
meeting the requirements of section
i10(a)andpartDoftheCAA.This
approval action will incorporate these -
rules into the federally approved SIP.
The intended effect of approving these
; .rules is to regulate emissions of VOCs in
ijaccordance with the requirements of the
CAA Final approval of SJVtJAP D Rule
468.1 correâts the finding of - -
nonsubmittal published in the Federal
Register on October 22, 1991 (58 FR -
54554) for Kings County. .- -
Nothing ir this action should be
construed as permitting or allowing or
establishing a precedent for any future
request for revision to any state
implementation plan. Each request for
revision to the state implementation
plan shall be.considered separately in
light of specific technical, economic
and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirement&.. - - - .
Regulatory ProSii • I - - .
This action has’been classified as a.:
Table2actionbytheRegional;. -e
Administrator under tha procedures
published inthefederalKegistaron-’
January 19. 1989 (54 FR 2214—2225), as
revised by an October 4. 1993, -
memorandum from Michael H. BSApiro.
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation. A future document will
inform the general public of these -
tables. On January 0, 1989,’tha Office of
Management an4 Budget (0MB) waived
Table 2and Table 3 SIP revisions (54 FR
222)fromtherequlreiñentiofsection3 -
of Executive Order 12291 for 2 years. ’
The EPA has submitted a requ t for a —
perminent waiver for Table 2 Sd Table
3 SIP revisions. The 0MB has agreed to -
continue the waiver uhtli such time as
it rules on EPA’s request. This $equest
continues In effect under Executive
Ordr 12866 whIch superseded -
Executive Order 12291 on Sqptember
30, 1993. — -
I.istofSubjects ln4 lfl7 tPart52
• Env!ronmental protectlon.Air
pollution controL Hydrocaibons. : -
lncprporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting andrecordkeeping
requirements. -
Note Incorporation by reference of the
State Implementation Plan for the State of -
California was approved by the Director of
tbeFederalRegisteronJulyt.1982 , -
Dated:May 18,1994.
Felicia Marcus, - - - •
Jfegiono lAdrnthistmtor. - - -
- Part 52, chapter I. title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52— [ AMENDED] -
it. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as followsi - -
Authority: 42 U.S.C 7401—7671q
Subpart F —California - -
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraphs (c) (183)(i)(F)(2) and
(186)(iRB) and (lB6Ki)(C) to read as
follows: - - - - - - I _• - •
52.220’ IdentificatIon of plan. r • -
• N * t *
(c) - - -
(t83) * •
(i) *
- - -
(2) Regulation ; l&Ie 17. adqpted oh t
September 5. 1990. - -
* N N • * -- -:
(186 *** -
( uN Nt . —
(8)-San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District. - - - . -
• (1) Rule 468.1, adopted on-May 16, -
1991. - , . -- - - -: ,- ‘ --r -
(C) South Coast Air Quality-: - - - .
Management District. . ‘
(i) Rule 1.104, adopted Ma*.h 1, 1991.:.
• — • — •• - - * ‘ - —.—
(FR Dcc. 94-1 5251 Filed 6-22-9;&4rSl
SLUC000 ISS IO4OJ
4OCFRPart52 - - , c-I: -
Mim 72 ,. -; :- -
Clean Air Act Approval and ‘ -
Promulgation of Title V SectIon 507,
Small Sualnesa Statlonay Source. -
Technical and Environmental -.. - •t. ,.
Compliance Assistance Progrem for - •
Louisiana - - - - - -: -
AGENCY: Environmental Pr echo —
AgetcyjEPA . -- - •-- - -
• ACTION: Direct final n ile 3 - - . 1 -
SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the -
State Implementation Plan (SW) - •‘ -
revision submitted by the State of.
Loulsianaforthepurposeof ‘ - - -
- establishing a Small Bus lnesiStatlonary
Source Technical and Environmental --
Compliance Assistance Program. The’
SIP revision was submitted by the State
to satisfy the Federal mandate, found in
the Clean Air Act (CM), to ensure that
small businesseshaveactess tothe
technical assistance and regulatory
information necessary to comply with -
the CM. The rationale for the approval
is set forth in this document additional
information is available at the address
indicated in the Addresses section. -
DATES: This final rule will become -
effective on August 22,1994, unless
adverse or critical comments are
received by July 25,1994. lIthe effeâtive
- date is delayed; timely notictwill be
• published in the Federal Register.
- ADDRESSES: Written comments on this -
action should be addressed to Mr. 3 -
- Thomas Diggs, Chief (6T.-AP). Planning
Section, at the EPA Regional Office
listed below. Copies of the 4ocuments
-------
32356 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 120 I Thursday, June 23, 1994 / Rules, and Regulations
relevant to this action are available for submittal must provide for each of the approvability by EPA Region 6 and EPA
public inspection during normal- following three PROGRAM elements: (1) headquarters. -
business hours at the following The establishment of a Sm lI Business B. Plan Requirements
locations. The interested persons - Assistance Program SBAP) to provide
wanting to examine these documents technical and compliance assistance to 1. Small Business Assistance Program
should make an appointment with the small businesses; (2) the establishment-, a. The first PROGRAM element is the
appropriate office at least 24 hours of a State Small Business Ombudsman establishment of a SBAP to provide
before the visiting day. to represent the interests of smell tecimical and compliance assistance to
U.S. Environmental Protection businesses in the regulatory process; small businesses. Section 507(a) sets
Agency, Region 6, Air Programs Branch and (3) the creation of a Compliance -‘ forth six requirements’that the State
(6T-AP) 1445 Ross Avenue, suite 700, Advisory Panel (CAP) to determine and must meetto have an approvable SBAP..
Dallas, Texas 75202—2733. - report on the overall effectiveness of the- The first requirement is to establish’
Air and Radiation Docket and SBAP. - . - - adequate mechanisms for developing,
Information Center, U.S. Environmental The Region used section 507 of the collecting and coordinating information’
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., cAA; and considered the “SIP Revision concerning compliance methods and
Washington, DC 20460. , Approval Checklist for Section 507 - technologies for small business
Lo1liciRn Department of Small Business Assistance Program” - stationary sources, and programs to
Environmental Quality, Air Quality - when reviewing the State submittal for .: encourage lawful cooperation among
Division, 7290 Bluebonnet Bivd,&ton approwability. The SIP revision, -- - such sources and other persons to
Rouge, Louisiana 70810, ‘. -‘ discussed in detail in the Technical - .-- further compliance With the Act.
FOR FURTHER SIFO AIION CONTAC1 Dr. Support Document, is briefly outlined The second requirement is to
John Cracker, Planning Section (6T-AP), below. - - - - - ,. establish adeauate methankmS for’: - -
-. . - ist1iig small business statlonary:
Air Programs Branch, U.S. - - - - _____
EnvlronthentalProtectionAgency, II.AnalYsis i. 1’ .:.n .. ‘ . withnollntionpreventionand -
- Region 6,1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, - ‘A. Procedural Backgrdund ‘ - ‘- e A dentaI refease detection and
Texas 75202—2733, Telephone (214) - - - - : pzrrlutiofl. including pruviding —
655—7596. -. .: - - The State of Louisiana has inèt’aU af :: Information concerning alternative
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: -. - the requirements of section 507 by -‘ technologies, process changes; products
- - -• ‘ . . submitting a SIP revision that - - -‘ and methods of operation that elp..
I. Background - impleinentsalirequiredPROcRAM reduce air pollution. - -‘ -
Implementation of the provisions of -- elements. Enrolled HouseBill No. 13i9 Thethird requirement is to develop a
the CAA, as amended in 1990 - - (Louisiana Act 1037), signed into law on, compliance and technical assistance
require regulation of many small July 13, 1992, enacted Louisiana-. - - program for small business stationary
businesses so that areas may attain and . Revised Statutes (R.S.) 30:2061 and -- sources which assists small businesses’
maintain the National ambient air - 2062 and R.S. 36:239(H), which .- , -. in determining applicable requirements
quality standards (NAAQS) and reduce’ provides authority for Louisiana to ‘ and in receiving permits under the Act
the emissions of air s aii establish a PROGRAM (SIP appendix: in a timely and efficient manner.
businesses frequently lack the IX). In addition, Louisiana R.&--. •. The fourth requirement is to develop
expertise and finAnmi resources 30:2060N.(6) provides additional ‘,- ‘, adequate mefthRnhnns to assure that
necessary to evaluate such regulations authority to establish a SBAP (SIP - small business stationary sourcOs
and to determine the appropriate. - appendix VIII). The Louisiana Small -‘, receive notice of their rights under the, -
mechanisms for compliance. In ,. Business Ombudsman is located within Act in such manner and form as to
anticipation of the impact of these the Covernor s Office, while the SBAP ‘assure reasonably adequate time for -
requirements on en ll businesses, the and the Compliance Advisory Panel are such sources to evaluate compliance
CAA requires that States adopt a small the responsibility of the LouiciRna methods and any relevant or applicable
Business Stationary Source Technical Department of Environmental Quality proposed or final regulation or
and Environmental Compliance -. (LDEQ). - - - - - - standards Issued under the Ad.
Assistance Program (PROGRAM),and The State held a public hearing Thi fifth requirement is to develop
submit this PROGRAM as a revision to August 24 and September 25, 1992, to adequate mechaniams for informing
the federally approved SIP. In addition, consider public comments on the small business stationary sources of
the CAA directs the EPA to oversee proposed PROGRAM, which will amend their obligations under the Act, -
these small business assistance the Louisiana SIP to add a revisioü including mechanisms for referring such
programs and report to Congress on - entitled, “Clean Air Act Amendments of sources to qualified auditors or, at the
their implementation. The requirements 1990, Section 507, Small Business - option of the State, for providing audits
for establishing a PROGRAM are set out Stationary Source Technical and - of the-operations of such sources to
determine compliance with the Act.
in section 507 of title V of the CAA. In Environmental Compliance Assistance”. The sixth requirement is to develop
February 1992, the EPA issued The proposed SIP revision was formally procedures for consideration of requests
“Guidelines for the Implementation of adopted October 2Z 1992, by the , from a small business stationary source
Section 507 of the 1990 Clean Air Act Secretary of the Louisiana Department for modification of: (A) Any work
Amendments”, in order to delineate the of Environmental Quality. The practice or technological method of
Federal and State roles in meeting the Louisiana PROGRAM was submitted to compliance; or (B) the schedule of
new statutory provisions and as a tool the EP, by the Governor of Louisiana milestones for implementing such work
‘to provide further guidance to the States on October 22. -1992 (received - practice or method of compliance -
on submitting aoceptable SIP revisions. November 16, 1992) as a revision to the preceding any applicable compliance
The State of Louisiana submitted a Louisiana SIP. It was initially reviewed -
SIP revision to the EPA in order to - for completeness, and was determined requirement of section 50’7(a).
satisfy the requirements of section. 507. omplete on January 15, 1993. The bIl nt of an Ombudsman office, Is
In order to gain full approval, the State submittal was then reviewed for discussed in the next section.
-------
Federal Register! Vol. 59. No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 1994 I Rules and Regulations
32357
date, based on the technological and
financial capability of any such small
business stationary source.
b. The State has met the first
PROGRAM element by committing in its
narrative SIP revision (SIP appendix
VU), under subsections addressing
“Legal Authority: (1) SBAP Core” and
“Program Analysis: A. Technical &
Compliance Assistance Core”, to
establish a SBAP section in the LDEQ
Air Quality Division (AQD). (Details are
presented in EPA’s Technical Support
Document and the State’s submittal.)
The SBAP core portion of the
PROGRAM will be staffed with 12
positions. A budget request for the
section was submitted in early 1992
with approval by the Louisiana
legislature provided in July 1992.
Funding for the PROGRAM will be fee
based asaliowed for under title V of the
CAA. The LDEQ Secretary may reduce
any fee required for this PROGRAM in
accordance with provisions established
by the Louisiana Administrative Code,
Chaptei 65, Rules and Regulations for
the Fee System of the Air Quality
Control Programs. Hiring of all staff
positions to support the Louisiana SBAP
began on October 3, 1992, and was
completed early in January 1993. Most
of the assistance provided to small
businesses will be managed by this
group of staff members with assistance
and input from the Small Business
Ombudsman.
The SBAP Core staff will coordinate
with the AQD information resource
center and the Ombudmmin to deliver
lectures/workshops thibughout
Louisiana to announce, disseminate and
demonstrate pertinent information
resources to eligible businesses, trade
associations or other industry groups
and to inform them of small business
operator’s rights and obligations under
the Act. The ‘information resource center
is an established section which is well
developed and is presently providing
information assistance to the AQD staff
and the public. The staff will provide
for expedited procedures for responding
to small business stationary source
requests for assistance relatii,e to
compliance and permitting.
Demonstrations will be provi4ed on
available technical computer software,
CD-ROM products, and the use of the
EPA Technology Transfer Network.
Workshops will include guest lecturers
from EPA, university small business
programs, other AQD programs, LDEQ
divisions and other pertinent areas.
The staff will publish a newsletter (at.
least quarterly) to disseminate technical
guidance information (including
methods of pollution prevention and
accidental release detection and
prevention) make announcements on
matters such as pending regulations,
and provide for notification of the rights
of small business under the Ci%A and
Louisiana Environmental Quality Act
(LEQA). The newsletter will also
provide bibliographies and fact sheets of
information resources including where
and how resources may be obtained. As
part of this effort, a hot line telephone
• number will be published within the
newsletter to allow for quick access to
such information.
The AQD SBAP Core staff will have
members available to conduct periodic
audits of small business facilities
requesting compliance assistance and to
provide assistance to small businesses
on pollution prevention and accidental
release detection and prevention. -
including providing Information
concerning alternative technologies,
process changes, products and methods
of operation that’ help reduce aI
pollution. The audits i1U also allow for
requests to be made froth i ninll -
businesses for modifications to any .
work practice or compliance methods
and schedules. Such requests, whether
made during audits or otherwise, shall
berevlewedbytheAQD SBAP Core
staff in consultation with the AQD -:
permit and eüforcement sections. A
reply to a specific request shall be
provided within 90 dayá of receipt of
the request. Consideration will be given
to requests dependent upon the
technological and financial capability of
the small business stationary sources
making the requests. No modification’
may be granted unless it is in
compliance with the requirements of the
CAA and the LEQA. Where such
applicable requirements are set forth in
Federal regulations, only modifications
authorized in such regulations may be
allowed.. -
Staff will be domiciled within specific
regions of the State to provide for
maximum coverage of affected facilities.
The LDEQ Is also making effoits to
establish a Waste Reduction and
Technology Transfer Program (WRATF)
similar to one now established in
Alabama. This WRATF program would
allow for small businesses to request
audits from retired engineers working to
identify environmental problems and
solutions without fear of enforcement.
The SIP revision Appendix VII
subsection entitled “Program Analysis:
A. Technical & Compliance Assistance
Core” describes the details of the SBAP,
which meet the six requirements set
forth in section 507(a), and stated above.
2. Ombudsman
a. The second PROGRAM element is
the establishment of a State Small
Business Ombudsman to represent the -
interests of small businesses in the -.
regulatory process. Section 507(a)(3)
requires the designation of a State office
to serve as the Ombudsman for small
business stationary sources.
b. The State has wet this requirement
by establishing in February 1992, via
Executive Order No. EWE 92-4 (SIP
appendix I), an Office of Permits within
the Executive Department, Office of the
Governor, and designating the -
Governor’s Office of Permits as the State
office to serve as Ombudsman for the
PROGRAM, as stated in a letter dated
February 20,1992, from the Governor to
the LDEQ Secretary (SIP appendix II).
Thus, the Ombudsman’s Office is
separate from the air quality regulatory
branch of the State agency, and - -
therefore can be an independent
advocate for small businesses. Thern
office is currently staffed end’’
operational, and has been since August
1992. The Coordinator of the Offic of.
Permits, Is responsible for administering
the Ombudsman element of this -. -
PROGRAM. A “Memorandum of’
Understanding Between the Govemor s
Office of Permits and the IDEQ” (SIP
appendix III) was signed by both,
agencies on April 7, 1992. It provides
further legal authority for estabItshment
of the Small Business Ombudsman. The
Small Business OmbutLmi*n element of
the PROGRAM Is authorized by theseS.
provisions of Louisiana law.
It shall be the responsibility of the.
Governor’s Office of Permits
(Ombudsman) to monitor the
PROGRAM. The Office shalb
(A) By virtue of designation of the
Governor on February 20,1992, as
requested by LDEQJ serve as . -
Ombudsman for small businesses in
accordance with the Federal mandate of
section 507 of the 1990 CAA; and -
(B) Serve on LDEQ’s Small Business
Assistance Task Force and work with
LDEQ to develop programs end provide
assistance to small businesses in all
areas, as necessary.
Sufficient resources will be provided
to the State Ombuds-man’ Office to
enable it to discharge its responsibilities
effectively. Provisions have been made
to provide the Ombudsman with direct
access to the government agencies and
officials necessary to ensure that the.
concerns of small businesses will be
heard. Further, the Ombudsman is
vested with sufficient authority to
identify and propose solutions to small
business problems as they relate to the
implementation of the CAA. The -
narrative SIP revision (appendix VII)
subsections entitled “Legal
Authority (2) Small Business
- Ombudsman” and “Program Analysis:
-------
32358 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 120 1 Thursday, June 23, 1994 I Rules and Regulations
B. Small Business Ombudsman”
• describe additional details of the
Ombudsman element of the PROGRAM.
3. Compliance Advisory Panel (CAP)
a. The third PROGRAM element is the
creation of a CAP to determine and
report on the overall effectiveness of the
SBAP. Section 507(e) requires the State
to establish a CAP that must include
two members selected by the Governor
who are not owners or representatives of
owners of small businesses; four
members selected by the State
legislature who are owners, or represent
owners, of small businesses and one
member selected by the head of the
agency in charge of the Air Pollution
Permit Program. Selection by thi
legislature is one member each by the
majority and minority leadership of the
House and Senate.
b. The State has met this requirement
by cninmittfng to appoint members to
the Panel by November 1g94. In order.
to establish this PROGRAM element,
• House Bill 1319 was introduced during
the Louisiana 1992 legislative session.
The bill became Louisiana Act 1037 and
was approved by the Governor on July
13,1992. Act 1037 creates the State
Compliance Advisory Panel with
responsibilities consistent with the
requirements in title V of the Federal
• CAA and specifies the panePs make-up,
qualifications, terms, and duties.
Adequate support sources and sufficient
resources to conduct business will be
provided to the Panel by the LDEQ.
Pursuant to Act 1037, the CAP shall be
a function and responsibility of the
LDEQ. Act 1037 allows for a panel of
eight members to be selected. The
eighth member, the Secretary of the
Louisiana Department of Economic
Development, ex officio, shall serve in
a nonvoting capacity.
Although section 507 of the CAA
requires selection by the majority and
minority leadership of the House and
Senate, EPA believes that, given the
makeup of the State’s legislature, as
required by the State’s constitution,
Louisiana’s selection complies with
section 507 of the CAPt. Louisiana has
a bicameral legislature. There are
constitutional provisions providing for
leadership of the Senate and House in
the Office of the President of the Senate
and in the Office of the Speakerof the
House. However, there are no positions
in the Louisiana’legislature which
equate to majority and minority leaders,
as in theNational Congress. In
accordance with section 507(e) of the
Federal CAA, Act 1037 (i.e., La. R.S.
30:2062 C.) of the 1992 Louisiana
Legislature provides for the composition
of the CAP. Pursuant to La. R.S. 30:2062
4. Eligibility - - -
- Section 507(c)(1) of the CAPt defines
the term “small business stationary
source” as a stationary source that:
(A) Is owned or operated by-a person
who employs 100 or fewer individuals;
(B) Is a small business concern as
defined in the Small Business Act;
(C) Is not a major stationary source;
2’$ iefl 507(eXI)(B) of ihe CAA requires the
to report on the compliance of the SBAP with
these three FederaJ statutes. However. since State
agencies are not required to comply with them. EPA
believes that the State PROGRAM must merely
require the CAP to report on whether the SBAP is
adhering to the general principles of these Federal
siatutes. - -
III. Final Action •• - - -
In this action, the EPA is approving
the SIP revision submitted by the State
of Louisiana for establishing a Small
Business Stationary Source Technical
and Environmental Compliance
Assistance Program.
The State of Louisiana has submitted
a SIP revision for establishing each of
the required PROGRAM elements
required by section 507 of the CAA. The
EPA has reviewed this revision to the
Louisiana SIP and is approving it as
submitted because the State’s
PROGRAM meets the requirements of
section 507 of the CAA. TheSIP
includes a schedule of implementation
which commits the State to have all.
three principal PROGRAM elements
fully implemented by November 15,
1994. SIP schedule implementation
milestones were tracked and monitored
by the Region as part of the State’s
normal PROGRAM review. Currently,
Louisiana has staffed and initiated the
SBAP, designated and fully staffed the
State Office to serve as Small Business
Ombudsman, and created a CAP (and
appointed all of its members). The
CAP’s initial meeting was heldOctober
25, 1993, and the meetings are held at
least quarterly. The State has submitted
a letter to EPA certifying that the entire
C.(3) and (4), both the Presidentof the - (D) Does not emit 50 tons per year
Senate and the Speaker of the Rouse, (tpy) or more of any regulated pollutant;
who are the equivalent Louisiana and
entities for purposes of legislative (E) Emits less than 75 tpy of all • -
selection of CAP members, shall each regulated pollutants..
select two members. It is EPA’s position The State of Louisiana has established
that this appointment mechanism a mechanism for ascertaining the
complies with the legislative intent of eligibility of a source to receive
section 507(e). Appendix X of the SIP assistance under the PROGRAM,
revision submittal more fully presents including an evaluation of a source’s
the Louisiana position with regard to •eligibility using the criteria in section
the composition of the CAP. Appendix 507(c)(1) of the CAPt. This mechanism’
X contains a letter of explanation and is described in the State’s narrative SIP
justification to the EPA Regional revision, subsection “Program Analysis:
-Administrator, Region 6, dated October A. Technical & Compliance Assistance
22, 1992 from Mr. James B. Thompson, Core”. - -
• III, Assistant Secretary for Legal Affairs. The State of Louisiana has provided
and Enforcement, LDEQ. The legal • for public notiáe and comment on grants
opinion letter provides the necessary of eligibility to sources that do not meet
legal discussion showing the the provisions of sections 507(c)(1)(C) ,
•constitutional/statutory legislative U)), and (E) of the CAPt but do not emit
process for appointment procedures. more than 100 tpy of all regulated.
EPA has reviewed this letter and - pollutants.
believes that the nrocess for designation The State has also provided for
of CAP men ,bers by the legislature • exclusion from the small business
meets the intent of lection 507(e). stationary source definition, after
Iii addition to establishing the consultation with the EPA and the
minimum membership of the CAP, the Sni ll BUsiness Administration
CAA delineates four responsibilities of Administrator and after providing
the Panel: (1) To render advisory notice and opportunity for public :
opinioni cdnoernlng the effectiveness of hearing, of any category or subàtegdry
the SBA P. difficulties encountered, and of sources that the State determines to
the degree and severity of enfoiwnent • have sufficient technical and financial
actions; (2) to 1y report to EPA capalnhties to meet the requirements of
concerning the SBAP’s adherence to the the CAA.
principles of the Paperwork Reduction
Act,theEqualAocesstoJustioaAct,and
the Regulatory Flexibility Act 2 ; (3) to
review and assure that information for -
small business stationary iources is
easily understandable; and (4) to
develop and disseminate the reports and
• advisory opinions made through the
SBAP. -
The Statehas met these requirements:
(A) By enacting the State law creating
the CAP and providing it withthe -
enumerated responsibilities; and
(B) By committing to appoint
members to the Panel by November
1994. -
-------
ii U4Lr.u cgIsL4f I VOL. u. No. 12(11 thursday , June 23. 1094 I Rides and Regulations
32359
PROGRAM was fully operational as of
November 1. 1q93 The Slate has
irnplemcnied a model program well
ahead of the EPA deadline of November
15, 190-1 to have a fully operational
program
The EPA is publishing this action
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
amendment and anticipates no adverse
comments. Howcvcr, in a separate
document in this Federal Register
publication, the EPA is proposing to
approve the SIP revision should adverse
or critical comments be filed. Thus,
today’s direct final action will be
effecti’.e August 22. 1991. unless, by
July 25, 1994. adverse or critical
comments are received.
lithe EPA receives such comments.
this action will be withdrawn before the
effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public
comments received wifl [ hen be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this action serving as a
proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in -
commenting on this action should do so
at this time. If no such comments are
received, the public Is advised that this
action will be effective July 25, 1994.
The EPA has reviewed this request for
revision of the federally-approved SIP
ior conformance with the provisions of
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
enacted on November 15. 1990. The
EPA has determined that this action
conforms with those requirements.
Nothing in this action should be
construed as permitting or allowing or
establishing a precedent for any future
request for revision to any SIP. Each -
request for revision to the SI !.$jb’1l be
considered separately in ight ’bf specific
technical, economic, and environmental
factors, and in relation t relevant
statutory and regulatory requirements.
Under the Regulatory Fledbility Act,
5 U.S.C. 600 at seq., EPA must prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis
assessing the impact of any proposed o r
final rule on small entities. 5 u.s.c. 603
and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify
that the rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and government entities
with Jurisdiction over populations of
less than 50,000.
By this action, the EPA is approving
a State program created for the purpose
of assisting small businesses in
complying with existing statutory and
regulatory req iircmcnts. The pr 6 grarn
being approved in this action does not
impose any new regulatory burden on
small businesses; it is a program under
- which small businesses may elect to
take advantage of assistance provided by
(he state. Therefore, because the EPA’s
approval of this program does not
impose any new regulatory
requirements on small businesses, I
certify that II does not hove a significant
economic impact on any small entities
affected.
This action has been classified as a
Table 2 action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures
published in the Federal Register on
January 10, 1989 (54 FR 2214—2225), as
revised by an October 4, 1993,
memorandum from Michael 11. Shapiro.
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation. A future document will
inform the general public of these
tables, Oti January 6, 1989. the Office of
Management and Budget (0MB) waived
Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions (54 FR 2222)
from the requirements of section 3 of
Executive Order 12291 for two years.
The EPA has submitted a request for a
permanent waiver for Table 2 and Table
3 SIP revisions. The 0MB has agreed to
continue the waiver until such time as
it rules on the EPA’s request. This
request continues in effect underk
Executive Order 12866 which
superseded Executive Order 12291 on
September 30, 1993.
Under section 307 b)(1) aT the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial reviow of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by August 22, 1994.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
‘extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not,poslpone the effectiveness of
such nile or actkn. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
Ust of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Dau,d: June 3, 1994.
‘ Myron 0. Knudson,
Acting Regional Administrator (6 ,1).
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52— [ AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401—7071q
Subpart T—Louislana
2. Section 52.970 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(63) to read as
follows:
§ 52.970 IdentIfication of plan.
a * * * a
(c) *
(63) The State is required to
implement a Small Business Stationary
Source Technical and Environmental
Compliance Assistance Program
(PROGRAM) as specified In the plan
revision submitted by the Governor on
October 22, 1992, This plan submittal,
as adopted by the Secretary of the
Louisiana Depaitment of Environmental
Quality (LDEQ) on October 22, 1992,
was developed.ln accordance with
section 507 of the Clean Air Act (C /tA).
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Enrolled House Bill No. 1319 (Act
1037, Regular Session, 1992). signed
into law by the Governor on July 13,
1992 and effective upon signature,
enacting Louisiana Revised Statutes
(R.S.) 30:2061 and 2062 and R.S.
36:239(H). Included In Act 1037 are
provjsions establishing a small business
statibnary source compliance assistance
program; creating the State Ombudsman
Office for small business; creating a
Compliance Advisory Panel (CAP);
establishing membership of the CAP;
and establishing CAP powers, duties,
and functions.
(B) Louisiana R.S. 30:2060N.(6),
“Toxic air pollutant emission control
program”. (the small business stationary
source technical and environmental
compliance assistance program
subsection), as In effect on October 22,
1992.
(C) State of Louisiana Executive Order
No. EWE 92—4 dated February 10. 1992
and effective upon signature, creating
and establishing an Office of Permits
within the Executive Department. Office
of the Governor.
(D) Letter from Louisiana Governor
Edwards to Mr. Kai Midboe, Secretary,
LDEQ. dated February 20, 1992.
designating the Governor’s Office of
Permits as the official State office to
serve as Ombudsman for the PROGRAM
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Small business assistance
program.
Note; Incorporation by reference of the SIP
for the Slate of Louisiana was approved by
the Director of the Federal Register on July
1,19112.
-------
32 ti&) Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 120 / Thursday, ) unc 23, 19941 Rules and_Regulations
per the mandate oF section 507 of the
Federal CAA. The Coordinator of the
Office of Permits will be responsible for
administering the Small Business
Ombudsman portion of the PROGRAM.
(ii) Additional material.
(A) Narrative SEP Revision entitled.
“Louisiana SIP, Concerning CAA
Amendments of 1990, Section 507.
Small Business Sationary Source -
Technical and Environmental
Compliance Assistance (Program);
November 15, 1992.”
(B) “State of Louisiana Memorandum
of Understanding Between the
Cot’ernor’s Office of Permits and the
Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality”, signed (and effective) on April
7. 1992 by Mr. Kai David Midboe,
Secretary, LDEQ, and Ms. Martha A.
Madden, Coordinator, Governor’s Office
of Permits.
(C) Legal opinion letter dated October
22, 1992 from James B. Thompson, III.
Assistant Secretary for Legal Affairs and
EnFc.rcement, LDEQJ to Mr. B. J. Wynne,
Regional Administrator EPA Region VI,
regarding “Appointment to Small
Btisiness Advisory Panel”. -
3. Section 52.991 is added to subpart
T to read as follows:
§ 52.991 Small business assIstance
program.
The Governor of Louisiana submitted
on October 22, 1992 a plan revision to
develop and implement a Small
Business Stationary Source Technical
and Environmental Compliance
Assistance Program to meet the
requirements of section 507 of the Clean
Air Act by November 15, 1994. The plan
commits to provide technical and.
corn pliance assistance to small
businesses, hire an Ombudsman to serve
as an independent advocata forIu Jt
businesses, and establish a rnpliance
Advisory Panel to advise ths,program
and repoti to EPA on the program’s
effectiveness.
1FR Doc. 94—15264 Filed 6—22—94; 8 45 am)
e1LUNG coos eseo-eo-F
40 CFR Part 52
1Wy3—1-6451; FRL,-4895--9 )
Clean Air Act Approval and
Promulgation of PM 10 Implementation
Plan for the City of Sheildan, WY
AGENCY Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to a nominal tO micrometers (PM,(l).
The S1P. was submitted by the State of
Wyoming to satisfy certain Federal
requirements for an approvable
nonattainment area PM 10 SIP for the
City, of Sheridan, Wyoming.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule will
become effective on July 25, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’s
submittals and other information are
available for inspection during normal
business hours at the following
locations: Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region VIII, Air Programs Branch, 999
‘lath Street, 6th floor, South Tower,
Denver, Colorado 80202—2466; and Air
Quality Division, Department of
Environmental Quality, Herachier
Building. 4th floor, 122 West 25th
Street, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 82002; and
Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, EPA, 401 M Street
SW., Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMAtiON CONTACT: Sara
Summers, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region VIII, Air Programs
Branch, 999 18th Street, suite 500,
Denver, Colorado, 80202—2466, 303)
293—0966.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Sheridan, Wyoming area was designated
nonattainment for PM 10 and classified
as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B)
and 188(a) of the Act, upon enactment
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990.1 See 56 FR 56694 (Nov. 6, 1991);
and 40 CFR 81.35 1 (specifying PM 10
nonattainment designation for the
Sheridan area). The air quality planning
requh’ements for moderate PM 10
nonattainment areas are set out in part
D, subparts 1 and 4. of title I of the Act. 2
The EPA has issued a “General
Preamble” describing EPA’s preliminary
views on how EPA intends to review
SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under
title I of the Act, including those State
- submittals containing moderate PM 10
‘The 1990 Amendmepia to the Clrcin Air Act
made signifhanm changes to the air quality planning
requirements for areas that do not meet or that
• sIgnificantly contribute to ambient air quality In a
nearby area thai does not meet) the PM 10 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. See Pub. L 101—
549, 104 Slat. 2399. References herein are to the
Clean Air Act, as amended (“the Act”). The Clean
Mr Act is codified, as amendod, in the US Code
.142 U S.C. 7401, of seq.
1 5ubpart I contains provisions applicable to
nonaltainmeni areas generally and subpart 4’
contains provisions specifically appilcabte to PM. 1
nonattaininent areas. At tImes. Subpart I and
subpart i overlap or conflict. EPA has attempted to
clarify the relalionship among these provisions in
the ‘ Ceneral Preamble” and, as appropriate, In
tnct .iy s document and suippoclung un6xmanon.
nonattainment area SIP requirements
(see generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16,
1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28,
1992))..Because EPA is describing its
interpretations here only in broad term
the reader should re er to the General
Preamble for a more detailed discussion
of the interpretations of Title I advanced
in this final action and the supporting
rationale.
Those States containing initial
moderate PM 10 nonattainment areas
(those areas designated nonattainment
by operation of law under section
107(rfl(4)(O) of the Act) were required to
submit, among other things, the
following provisions by November 15,
1q91:
1. Provisions to assure that reasonably
available control measures (RACM)
(including such reductions in emissions
from existing sources in the area as may
be obtained through the adoption, at a
minimum, of reasonably available
control technology (RACI’)) shall be
implemented no later than December
10, 1993;
2. Either a demonstration (including
air quality modeling) that the plan will
provide for attainment as expeditiously
as practicable but no later than
December 31, 1994 or a demonstration
that attainment by that date is
impracticable;
3. Quantitative milestones which are
tobe achieved every 3 years and whict
demonstrate reasonable further progret
(RFP) toward attainment by December
31, 1994; and
4. Provisions to assure that the control
requirements applicable to major
stationary sources of PM 10 also apply to
major stationary sources of PM, 0
precursors except where the
Administrator determines that such
sources do not contribute significantly
to PM 10 levels which exceed the
NAAQS in the area. See sections 172(c),
188, and 189 of the Act.
Some provisions were due at a later
date. States with initial moderate PM ,, 1
nonattainment areas were required to
submit a permit program for the
construction and operation of new and
modified major stationary sources of
PM 10 by June 30, 1992 (see section
189(a)). Such States also must submit
contingency measures by November 15,
1993 which become effective without
further action by the State or EPA, upon
a determination by EPA that the area
has failed to achieve RFP or to attain the
PM 10 NAAQS by the applicable
statutory deadline (see section 172(c)(9)
and 57 FR 13510—13512, 13543—13544).
On March 18, 1994. EPA announced
its proposed approval of the Sheridan,
Wyoming, moderate PM—ID
rionattainment area SIP as meeting thot
SUMMARY: In this action EPA is
approving the State Implementation
Plan (SiP) submitted by the State of
Wyoming to achieve attainment of the
-------
0 S74p
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
çwr WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
AUG 12 199k
OFFCE OF
£NFORCE &NT AND
COMPt.LANCE ASSURANCE
SUBJECT: Enforcement Response Policy for Treatment of
Information Obtained Throug) .-et an Air Act Section 507
Small Business As 1 nc rograms
FROM: Steven A. Herma
Assistant Adminis tor
TO: Assistant Administrators
General Counsel
Regional Administrators
Deputy Regional Administrators
Regional Counsel
This memorandum sets forth the Agency’s enforcement response
policy on the treatment of violations detected during compliance
assistance provided under state small business assistance
programs (SBAPs) required under Section 507 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). 1 This policy responds to state and regional requests for
uidance as to what incentives are appropriate to encourage small
businesses to seek SBAP assistance. It will allow EPA regions to
determine whether SBAPs are administered so as to ensure that
states have the enforcement authority necessary for approval of
their state implementation plans (SIPS).
The policy applies to information obtained by state agencies
administering Section 507 SBAPs, including agencies that ‘also’
manage permitting and enforcement programs. The policy sets
forth two general options designed to encourage small business
participation in SBAPs. 1n summary, this policy updates and
amends earlier EPA Section 507 guidance and endorses state SBAPs
that either (1) give small businesses that voluntarily seek
compliance assistance a limited period to correct violations
observed or revealed as a result of compli nce assistance or, (2)
if the SBAP is independent of the delegated state air enforcement
program, keep confidential information that identifies the names
and locations of specific small businesses with violations
revealed through compliance assistance. These two options are
1 For present purposes, this policy applies only to
violations of the Clean A-jr Act that are detected through SBAP
compliance assistance. The Agency will clarify the application
of this policy to violations in other media as soon as is
practicable.
1 X r Recycled’Recyclibt.
Piwnid will Soy Cirda N i on p sr th
JC 7 onMilli g i• 5 % ricydid f iI
-------
2
set forth in detail below.
In developing these alternatives, EPA balanced three primary
considerations. First, the Agency is seeking to provide the
states with ample opportunity to adopt innovative approaches to
compliance within federal guidelines. Thus, the policy options
set forth below, should be regarded as outer limits, within which
states have flexibility to tailor SBAPs suited to state needs.
For example, states that exercise enforcement discretion on a
case-by-case basis to determine the appropriate response to
violations detected through SBAP compliance assistance meet the
general criteria set forth in this policy. In addition, EPA’S
RGuidelines for Implementation of Section 507 of the 1990
Amendments” specifically encourage SBAPS to leverage the efforts
of existing technical assistance providers, which have had a
long-standing practice of offering their services confidentially
to industry. Thus, this policy preserves the states’ option to
continue to maintain confidentiality in their SBAPs.
Second, EPA recognizes that participation in SBAPs is
typically voluntary. Assistance is provided only upon request,
and therefore the programs will succeed in promoting compliance
only if assistance services are sought on a widespread basis.
Thus, the Agency is seeking to give the states the ability to
provide incentives that will encourage small businesses to
participate in SBAPs.,,
Third, the CAA requires the stateto have authority to take
appropriate enforcement action with respect to’CAA violations.
Thus, EPA has an obligation to ensure that state SEAPs are
structured so as to maintain an appropriate level of enforcement
authority within delegated state programs. The Agency believes
the options set forth in this policy will allow states sufficient
latitude to use an appropriate combination of delegated state
enforcement authority and compliance assistance. activity to
improve compliance in the small business community.
Correction period option
This policy option allows states to give small businesses up
to 90 days either to correct, orto take substantial steps to
correct (e.g. apply for necessary permits, secure financing,
order equipment) violations discovered during compliance
assistance. For violations that cannot be corrected Within 90
days of detection, the correction period may be extended up to an
additional 90 days in..a written agreement that establishes a
compliance schedule. 2 To ensure that SBAPs do not provide an
2 Obviously, states may not offer a correction period for
violations of CAA provisions for which EPA has not delegated
enforcement authority to the state.
-------
3
unintended shield, the following conditions must apply:
1. During the correction period, the state may commit to forego
all enforcement responses, including notices, of violation
(NOVs) and civil penalties, for violations that are observed
by or revealed to the state as a result of compliance -
assistance provided in accordance with this policy.
However, the state shall not agree to forego during the
correction period 1) criminal actions, 2) actions to enjoin
imminent and Substantial endangerment to huma n health or the
environment or 3) actions to address recurrences of
violations for which a prior enforcement response had been
taken. The correction period shall be sufficient f or the
source to correct, or to take substantial steps to correct
(e.g. apply for necessary permits, secur.e financing, order
equipment) the violation, but is not to exceed 90 days
following detection. For violations that cannot be
corrected within 90 days, states may, extend the correction
period for an additional period not to exceed 90 days, so
long as the state enters into a written agreement with the,
sOurce that sets forth the additional correction, period and
any additional steps to be undertaken by the source to
achieve compliance. The requirements of the correction
period should be made ,clear to the source prior to offering
compliance assistance.
2. Although the state may agree, except as provided in
paragraph (1) above, that no enforcement action will be
taken for violations that are revealed or observed through
compliance assistance and corrected within the correction
period, the state shall not give guarantees that the
information obtained or revealed through compliance
assistance will be kept confidential. However, this policy
option does not require SBAPs to provide to EPA information
that identifies the names or locations of specific
businesses that are found to be in violation through
compliance assistance. In general, EPA will look to SBAP5
primarily for information that shows whether SBAPs are
successful in promoting compliance or that generally
identifies business sectors with chronic compliance
problems. Further, this policy does not affect existing
• Agency policy or regulations regarding treatment of
confidential business information.
Mea v’
3. Violations detected through state enforc ent inspections
shall remain fully enforceable b th ate, unless the
violation was also previously obs d r revealed through
voluntary compliance assistance and the source has made a
commitment to come into compliance during a correction
period. States must reserve their discretion to conduct
scheduled enforcement inspections at all times, including
during the coi rection period. •
-------
4
4. Upon expiration of the correction period, the small business
shall be subject to all applicable enforcement response
policies (which may include discretion whether or not to
take- formal enforcement action) with respect to all
violations that had been revealed through compliance
assistance and were not corrected within the correction
period. 3 The penalty in any such action may be calculated
to include the correction period. This policy does not
limit the states’ discretion to use information on
violations observed or revealed through compliance
assistance as evidence in subsequent enforcement actions,
for example to show prior or repeated violations.
5. The state’s actions in providing compliance assistance shall
not be a legal defense in any enforcement action. However,
a source’s good faith efforts to correct violations detected
during’compliance assistance may be considered as a
mitigating factor in determining an appropriate enforcement
response or penalty in subsequent enforcement actions.
6. Section 507 makes clear that SBAPs are intended primarily to
benefit small businesses that do not have the technical or
financial àapabilities to meet environmental requirements
without SBAP assistance. Thus, SBAPs shall state explicitly
that the program is subject to the eligibility requirements
set forth in Section 507(c). These requirements include the
requirement that only, sources that are non-major for all a-jr
programs are eligible, except as provided under Section
507(c)(2). Small businesses excluded by states or the
Administrator under Section 507(c) (3) (A) or (B) shall be
ineligible for, applicaeion of this policy option. In
addition, if a source is already the subject of a pending
NOV or enforcement action, the cOrrection perind option
cannot be applied to. the violations involved in the
enforcement action. Moreover, the states should re’tain
their discretion to deny compliance assistance on a case-by-
case basis, for example if a facility is already scheduled
for an enforcement inspection or has a history of non-
compliance. For sources that are ineligible for SBAP
assistance, and therefore this policy option, the applicable
enforcement response policies ( zhich may include discretion
as to whether or not to take enforcement action) apply.
7. Small businesses shall be eligible only once for an on—site
- This policy does not require, or even propose, that state
SBAPs, as opposed to separate agencies or offices, have
regulatory enforcement authority. Moreover, this policy gives
SBAPs considerable flexibility as to how to interact with state
regulatory enforcement programs under the correction period -
option’. ‘
-------
5
compliance audit or similar on-site assistance resulting in
a correction period as described above, unless a request is
made for such an audit or assistance in order to comply with
requirements that did not exist when prior compliance
assistance was requested and provided. For on-site
compliance assistance provided in response to a second or
subsequent request, correction periods shall be granted only
for violations of new requirements. -
8. States following this policy shall include and implement
plans for conducting follow-up inspections or audits, or
other activities sufficient to verify and track compliance.
Under this option, exposing uncorrected violations to the
possibility of an enforcement response, including penalty
assessment, after the correction period has expired is essential
if we are to make substantial gains in compliance through these
small business assistance programs.
This policy option has several important advantages over
other options we have considered. First, it offers certainty, in
that a small business requesting and receiving compliance
assistance will know that no state enforcement will result for
violations that are identified and corrected within the
correction period. We expectthis degree of certainty to ensure
greater participation in SBAPs, especially if SBAPs give official
recognition to businesses that have participated successfully in
SBAPs. Second, the policy will allow greater openness between
SBAPs and specific facilities, the small business community in
general, and other state officials. It will promote the sharing-
of information on pollution prevention measures, cost effective
means of compliance and other valuable compliance-related
activities with and among the regulated community. In addition,
the policy will make it easier for states to use facility—wide or
industry—wide information obtained through compliance assistance
programs to address chronic violations with an appropriate
balance of targeted compliance assistance and enforcement
strategies.
Confidentiality option
This policy option applies only to SBAP5 that are operated
strictly independently from the state’s delegated regulatory
enforcement program. The requirement for independence is met if
either (1) the SBAP is not operated out of the state air
pollution control agency (as defined in CAA Section 302) or (2) a
regulation, official policy; memorandum of understanding or other
official document establishes independence between the SB.AP and
the enforcement program. Under this option, SBAPs may keep
-------
6
confidential 4 information regarding violations detected through
SBAP compliance assistance, including the names and locations of
the small businesses. However, to ensure that deterrence
continues to operate as an incentive to participation in SBAPs,
the following conditions apply to this option:
1. Although SBAPs choosing this option may keep confidential
information that identifies specific small businesses as
having violations, the SBAP shall make general statistical
and other information regarding violations detected through
compliance assistance available to the state regulatory
enforcement program. This information should be sufficient
to assist the enforcement program in developing targeted
enforcement strategies, as well as to complement compliance
assistance activities.
2. State regulatory enforcement programs in states selecting
this option shall retain their full discretion to take
enforcement action against small businesses who receive SBAP
assistance. However, the enforcement program may consider
good faith efforts to achieve compliance through
participation in the SBAP in determining the appropriate
enforcement response in spécif Ic cases.
3. Conditions 5, 6, and 8 applicable to the correction period
option apply also to the confidentiality option.
These policy options do not limit EPA’s or citizens’
existing authority to conduct inspections or take enforcement
action. However, EPA is committed to helping SBAPS succeed.
Thus, in taking enforcement actiOn against a specific source, EPA
will not routinely seek information obtained from or revealed by
the source during on-site compliance assistance provided by state
SBAPs. In addition, EPA will give considerable weight to a
source’s participation in a SBAP and good faith commitment to
achieving compliance in determining an appropriate enforcement
response. In general, many of the small businesses who will be
eligible for SBAP compliance assistance are rarely or never
subject to federal inspections for provisions of the CAA for
which the state has received a delegation, and therefore EPA does
not expect much overlap between federal enforcement programs and
SBAPs. Indeed, EPA expects.that by working in accordance with
this policy, SBAPs wi]]. increase compliance in the small business
State freedom of information laws may place limits on the
degree of confidentiality that can be given to information. This
policy option is intended primarily to allow states to keep
information known to the SBAP confidential from the state
enforcement program. -
-------
7
community without affecting the exposure of small businesses to
federal enforcement.
cc: Director, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization
Small Business and Asbestos Ombudsman
-------
SUNRARY OF EPA’S CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 507’ENFORCENENT POLICY
This summary’ outlines EPA’s Enforcement Response Policy
(ERP) for Section 507 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The new policy
is designed to encourage small businesses to call on state Small
Business Assistance Programs (SBAPs) established under Section
507 to find practical ways to comply with the Act. EPA expects
the new policy to usher in a new era of trust between small
businesses and government agencies and to change tI e way small
businesses view environmental requirements. The re ult will be
more compliance and cleaner air for the public.
The policy provides states’with two options for providing
compliance assistance as required by Section 507. It offers
states the flexibility to use innovative approaches for providing
compliance assistance to small businesses, while at the same time
enabling states to continue to use enforcement actions to ensure
strict compliance with the CAA. However, the new policy does not
weaken clean air standards.: under either option, all small
businesses are unconditionally responsible for full compliance
with the applicable requirements of the.CAA.
This policy responds to many state and regional requests for
guidance as to what incentives would be appropriate to offer,
small businesses to encourage participation in SBAPs. States
were concerned that many small businesses would not seek
compliance assistance from the- government if violations
identified during compliance assistance resulted in enforcement
actions. The Regions were concerned about whether they could
approve SIPs if a SBAP provided confidentiality for small
businesses receiving compliance assistance,- or allowed sources
the opportunity to correct violations discovered during
compliance assistance before an enforcement action would be
taken. -
‘This policy responds to these concerns by offering SBAPs the
option to choose one of two choices: -
1. SBAPs may allow small businesses that receive compliance
assistance up to 90 days, with the possibility of an
additional 90-day extension, to correct any violatioms
discovered under the SBAP program. Any violations remaining
at the end of that period are subject to existing
enforcement response policies, which may include discretion
not to take enforcement action in appropriate cases. To
ensure that the state has the ability to take enforcement
actions for any violations that remain uncorrected, SBAPs
offering the correction period can not give guarantees that
they will keep information on violations confidential.
2. SBAPs may guarantee that information identifying specific
small businesses that have violations detected through
compliance assistance will be kept confidential, subject to
two important limitations. First, the state must retain the
-------
2
ability to investigate and/or take enforcement action at any
time for any violation discovered independently from the
Section 507 program. Second, confidential compliance
assistance can only be offered through SBAPs that operate
independently of the state’s delegated regulatory
enforcement program.
The policy sets forth these, options, including additional
conditions, in more detail. In developing these options, EPA had
to balance several considerations. First, the Agency wanted to
provide states with the flexibility to use innovative approaches
for providing compliance assistance to small businesses. Thus,
the states may experiment with a wide range of options, as long
as they do not adopt approaches that are more lenient than the
options set forth in this policy.
Second, the Agency recognizes that compliance assistance is
generally sought voluntarily and SBAP5 will not be successful
unless small businesses are willing to use the services that are
offered. Providing a limited grace period, one of the two
options to address this concern, is EPA’S preferred incentive for
participation.
Finally, states have an obligation under the Clean Air Act
to enforce against violations. The policy maintains state
authority to use an appropriate combination of enforcement and
compliance assistance activities to best achieve compliance in
the small business community.
The policy takes into account that small businesses have a
special need for help to comply with environmental laws because
they generally lack the resources ‘available to larger companies.
Thus, the policy requires states to limit application of the
policy to small businesses that meet the eligibility requirements
in Section 507.
The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance contacts
regarding this policy are Geoff Garver, at (202) 260—3914, and
Lynn Vendinello, at (202) 260—2842.
-------
I
Federal Register / Vol. : 59 Nó.. 160 1. Frjday.4ugust iL 1994’fKuIesank ’Reguktlons ; 42i59 ;
r :—rtt :: : - : - - — - - — - < — —• --— — -- -.. -
Snail Entities .. . - -: (2)he captalnof the Port relevant to his actior areavai1abIe’fot
Because it expects the impact of uuit authorlze and designate any Coast p ublic inspection during normal t,
-ide to be so minimal, the coast wJ Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty. business hours at the following
edifies under 5 u.s.c 605(b) that This OffiCer to act on his behalfin enforcing ., locations. The Interested persons.j;j. :
n i le will not have significant impact this safety zone, - - - -. . :‘ ‘ 8 to examine these documentC
on a substantial number of small “- (3)The Marine Safety Office should make an appointn Bntwith the 2
entities. - - Wilmington will notify the maritime appropriate office at least 24 hours
- - - communltyofperiodsduringwhlchthis beforethevisitingday.; , -.-;.‘t ;;
Environmental Assessment safety zone will bejn effect by ‘- - - u. s. EnVIXOWueDW A eiw,r::.
The Coast Guard has considered providing advance notice of scheduled• RegIonS, Air Programs Branch .(6T,APLtt -.
environmental Impact of this rule - amyals and departures of loaded . .. : - .- ws Rosa Avenues Suite lOo,.Dallas, Tens
cons1st nt with section 2.B.2.c of . L hazardous materials veáels via txnar!nq 75202-2733. - . . c
Coinilsandant Instruct ion M16475.1B broadcast Notice to Mariners • -,. 9O a tafoimation
(National Environmental Protection . (c) Regulati on. The general “;. 7 ’ tLS. e o ct4pn -
Act), and attions toprotect the public reg i1atIons governing safety one r. : .
safety have been determined to be - - - . - contained In S 165.23 appIy ,.. - , Texas Naturol Resouros Co i l atIon ” ’ ‘ 1
categorically excluded from further ; -- Dated: August 5, 1994 ’ - ‘ . - : \, . - CommisalolL Office of Air salfty, l2l2& -
environmental documentation. e. TI.. pj .‘ - Park 35 Circle, Austin; Texas 75753.’ i. C
- Federalism - , ‘-. . - ‘ Cotain. UI Coast Guard, ‘ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACt Dr
- - . . - -. r- Pod Wihnlngton.NC • -. , . -. John Crocker, P.E., Planning SectfiuiI’. - -.
This action has been inalyied fri . . r (FR Dec. 94-20190 FIled 8-18-94; t45 am! (6T-AP), Air Programs Branchb U.S.
accordance with the principles and -. .. 1 .n.-t . : . Envjronmental Protection Agency
criteria contained in Executive Order. . .-... t) c” ;-n “ - ‘ RegIon 6,1445 RoIS Avenue, Dallas4b4c
iZ612 ,andIthasbeendetermInedthat Texaa7SZ0t-’Z733,elephkini(2j4) i&! jc
this rule will not have sufficient - EVIROIIMENTAL PROTECTION “ - - 665-7506,
federalism swjllcedons to warrant.. . AGENCY fl3J- Q,:s SUPPLTARViiSRMATlONv U
preparation aww aw.Assessment,- 1 . c ’t - -: . c ic - ,cr.r 1 j 1 si xn
List ofSubjectsln33 CFRPart 165 - - 40-CFR Part z; ia’.. . . tBackground -.. ,.
Harbors, Marine safety. Navigation - 1 C th tttedln ( 9 9O wi l l : ,e
me s Iues Clean Air Act Approval aria - — ‘r zeq 4rq r,g!4a00n of aM i ty ra il r?
... .J. - - . ; -.1: Promulgat Ion otTr.le v,sectIon 5oY-’ . businesses so,that areas may:attaln andz
a nays. .. - - Small 8u&raiStal lonaySource a. maintain the National ambienteir ‘ ‘ s
eguIaU e a - . -: - ; r Technical fl 4 pj t4 :.:..,,) S quality standards (NAAQS) andreduce
h i t constderitloii of the foregoing. Fart CMPIIaSIC. AsS race ! mw!m for . -- the m1sslons of akw*sJmalls’ ;.. 2 a.
L a s ofTitle33,CodeofF’ederal - • - .. . ,- :r :-s ,c.. ::.:.c - ’-. ;-t. - businesses frequently lack ihatechnical.. .
n ra .• . .-. . - .;.. ..•1 . -- -. expertise end financial iesourcee 4’ ;..}.;
ons, emen 55 ansOWt - AGENCY: Environmenta Protection .,,- -- n ssa4w evaluate such ngülaftoni--.n
PART 1Sc fAMENDEDl Agency (EPA) - r.. and to detmlneth appropflats%fj1rC
- - - ACTiON: Direct n le -‘-- ‘ mechafll5ms for compliance. In:’ J-:&-S
l.Theauthorltytltat lonfor part l f i5 - . - - . .. . anticipatio&ofthelmpactoftheeec-. C
cont1 ues to readss followt7 SUMMARY: fle EPA (a aç ovins the :: ‘- requirements og pinali businesses, the ; -
Autherltyi33 USC 1231:50 usc - - State Implementation P - (SW) .- - CA&requlretth!t States adopt a 5malI - .
33 cn LO S-i® , 6.04-1,6.04-6, and 160.5; . rT 0 owauwtwuy LU CWW Ot en5 Business.Statlonary Source TecJinial.. -
d Cit 146. - - - — iur we purpose o g a-awau ‘ andtvlronmontal Coin banS -
2.Anewsec lloa l o5. S3 o lsadded.to - ‘Iie gram(PROGRAht)’and
read as follnst. - . - r PROGRAM as a’revislon to
- - - . - - - - - - - Assistance Program. ThwSWirevislon. the kóderaliy approved SIP In addition - ,
j16t530 was subinfttedby the Statetosatisfy the - S lmcbthAt $ 5
Northeast e Fear flints, NC. - - ; Federal mandate , found In the Clean Ak these smell business aslstancr
(a) Locct ion. The following area isa Ad(CAA), to ensure that sInSil - - programs and report to Congresè on --
- moving safety zone during the lflad’: bu messes have acc s t the technlca4 . . lmpiemerflion. f l . requirements - -.
condiliont Thewaters of the Cape Pea? : i ‘ !P ! or1?!!0n -- for estabbithing a PROGRAM NOeL OUtt:
and Northeast Cape PeaiRlvers oo’ r’;necessaryto comply IViffi the 7 in s ctldn 507 of Utte V of the CA fin
• yards ahead and aitein, andfl . -rationaJe for the approval February 199 ,th EPA issued: z :
abeani of a vessel côrying .tai uI - this document; aucutlonal i!formatlon lS• “ ildeliles for the Impieznentátlonot. -
materials when desi iatM by the - c- -- available at the a44 ss thd ated beI ny. secti 1 so S the 1990 ClesaAlIAct --
Captain of the Poet Wilminjon. Nàrth ’ DATES ThIS action Will bbcoüie effectIt - b dm ”, In order, to delmneati thi t -
Carolina ‘on October iS, 1994, unless adverse OT. Federal end State roles in meetligthe
e c s mfo ubzi. (1) rhe . - - critical commenti ate received by - .: - new statutory okovlslons and as a tool- -
Captain of the Port ilid the D,uty Offiáii - September 19,1994. If the effective date to provide furt’i er 1 guldance to the States
atthdMadneSafefflceWilththgtóah.bdek) d. .tiP1elYn0reWillbe . ‘ onsubmithnjacceptablaSlPrevtsl 6 ni
North Carolina, can be ccintacted at - published In the Federatitegister - The State of Texas subrngted a.SIP-
telephone uml er (910) 343-4895. The;-’ ‘ADDRESSES Writtd&c uite’ts on th1s -revision to thq P4 lnprder-to aitlsW? r :,
Coast Guard Patrol Commander::: • action should be à&liessed to Mr.. L. -. the requlrementä of section 507-in order--
)rclng the — zonecanbe,. : - ‘.-. ;ThbSas pftsj , Jei16T-A P). l lanrilnt to gain fill appràvaL the State submiflaL-
tactedon VHF-FM channels 16 and Section . at lhe EPA Regional Office .- — m%4 provide fgr eack of the £otlèwlng -
- - ‘-. ,llstçdbetoiiQ Coplesotjhedocupien s.-jbreePRQgMMçlementbr . ‘-C - -
-------
42760 . -. edera1 Register . / Vok-59; Nci:-i60T
( I) The establishment of a Small November 13, 1992-(recelved Novemb er - ’ ( III) Facilitatiiiflnd pt
Busthess Aiste ragman JSBAP) to 16,1992) as a revision to the Texai SiP. tearly’particijiflon of smali Wsinoseisc
provide technical azkd compliance - - It was initially reviewed for :’ in the development of niw oñno4ifled
assistance to small businesses; completeness and was detetined regulations and policies thatfrmpact - ;
(2) The establishment of a State Small complete on Januaiy 5, 1993. The small businessesi -
Business Ombudsman to represent the submittal was then reviewed for - (iv) Assisting i n arovldthg to other—’
interests of small businesses in the - ‘approvability by the EPA Region 6 and - State and local authorities, associations
regulatory process; and - EPA Headquarters. - . educational Institutions, environmental
13)ThecreationofaCompli6nce OnSeptember1, 1993,theTACB ‘-_ voups,andthe#n ,ralpubllF - ’ ;
Advisory Panel (CAP) to determine and merg d with the Tóxas Water - f. a Information regardi ng U i! aj ll$bilit 1
report on the overall effeëtiveness of the- Q ,mm4c ion to form the mRctüid j 5 - - of the requiremeriti of the CAA toEnail’
SBAP. - ‘- ‘ now called the Office of Air qualit r.:. businesses; - r-
The Region used section 507 of the — within the TNRCC. The merger did not - Lv) Actively promoting and assisting -
CAA whenreviewing the State - ab ° te void ónescind in the dissemination of information (i.e.
submlttalfo approvability.ti SW Jtiiu 5 o e pinnis’aoi- - upcoiningregula Uons ,conS .-
revision, discussedi&4etail in the — other actiol nrsviously takeijbv tle’ - technologies, etC.) to mail busins
TecbnlcalSupportDocunient,ltbriefly - t.. - -. 4. - and otherlnterested$rtles; ?‘ T -
ouJJinedbeloW -. - - ‘ - - (vi PartIcipaUnglnandaponsorlng
r ,-. B PJanReqwrements ,r .—rI3 j- meedngsandconferenceswlthStafet-
tflJIdJj5t5 - — - ‘ 1 Small Busniess Assistance ‘ local air pollution control authodUes
A 4 Procedural Background r - ?tr -t lndustrygroups, 1 ndAmAl lbuslrMsit’
r t m U -- .a it ta. , TheflMPROGRAMelsmmttlsthe ; representatlvesc :‘- c- - --c
a O Slexas Os establishment of a SAP tdprovldw L - - jvll) Peilodlcally surveying ca n!E
requirements sectIon 507 uy$ -- technical and compliance assistaice t -businesiliand $11 customers of the’;.
submitting a SIP revision that n businesses. —‘r at.at asr& ct .“ SAP to determine If tbework and -
Implements all required PROCacaivi The state has i et the flSPROCRAM . esMSlftovldedbt the 58SF to&di
esements. n Texas aean ins iwt - - - - mm dli ‘
(‘rotA), TEXAS HEALTh j% J ) - element by committing In Its narrative acewscuOfl5nu u.asu 5Ø
o A fl ’ fl%flfl Skit? It ? nnar - w savssaOfl, un r sw a..non s.n.c.Cp,-’ . - SO equa ‘
I 0 entitled ‘EsëablIshment ofa small -.- jviil)Operatingatelephonebotllneto
Jzir&- Business Asaistase PrograthtS Al)”, - r provldd*nicalandcomplianbflel 1
flCOWWMWA rr ” ( - to-establish a SAP in the TACS, . — on Individual oorce problèmkC Tf
effecdnSeptamberl99tpmwd&t toestabliththlsPRCRAMejemenv,?
nnnrn?se ,oms ‘ s ,- r - §382.0365(a)ahd(b)äftheTCAAwere rcommtinltYwheretheymayobta1nP t
.. eisacted and provide the Wga1’authoñt . tinformafion and assistance on affordabls
ll rM i . -. .‘ - requiring for establishment of thq SAP, alto ve ethnologles, proceS —
___ . , - - ‘ - ; - : withresponsibilltlesconslstentwlththe th es,FuctLandoperatlOnal
estaousnmg cue annr 5 uuues thu - . - k...A . k.I .aA a I - .
‘ -Sill as -ro -. - - six requirements in title V of the Federal, muw o... .p AU%AIAW CSS po U on
- res ussswwues, aea.u a tt! 4 -- CAA. The SOAP *111 provf& Sffideni i: and accidental ret ases e
om uusman, aeatln8as.nr, -rs - - iervlces to small businesses through the (x) A ir iging for and assisting In the
eswun s mem a p Os w tuir, -- deve)nnment collection - - preparation of guideline documents to -
and establishing CAP duties. In . - , - - ensure that the technical and& .ztsi;u; ’C
a on, r ass in I L I) - . compliance Information Is available and -
au onty necessary o p omen t ue - - is readily understandable by the: ‘;
conrroi a me ‘IZcIUW - f ia.aLe a-9avnerson; ‘ - - - -- • - :-- : -
i i - L ak C’ A A . 3 at. rn a thu pvmwn iaaucucs; ts, ins nxjna sun -
compasace wiLls UZU nn anu use n m - it L. - - - . - -J (xi) Working with trade associations’-’ - ;
• 2 i , - s t - Ous%nuOIlS , sses .nsuer - - -
requasments usa we provs sons Os •5, rs £ - 1st is - ,.ai.aA a - - -and small businesses to bring about - - -
- the TCAA, fi 82.0365ffl and 382.017. law ; ag la1 rs rruut n voluntarS , compliàzS with regulatióni
The Texas Small Business Ombudsmai, - at ptause controt tn swosogies, t’ i - under the TCAA and the CA.A;: - ‘ - c-
Small Business Advocate’s Office, is - p iffoui preventionessuacciussitat. - - (xii) lnteftaclng with reglonalind - 4 ’
located at the central offices of the’ on - - State offices of the Small Business -
Texas Natural Resource Conservation 5j jrograms -,- - - - A ±SSUon; Department of -a’- . ,
Commission (TNRCC), Office of Air - - presen .s e n r a Stsiaps’as - - - Commerce, end/or other State and - :
Quality, {fornierly the Texas Air Control oti p ? n eat an use etate - Federal agencies jhat-may hai e ---- - , ..
Board (TACO)], In ‘Austin, Texas. - . - , suunhitiaa.j - • ,, -, to finer *‘ásist smalfl
- The State conducted public hearings -: . me Te?cas SBA? Is c with - businesses in need of funds to compl L: -
on September 2,3,8,9, and 10, 1992,- the following duties: — - : - - - with environmental egulations and . -
to consider publià comments on the (i) Conducting independent . - , - - develop information so that ‘It Is Madily
proposed PROCRAJUL which will amend evaluations of all aspects of the SBAP to - available to the small business - ‘ -
the Texas SIP to add a revision entltle& determine program effectiveness-and community; ‘, - ‘ : : -
“Revisions to the State Implementitlon --continuously improving the progra -‘ -‘ (xiii) Interfacing with private sector -
Plan for the Small Business Stationary. design; - - ;‘, - - - - financial institutions to assist smell’
SouSTechnicil and Environmental - (ii) Reviewing and providing ‘ - — businesses in locating-sources of funds
Compliance Assistance Program, Texas comments and recommenditlons to the to comply with State/local air pollution
Air Control Board’VTh proposed SIP - Ombudsman’s Office the CAP, EPA, the controLrequlrements; and ---‘ ‘ -
revision was formally adopted: - State, and the local airpollution control (xiv) Conducting studies to evaluate
Novembei 6,1992, by the TACO. The - authorities regarding the developthent - - the impacts of the TCAA and the CAA
Texas PROGRAM was submitted to the and Implementation of regulations that - on the State’s economy,- local -
EPA by the Governor of Texas on impact small businesses; ‘- -- economies, and small businesses, and
-------
- . • ed ral R sto Y 9Zs 6O j4g Th l i n i; :
rob
the Ombudsman ’s Office.. Additlonab-- dlreâtorles that ndudeFsiiOrel Statê-
•details of the Texas SBAP are presented and privata enviromnental hoVlinesánd
‘below. - - - •. •. - technol nters. The eLectronIc . ‘ prodtuts,
b. Seétlon 507(a) sets forth six ;.. bulletin board.wlli lso providat -.--- help reduce sI poUuilouTeéhidcal - •
requ1rements that the. State must meet . mer 4 i nb m that allows users to e iluate p&sofinel from tho TACBi ill bó ’ .
to l ave an approvable SBAP. The firat.: thesyatem and provide anonymous:.i - available to prdvf pettlnènt
re uiren ent is to establid L adequata ., comments on the program and’-; .c; -. Information from the regional o1fice or
i ièdinn1cms for deve1opIn .col cting lnfonnatiçn provlde4 th user can -.-- .- .• from the Austin office Circunistaficeó .
and coordinating lnfomiation .- -- - . . - tn ik lious Applicatlan-forins, - dktatè then
concerning èompliánce i*othods and-; 1 tione, broth d ther - required OceduIO tO be followed b*
technologies for small business . .. . v. . technical and oemplianr*tnfonnafion ;, the small’husiness 4iouary ources..
.stationaiy sources, and programs to: .. can be requested through theeLedienic. Me I ini ni to provide assistii co ‘ lviii :
encourage Lawful coopemtloaamong -. bul1elIn pard. Up-to-date State and ‘ Include the following:.
such sources and other persons to Federal zegulatlons for .IFmediaw1ll be - (r Nhe SBAP will ceordlnate ‘-
further compilante with the Mt.. available with search apabIIiLy for -. . ‘.. Information relating to pollution .
The State has met this requirement ; wan by.q t2t4fi d m II . -Pza!entlonaud ta*set$
The SBAP will provide a system for ‘ - businesses. The eledronic bulletin.. ‘ prevenbon an4 detedica with all--.., /
developing; - - - board Is available la computer modem Federal, State, and local agencies with
lnforn tIor . .• -
nd echn an ’d
experts ln’dlfferent areas i tlLpiovldö . wlthih
delinitive guidance Infothiatlon. ‘ (SI The
TheSBKPwilljndude’H: -
tathfll a}end4 ’ñp 11 a à In t1oit ’ Oxen
to small b i 1OSBAP l1áct .
- - ‘
( , nnounc neiits1q...
mass ledla methods
flwStste has
a toll-free telephone b.etUnaió
o InquIres from ni .H bus4
. erv1ces provlded.W ____
nubIId 4thzoughaneIectroeic.r - .- i fl ax 54flfl r .1 -: jfl
Iiilletln board, aseodaflon newsletters,, (F) 4t0h14r0e hot 11D to - and In 1
indu$ry groups, trade associations, and. - tel and p 1 cmat1cn .. in 81
community . g hthaSBA!.:
component& A proactive
and a reactive component .-‘. -
proact1 ecom o!1entlnvc
communIcation w1th .and .•
oujreacb. to sthall busInesses 1i r : - $
u derihqtAA .The,. ff
Involves the estabi ale - - :-‘: -
- h contacts. All Information. ..-•.
Inquliles h orn small - .• .!:S AP.WilLl* available*brough t e -
“méthods for ai1e” ’ - - ghouse, as well Many. . . .- :- -
co ’i cwlthalrjolluio Jn rof” “app opnaterefarencejnatadaIsneeded. - - tiori ç
th tocomp -.‘ .. me iods , .. 4- ’
requuementsundereCAA.Amore . •, Ill ctO *flIbov ldeci ’ .
elements follows. -‘ - establish ato Isms for tiithth g on h w to educate small..
• (ii) Ini ,nnatlon dis mIn ”t lon - .ass lst lng bn mes stationary :— businass owners on condw5tlngsetf-•
methodsavatofi d nall souñ éiwlthpo1luUänpieventlonand - inspe nsand understand1ngthe’
businesses are as follows- - .. . accidental release detection and -; - compliance requirements they must - -
(A) An eleclronlclulletln board will .: ‘, meet; and ,. - -
be available 24 hours a day sevefr days. Information concerning alte ve (III) Whenever a new policy or rule Is
a week to provide guidance óñ. technolog*es . process changes. product will
applicable riles azut reguiauonsa- and methods-of operation that help- -’ - conducted to inform and educate the
czi!endar of events a I rn..bf ublld- ‘ uce air polluUon.. . -; specific small business comm iñit on-;.
-. - - . . ..Y. ..• :.. . .The State’has mat thIs-requlrament. - .- appropriate coinpilande hod .aiUi--
‘fli SBAI’willassistsmalibuslness . proce re ”:. - ‘ . ..
u ment ano anorace : . - - ‘ stationary-sources on methi sds of ‘ - e.’The fodrth requiremont Is th’
us ed In t t i n. -. - - . . pollution prevention anaaocldental- - .develop adequate mech 1sms to assure
also Lvatiable &pOd
-------
42762: Feder Re ster: :Vol 59, ‘ u f1gi g9i f-Rule dRuIa yà ’*j’ :
that small business thtIanarjsbürce TheS h a ney,iñd lhóiefore canbe iii’ - ’ ’:
receive notice of their rights under the The State will: - Independent advocate for small
Act in such manner and form as to: .- - (i) Provide a system for collecting and businesses. The office Is lôcateà at the
assure reasonably adequate time for - coordinating Informationoil compliance central offices of the ThR , bfficeof
such sources to evaluate compliance -: methods and technologies. Data bases Air Quality (previously the TACB) at
meth ds and any relevant or applicable ‘ and experts In different areas\vill ‘ 12124 Park- 35 CIrcle, Austln, ’Texas
proposed or final regulation or - provid definitive guidance -, l 78753. The office ii currently p árt ally ,
standards-issued under the Act. - ‘Information.. ‘ ‘ ‘ - -- “ staffed ánd ’op ratlonal;and bai bèèn ’ ’
The State has met this requirement. (ii) Develop procedures to respond to: since October 1992. TheSmaliBusIkiess
The Statehas committed toprovide reqUeStS from small business stationary Adv cate’s(O nbüdsman’s)Offi&wjll
methods for ziotifying small business .‘ sources for modiflcationofanywork—- - ltimate y bieiafféd *iU ii jositlóns
stationary sources on a timely basis of practice or technical methodsol by mid-1994, end the Office Is
their rights under the c , iluiiin compliance, schedule of milestones for res nsible for administering th .
the following: a r a’ - ., implementing such work practice, or- Ombudsman element of this -
(i) The SBAP will develop a data base methOd of ooinpliaflce preceding any PROGRAM. The TCAA, § 382.0365(b)(3)
that Includes all small business applicable compliance date, based on 9 . provides the legal authority foi.
stationary sources and asscôIatldhs,and- the technological and fil ‘ “ estiblfshment of the Small Busines
will coordinate-with appropriate agency capability of any such i nall bu— - Ombuds*iiaii. The Ombudsman has th
staff to notify affected sources of stationary source No such modification au horlty to request InforniaUon from
potential changes or rules tkat affect 1 may be granted unless It I d in othei tate agencies that assist small
them, . - . . compliance with the appli kt u businesses and ha’s he ability to testify
II F 1 fl thli otifl uIrementsoftheCA4o.’ .r. bef th ‘ latii e ’
emend nsiue L_ fficaflonofw S UU J
timely notIc of small busin - of uractice or technical methods uices i require r
their rights and obligations inder th& -. ‘ financial ‘d ‘ U8I 5t D In air pollution matter& 1 .
- (‘A A • ,‘ - - - J• . •P - .&’. -’ “ 5 ..
anu . -. -‘ technoloelcal capability. ’d c r. r .r a b. The Ombuiimiaas Office.has an - -
(Ill) The SBA! wi ork vlth trade TheS APCOre portion ofthe th .-- adequate staff that includes approprlate
associations, local - PROGRAM will be staffed *ith ii.a personnel toassist ln.allpbaaasof.alr ,.
facthtles; and COflU posilions. Hiring àf all at tio tb’ --pollutlon .oontrçl Specificataffing-plans
establish OflVOflflia it 5l sup jort the T SBAF Will b & ;.are presented In AppendlxCofthe SIP..
bring about completed by mid -1994. Most ofth ‘ - -c.The Ombudsmajz s Office has been-
reguiationsz t6 UbUsfl es -and will be provided adequate fundlhg
participation I will be managed b sbnp ofstàff to maintain the offlce.- - -‘
f.-The h members wlthasai tance n&Iñpütfrom - d The Ombudsman’s Office j (
adequate , - . - - -- - - the Small Business Advo ate’s- charged *Ith the following dutles1 -
snill business s on 9 !oucesof . - (Ombudsman’s) Officer Sdb -, ‘ - (i) Conducting lñdépendeñt -.
their obligations uDder we Act, IA a-c) of the SIP, entitled ‘ “ evaluations of all aspects of the SBAP,
Including me hRn sms for referring such ‘i siãblishment ofáSmalFBüsin ’ - (II) Re wins and ldIna ‘
sources to qualified, auditors or, at the - A •,+ (CD A ni” L.. iL : - - - - - 0 - - . - -
- - - - - si ce £ £U5 UUA u&it& -J ,u & i o comments and recommendations to the
option 04 uLe .,taie, zor rovIuwa auwts - the details of the SBAP; which meet t EPA ,tbeState and the local air
o we operauons oL en sources to - ui inente set forthIn Section ‘ nnflution control a”thoritle - -
‘determine compliance .wl htheAct.. , m .. . i r .. .- - .ii. • -- -• , - — - -
-. - - . , ,, ia,, anu awye. £ wweLwore, the development and. implementation of
- aae ,tat uusme U -. § 382.O365 of the TCAA requires the regulations that Imnact small - - -
Methods that are Identified In paragraph estabhlshnient of the SBAP and requires -. u i l e s• - - - -• - —
hl.B.1.b.(h) above (concerning the first - -. . ‘ -.
requirement) shall be utilized by the - nortlon of tIie PROGRAM in accordance ‘ ‘ - ‘ - • -
State to Inform small business stationary r. - - - - participation of sjnall businesses in the
sources of their obligations under the - ,0m m - - -s - - I I regul u ma
CAA including a program for referrIng en - - - - -. -. -. - impact small businesses; - , - - -
sources to qualified auditors or for the - - 2. Ombudsman :: - - - (iv) Assisting In providing to higher -
State to provide for audits of the - - - The second PROGRAM element Is the authorities and the public Information,
operations of such sources to determine - establishment of’s State Small Business regarding the applicability of the
if they are within the rules of the CAA. - Ombudsman to represent the Interests-of ie f the CAA to small •- -
The audit program will be established - small-businesses in Ihe regzilalor -- - - - bus1ness 5; . -, • -
no later than November 15, 199&—- - process. SectioniO7(a)(3) requires ‘the (v) Aiding in the dissemination of
g. The sixth requirement is to develop désignationofaState office to serve as — information’ (I.e., upcoming regulations, -
procedures for consideration of requests - the Ombudsman for small business control technologies, etc.) to small - - -
from a small business stationary source stationary souices. : - - - - - - - businesses and other interested parties;
for modiflcationof (A) any work - The State has met This requuirement by: (vi) Participating in and sponsoring
practice or technological method of - jilring the Ombudsman on February ‘17, meetings and conferences with State!--
compliance, or(B) the schedule of 1992. The Ombudsmen reports directly’ local air pollution control authorities,
milestones for Implementing such work: to the TNRCC Commissioners “- industry groups, and mfill business
practice or method of compliance -.‘ — (previously tO ‘the TACB) end is not - - representatives; ; ‘ - -
preceding any applicable compliance - - within the chain orcornmand of the’: (vii) Periodically reviewing the work
date, based ori’the technological and State agency itself. Thus, the’: - - ‘ and services provided by the SBAP wit
financial capability of any such small’ Ombudsman is separatefrom the air - trade associations and small business
business stationary source. “- quality regulatory branchof the State -- representatives;
-------
Federal Register - L Vokv5 Nô;46G- / Fdday Aiigüst• 19; -.1994 ‘I - Rules and Re1atiön 42763’
(v i ii) Operating a telephone hot line to--- the èstablishmentof the Ombudsman_— ‘the appointments made by the -. -:. -
provide help on individual source - -. - and requires-the ThRCX to implement Lieutenant Governor and the Speaker bi
roblems and grievanàs; ,: -- - ‘ - .- ‘- this element in accordance with the - the House, since the Lieutenant • ‘ ‘
(ix) Referring small businesses to the CAA and the EPA-requiremefttsf - Governor4s elected State- ’wide,-ind the
appropriate specialists in the;SBAP ‘ 3 Corn liánceAdviso Panel i p p - Speaker is elected by the entire Hotisé. -
where.they-may obtain mformation and-- — - •-- •1”- ‘ ‘ The EPAbelieves that the processfor..
assistance on affordable alternative .•- - The third .PROCRAM elementis the - designation of CAP members by the two
technqlogies. process changes, products,; creation of a CAP to determine and’- - - legislative leaders meets the intent of -.
and. 9peratipnal methods to help reduce- report on t1 e overalleffectivenessofthe. 507(e). ;: - -, : - ‘. -. -
air pollution and accidental releases;. —- SBAP.. Section 507(e) requires the State In addition to establishing the .
(x)Arran Ing for ançl assisting in the to establish a CAPthat must include - - minimum membership of the CAP, the
preparation of guideline documents ’by two members selected by -she Governor AA delineates four responsibilitiestof
the SBAP to ensure that the language is - - who are not owners pr representatives of the Panel: - -
readily understandable by the-, .-. - ; -. owners of mAli busIne ses; four - . - . (1) To render advisory opinions ‘- -:
layperson; - . - . z niembers selected by the State. - - - . concerning the effectiveness’of the - ‘
(xi) Working with tiade associations .- legislature wheare QwUers, or represent- SBAP, difficulties encóunt fed, and tl e
- and small businesses to bring about -. wners , of g,n 1I businesses; and one deg and severity of infàrcemènt -
voluntary inpliance with regulations - member selected by theheadof-the :‘- . actions;’ -, -1::- - . - .
under’the CAA -- -- - : i :--.agency in charge olth Pollu tion (2) To periodically report to the EPA-’
- - (xii) lnterfacinjwithiegional and: ç PermitProgram. - f - ‘concerning thóSBAP’s-adhe ncê to th-
State bfflces of the Small B isiness , t :-. ‘ -The State has met this requirement by jnles of-the Panm ’wnrk Riduction- - -
Administration the Department of . - ::corniñitting toappoint zn embers to the ct,ti vnuai *cces to ust1ce Act -and-
Commerce, and/or other-State and ; .Panelby November 1994. Section-. -. - . - the “a” -Fle,db1i’ ” Actv-. ’ . -
Federalagentlesthatmayhave ( 382 Q36 pfheTC AueatestheState
programs to 8 n*nr’nIly assist ii Compliance AdvlsoryPanel With information for mal1 business. . -‘ •
businesseelnneedOffthldstolcoiflply responslbJlit1esconsL entwith fie . : -
with environmental regulations, - requitementsmtttleVof the Federal und W)lo-awi -. -
-(xiii) Interfacing with private sector — CAA and specifies the panel’s make-up. (4) To develop and disseminate the’
financial institutions to assist small - - - qualifications, and dutie& Adequate - - re ’ rts and a’vlso” o”inlons made-s --
businesses -In locating sources Of funds support sources and sufficient resources • CLAD ‘,.,- — •.,
to comply with State/lôtal-airpollution - to onduct busbiess Will ho provided to - m ‘ni ’
con tthl requI ements ahd “ “ -v the Panel b 3 , the OmbUdsman. Th ‘ (A b e a 4 ” the State
(xiv)ConducUngstudiestoevalimte h:3Th’Qffl ofMrQüality (forii iérly - -, y - ,
‘ 1 re Impacts of-the CAA-on the State’s the TACB),wilI’asslst in-the formalión- ,
onomy, local ecónthiiies;and àll -o z P - :- - - -
dslnessés. Copletof studies will-be- - 5O79f lieCA ”- , 1 .- -
available upon request to the -. y the majority and - -
OmbUdsman’s Office . - of the House and 4 E1i 8 4nht ‘ - -. :- —- :-
- -Thus. it thallbe-the-responsibilit pfr ’;r Senate, I 10 : .- ‘ S ( -
the Small Business Advocate s-Office tO. - ‘the term’” . -l - -
monitor the PROGRAM. The Office . reqdiredby the Sta&i nititution, - - source” source 0 t -- -
shall Texas’ selection complies with section (A) a rson’
(A) Since i ’ebruary 1992, serve as -‘ 507 of the CAA. Texas has abicameral who employs tOO o ,er 1n’:hv ua1s.
ombudsman for smRIl businesses in, - - legislature.-There are constitutional - , ‘B’ a smull busin con r ai
accordance with the Federal mandate of - provisions provld ng for leadership of - definOd In the Small $ isin ssAdt -‘ -:
section 507 of the 1990 CAA; and ; ‘ the Senate and House IntheOffice of - - i - - -
(B) Work with the SBAP to develop.. . the Lieutenant Governor (Próiidént of - - l iOi , onazySqurce.
programs and provide assistance to - e Senate) an in 0 ceo a - - (trnli or more of an” vou lnted - a llutan --
small businesses in all-areas, as - . . ---‘ Speaker of the House. Howeier. there - J’ -, . , - - - -.
necessary.. - - . . . -_ -- .-- arenopositionsintheTexaslegislature. fE)ts1 tn —
- Sufficient resources will be provided; - which equate to majority-and minority i ’ ou p tl n 1jjt - ,-‘
to the State Advocate’s Office to-enable- - leaders, as in the national Congress. In 1ie - - established a -
it to discharge Its responsibilities - accordance with section 507(e) of the - moe he -
- effectively. Provisions havebeen-made -- Federal-CM, § 382.0365(c) of the Texas 7 - - -c--
to provide the Ombudsman witlL direct-’ Health end Safety Code provides for the - - : - - -
:access to the government agencies süd - . compositionofthe.CAP. Pursuant to - .
officials necessary to ensure that the-..t - - -- -382.O365(c), both the Lieutenant-. - ‘ -
concerns of gmjill businesses will-be --- - Gnvepnor and the-Speaker of the House, .
heard. Further; the Ombudsman is .who are the equivalent Texas entities for. Is aescrinea in ute tatè ’s na th,e ü’
vested with sufficient authority to - - pu posesof le Islative selection of CAR ‘revision subséc lon I.A.4. entitled - -
identify and propose solutions to small. members,shall each select tWo’ -: - ‘ SourceElioibtlitu”’ - -- -
business problems as they relate to the - members It-is the EPA’s position that - : “° ‘ ““ - . -- -
implementation of the CAA. The - - - ‘- this appointment medianism complies of the CM’ uire iI( - ‘
narrative SIP revision, subsection - with the-legislative intent—of section c , is repoft an the 4omplidncé of SUAP iih -
- I.A.3.a) entitled PDesignationof a Statç-- --- 507(e). ‘Appendix D of the. SIP revislon these three Federal s* tutes.Howeá. since Stite
: fice to Serve as-ombudsman for-Small-, submittal discusses the State’s .‘ - -. agencies are not requlredto comply with them. EPA
iintsses”, describes the, details of the - rconstitutional/statutory legislative - -. r be PROGR I
t nbudsman.element of theP-ROGRAM. 2 process for all appointment procedures: ad tdth neih1’p Incipteeoftieie Fede i1 --
Section J82.0365 of the TCAA-requires’. Minority leadership is represented-in- -- “statutes. - - ‘ :. ‘‘ -
-------
42764 - - ..Federal &egi er L VoL 59, No . 160 1. Friday 1 ;August 191994 LRules and-Regulations:-
- Th State of Texas has provided for .... the proposed.uzle4please see the-brief - .. -Under section 307ThX1) of the Clean
public noticeind comment ol grants of proposed rule published In this Issue of: Mr Act, petitions for judicial review of
eligibility to sourcesthat do not meet . the Federal Register). The EPA will not this action must be filed in the United
the provisions of sec tions5O7(cX1) (C Institute a second comment period on States Court of Appeals for the
(D). an 4 LE) of the CAA but do not emit this action. Any parties interested In appropriate circuit by October18, 199-f
more than 100 tpy of all regu1ated - commenting an this action should do so Filing a petition for reconsideration by-
pollutants.. - . - - -‘. .. . at this lime. If no such-comments are the Administrator of this final rule does
The State has also provided for - — received, the public Is advised that this - not affect the finally of this avis for the
exclusion from the small business, - . action will be effective October18, -- purposesof judicial review-nor does it
tationary source definitlop, after . - . - gg . - . -...., - . . .- ... . -.- .- extertd the time with in which a petition-
consultation with the EPA and the .. The EPA has reviewed this request for- .for judicial review may be flied, end
Small Business Ai3m n1stratIon . ... revision of the federalIy -approved SIP- ‘-. shall not postpone the effectiveness of
Administrator and after providing - . for conformance with-the provisions of - - such rule or action. This action may not
notice and opportunity for.public. the 1990 Clean Mr Act Amendments - -- be challenged later In proceedings to
bearing, of any category or subca egory enacted-on November 15; 1990. The - - ‘ - enforce its requirements. -(See section
of sources-that the State determines to . - EPA has determined that this astlon- ’- - 307(bUZ). ) -
have sufflc lenttech n ica landflnanc lal. . conforms wlththoeerequIrements __ - . -
capabilities to inset theiequlrei ents of... Nothing ln4his action should be w uuJects in 40 art 52.
the CM .. . - . - - . . .. . -- - -. -c ei as iermiffingor al1owIngor -. Environmental protection, /J
IlL Fleel jij . ..& establt hing a precedent for any future pollution control, ncorporatLon by
- , 2 ” qu etf is1on -inference nallbualnessasslstance
In UriS action, wv- rn iS epprovw - - .—. t_ .___.1_t_ £ .k... cm ii . nTncrem. a . - “.. . . -‘.‘ . - . .. . -
L . a i. .z .J VI LU1AW - , - . - - - —,
iI U __ i onsidèred separately In3Iiht of specific Natsi lncoiporailcnby refereã f the SIP -
cr i. i: tethnf I , economic, aidinvhimnfentaL,e Sir the State of Teise was spprovedby the
factors, and thTeialioitto relevUnt Director of the Pedoral Rs jetsr on JuLy 1, -
Sfl ,.ji&.i p Ce r 1 ——.-— -— 1982. :‘: -
Assistance - StStUtOTY QUU W)jUiultOT7 w wiivutS. -. -• - - - . .- -
The State c bitteda ---- ‘1! :.- - -: - -.
SlPrevlslonfcrestab)lshingeachofihe 5US 00 etseq.IheEPA must - - W.B ti.lhaway, - -
required -. prepare a regulatory flexlbllity’analysls Acting fteg1onaAmlnI*ator(M)
by sectlon-507 of the CAA ’l1reEPAhas pacç,of yprop Pait52diapterLtltle4ooftheCodec
reviewed IWIalOI ) 1b S S W - final rule on small enhilfeS. 5 U S.C603 of Federal Regulations Is amended as
and Isapproilug ftauubmlttedbecauae ; a nd Q4 tYath 1Y . . foiow :- - . i..- -- ‘.
theState’sPI )GRAMieetsthe oertifythattheru lew lflnothkvea, - - -
reF4ulremasits of sectIon 50? -- significant Impact on a substantial - - - - PART 52—(AMENOEDJ - - -
The SiPincludes 8 schedule of . number of imall entities. Small entities - - - -
Implementation, which commltè the Include ntall businesses, am n! not4or . - 1. llie authority citation for part 52
State to ha-va all three principal . - - profit enterprises, and govexnàrent. - continues to road as follows:
- PROGRAM elements fully Implemented entitles with UflsdiCtloD Over - - - -- Authwfty 42 U.S.C 74O1-Th7lq - -
• by November l5 ,’ 1994.S1P sdredñle -populations of less than 50,000. - —- -: -- - - - - - -
- lmplementatlonm llestonesaiebe lng - Bythlsactlon,theEPAlsapprovlng .SubpartSS—TexaS
tracked-and monitored by the Region as - a State program created for the purpose - - 2. Section 52.2270 is amended by
part of the State’s normal PROGRAM of assisting small businesses l ii - wiciinc naraarAnb (c)(85) to read as
review. Qarrently. Texas has partially - complying with existing statutory and fo1lov - - -
staffed and initiated the SBAP, - regulatory requirements. The program -
designated and partially staffed thi - being approved In this action does not §52.2270 - IderitiScatlon of plan. --
State Office toeerve as Small Business impose any new regulatory burden on * a a * * -
Ombu\dsman, and created a CAP (and - small businesses; It is a program under (c) * * * -
appointed five of Its seven members). - which small businesses may elect to - (85) The State is required to - -
The CAP’s Initial meeting will be held take advantage of assistance provided by implement a Small Business Stationary
by November 15, 1991. The State is the State. Therefore, because the EPA’S Source Technical and Environmental
implementing a model program with - approval of this program does not — Compliance Assistance Program
most elements in place well ahead of, Impose any new regulatory. - -- (PROGRAM) as specified In the plan
the EPA deadline of November 15, 1994 requirements on small businesses, I revision submitted by the Governor on
to have a fully operational program. certify that it does not have a significant November13, 1992. ThIs plan - -
The EPA is pu’blishing this action economic Impact on any ainall entities submittal, as adopted by the Texas Air
- without prior proposal because the - - affected. - - -- - - Control Board (TACB) on November 6,
Agency views this as a noncontroversial This action has been da sified as a 1992, was developed in accordance with
amendment and anticipates no adverse Table 2 action by the Regional section 507 of the Clean Air Ad (CM). -
comments. However, EPA has published Mm nistrator under the procedures (i) Incorporation by reference.- - ,
a simultaneous proposed rule in this published in the Federal Register on - (A) Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA),
Federal Register. This direct final action January 19,1989(54 FR 2214—2225), as TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
will be effective October 18, 1994, revised by an October 4, 1993, ANN. (Vernpn 1992), § 382.0365,- “Small
unless adverse or critical comments are memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Business Stationaiy Source Assistance
received by September 19, 1994.!! the Acting Assistant Administrator for Mr Program”, enacted by the Texas 1991 -
EPA receives such comments, this and Radiation. The Office of - legislative session and effective
action will be withdrawn, and all public Management and Budget has exempted September 1,1991. Included in TCAA
comments received will be addressed In this regulatory action from Executive — § 382.0365, are provisions establishin€
a subsequent final rule that is based on Order 12866 review. . small business assistance program
-------
Federal Register / Volt 59. No. 160 / Friday, August 19. 1994 / Rules and’ Regulations 42765
(SI3.\P]. an Ombudsman, and a
Compliance Advisory Panel (CAP):
est iblishang membership of the CAP;
and addressing the responsibilities and
duties of the SBAP. Ombudsman, and
the CAP.
(B) TACB Order No. 92—22, as
adopted by the TACB on November 6.
1992.
(C) Appendix C. “Schedule of
Implementation”. appended to the -
n rrativc SIP Revision entitled,
‘Revisjons to the State Implementation
Plan For the Small Business Stationary
Source Technical and Environmental
Compliance Assistance Program. Texas
‘Air Control Board; November 1992”.
(ii) Additional material.
(A) Narrative SIP Revision entitled.
“Revisions to the State Implementation
Plan for the Small Business Stationary
Source Technical and Environmental
Compliance Assistance Program. Texas
Air Control Board: November1992”.
(0) TACO certification letter dated
November 10. 1992. and signed by
William R Campbell. Executive
Director, TACO.
(C) Legal opinion letter dated October
15, 2992 from Kirk P. Watson.
Chairman. TACB. to Mr. D.J. Wynne, Ill.
Regional Administrator. EPA Region 6.
regarding the composition of Lhe Small
Business Compliance Advisory Panel
for Texas.
§ 52.2307 Small business assistance
program.
The Governor of Texas submitted on
November 13. 1992 a plan revision to
develop and implement a Small
Business Stationary Source Technical
and Environmental Compliance
Assistance Program to meet the
requirements of section 507 of the Clean
Air Act by November 15. 1994. Th plan
commits to pr vide technical and
cumpliance assistance to small
businesses, hire an Ombuclsman to serve
as an independent advocate For small
l)U3 flessC5. and establish a Complian a
Advisory Panel Lo advise the program
and ri port to the EPA on the program’s
t cliveness.
SU .t’MO CODE 55 5G4D-P
40 CFR Part 52
(W 146—01—6590; FRL-6050-3J
Withdrawal ol Approval of
implementation Plan Item; Wisconsin -
• AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
• SUMMARY: The United States
Environmental Protection Agency
withdraws, the conditional approval of
• the State of Wisconsin’s committal State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for oxides of
nitrogen INO x) reasonably available
control technology (RACT) issued on
February 1. 1994. Approval of this
committal allowed the State to delay
submitting NO RACT rules until
February 1. 1995. On May 6. 1994. the
Court olAppeals for the District of
• Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) rejected
• EPA’s construction of the conditional
approval provision to allow for -
committal SIPs. In light of this decision
EPA issued notices of failure to submit
NO RACT SIPs to all Slates that had
• merely submitted committal NOx RACT
SIPs. Therefore, both to comply with the
Court’s decision and in tho interest of
• equity with Qther States, EPA believes it
is necessary to make this withdrawal
effective upon publication so that EPA.
may then immediately Issue a finding of
failure to submit to the State of
Wisconsin.
Copies of the SIP revision request and
the EPA’s analysis are availabLe for
inspection at (ho following address: (It
is recommended that you telephone
Douglas Aburano at (312) 353—6960
before visiting the Region 5 office.) EPA.
Region 5. Air and Radiation Division. 77
West Jackson Boulevard. Chicago.
Illinois 60604—3590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Douglas Ahurano, Air Toxics and
Radial ion Branch (AT—la)). EPA. Region
5. Chicago. illinois 60604. (312) 353—
0960.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATiON
I. Background
On February 2. 1994. CPA issucd a
final conditional approval ofa
committal SIP submitted by the State of
Wisconsin. By this committal SIP, the
•State committed o’adopt for the
Milwaukee, Kewatinee, Manitowoc. and
Sheboygan nonattaimnent areas
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) for stationary sources of oxides
d l nitrogen (NOr) emissions. The
committal SIP consisted of a
commitment àî the State to adopt such
ruies and a schedule for adoption. The
State submitted this committal SIP
pursuant to an interpretation of the EPA
that such commitments could be
considered for conditional approval
under section 110(k)( 4) of tho Act. See
Memorandum, dated July 22, 1992, from
Michael H. Shapiro, Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation,
entitled “Guidelines for State’’
Implementation Plans Due November.
15, 1992’. (hereafter “Shapiro
Memorandum”): Nitrogen Oxide
Supplement to the General Preamble. 57’
FR 55620 (November 25, 1992)
On October 9:i 9 g , the Natural
Resources Defôñ e Council (N RDCJ
challenged EPA’s committal SIP policy’
• as set forth in the Shapiro
Memorandum. NRDC v. EPA, i i 0 . 92-
1535 (D.C. Cir.). Furthermore, on
December 4. 1992, NRDC challenged
EPA’s càmmitjal SIP policy with respect
toNOx RACT sul,mittals; as that policy
was articulated iñ’thó NOx Supplement
to the General’ Preamble. NRDC V. EPA.
No. 92—1630 (D.C. dr.). NRDC sought to
consolidate these cases, along with a’:
third case challenging EPA’s committal
SIP policy for inspection and
maintenance (IJM) SIP submittals: The
Court denied NRDC’s motions to
consolidate the cases, but set all three
cases for oral argument on the same
date.
The three casea were argued before
the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
on March 3, 1994. On March 8. 1994. -
the Court issued an Order with respect
,to the L/M challenge, finding that EPA’s
committal SIP policy “id contrary to
law.” The Court issued an Amended
Order on April 22, 1994. but did not
change this fundamental decision in the
Amended Order. On. May 6, 1994 the
Court issued its full opinion as to alt
three cases. In that opinion, the Court
reiterated its rejectida of EPA’s -
construction of the conditional approval
provision to allow for committal SIPs.
See NRDC v. EPA, No. 1535. slip op. at
16 (D.C. Cir.. May 6,1994).
H. Action
Because the Court has clearly rejected
EPA’s use of the committal SIPs policy
to extend statutory deadlines, EPA is.
withdrawing its conditional approval of’
Wisconsin’s NO RACE committal SIP.
3. Section 52.2307 is added to read as DATES: This final rule will be effective
follows: August 19. 1994. -
-‘ ADDRESSES: Written comments should
be sent to: Canton T. Nash, Chief.
Regulation Development Section, Air
Toxics and Radiation Branch (AT—18fl.
EPA, Region 5. 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 6,0604—
3590.
IFi 0.ic. 94—2’0345 Filed 8—18—94. 0.45 arnl
------- |