-------
table of contents
Foreword
Table of Contents
List of Figures
Implementation of State implementation Plan (SIP) Reforms
Introduction
I. Determination of Completeness and Development of the
Federal Reoifty Hot ice and Support Documents at the
Regional Office
A. The State Submittal
B. Determination of the Type and Category of Action
1. Type of Action
2. Category of Action
C. Technical Support Document (TSD)
d. Federal Register Notice
1. Body of the Preamble
2. Rulemaking Page(s)
E. Material for Incorporation by Reference (IBR)
F. Office of the Federal Register Transmittal Memorandum
•G. Action Memorandum
H. Communications Strategy
I. Public Comments
J. Request for Office of Management and Budget Review
K. Federalism Review Form
950R90024
Paoe
i
i i
vi i
viii
x
1
2
2
2
3
7
8
8
15
20
24
26
30
31
31
31
ii
-------
Page
L. Federal tfera»tpr r
-------
Page
IV. Listing of Names, Addresses, and Telephony Hungers 57
A. Regional Office SIP Reviewers. 57
8. Regional Office SIP Processing Contacts 62
C. Regional Office Air Branch Chiefs 63
D. Headquarters SIP Reviewers 64
E. Addresses for Headquarters SIP Reviewing and 66
Processing Offices
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
- Notice of Procedural Changes, uanuary 198S (54 FR 2214) A-2
- SIP Completeness Review - Notice of Prososea Rulemaking, A-14
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2138)
~ - SIP Completeness Review - Final kuiemakinq, Feoruarv. 16', A-18
1990 (55 FR 5824)
APPENDIX B
- Policy for Determining Completeness of SIP Submittals, B-2
Memorandum from Gerald Emlson to. Regional Air Division
Directors, dated March 8, 1988
• Expanded Use of Direct Final SIP Processing, Memorandum B-18
from Gerald Emison to Regional Air Division Directors*
-------
Paoe
- Letter Notice Example (54 FR 47077) and Sample Letter, B-33
dated Noveniber 9, 1989
- "Grandfathering9 #f ^e&H'reei&its .for Pending SIP Revisions, B-35
Memorandum from GeraM tersait t£F Regional Air Division Directors,
dated June 27, 1988
APPENDIX t
r Direct Final ftulerrtiiting EMseussion C-2
APPENDIX P
- Parallel Processing Rulemaking Dissugfi## 0-2
APPENDIX E
FR Exaruples:
¦ Abbreviated Format - 4? FR 43546, October 30, 1984 E-2
• Extension of Cpj(»snt Period - 55 FR 21207, May 23; 1990 £-3
• Withdrawal Uptfie ^ 55 m 18131, Hay 1, 1990 E-4
• Correct ion fi^tice - Sf M 18725, May 4, 1990 E-6
APPTOIX f
- Standardized Sections - Example Language f-2
mmuL
• SIP Packages Taking "No Action" on State Submittals, G-2
Werneranduia from Gerald Eiaison and William Pederson to
Regibnal Air Division Directors, dated December 14, 1984
APPENDIX H
- Executive Order 12612 H-2
- Executive Order 12291 H-6
V
-------
APPENPIX I
- Categories of Regulations Submitted for Inco^mtion by
Reference, Memorandum from Johnnie Pearson, to Regional Air
Branch Chiefs, dated September 6* 1989
APPENDIX J
- The Public Docket" and Rulemaking Under Se&t.ion of the
Clean Air Act, May 16, 1988
APPENDIX K
- Federal Register Format Checklists
--Proposal
--Final
APPENDIX L
- Review of State Regulation Recodificatvws; Mefnorandum from
Johnnie Pearson to Air Branch Chiefs, dated Sebruacy^LJU- 1990
- Supplemental Guidance on Processing Procedures, for-Fiml
Rulemaking Actions, Memorandum from John CalcfagnT to Air
Division Directors, dated Hay 3, 1990
vi
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1 -
Figure 2 -
Figure 3 -
Figure 4 -
Figure 5 -
Figure 6 -
Figure 7 -
Figure 8 -
Figure 9 -
Figure 10 -
Figure 11 -
Processing Sequence of Table 1 Submittals
Processing Sequence of Table 2 Submittals
Processing Sequence of Table 3 Submittals
Numbers of Copies (Including Originals) Sent to the Air Quality
Management Division for Processing Table 1 Proposed SIP Actions
Number of Copies (Including Originals) Sent to the Air Quality
Management Division for processing Table 1 Final SIP Actions
Number of Copies Sent to the Air Quality Management Division
for Processing Table 2 Proposed and Final SIP Actions
Number of Copies Sent to the Regulation Management Staff for
Processing and Publication of Table 2 Proposed and Final SIP
Actions
Number of Copies Sent to the Regional Operations Branch ana £n$
Regulation Management Staff for Processing and Publication of
Table 3 Proposed and Final SIP Actions
Organizational Chart of Offices Involved in the SIP Review
Process
List of Office Abbreviations
5-2/5-2 Tracking
vii.
-------
Implementation of SIP Reform Measures
Background
On January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214 and 54 FR 2138), the notice of procedural
changes and proposed completeness review were published in the Federal
Register. On February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5824), the SIP completeness review
final rulemaking was published. These notices incorporated changes to the SIP
review process and have become known as the SIP reform measures. Copies of
these Federal Register notices are in Appendix A.
The EPA's previous procedures for review of SIP submittals required all
actions to be reviewed by both the Regional Offices and Headquarters. This
duplicative review resulted in significant delays in processing'SIP,actions.
The uncertainty and excessive delay in reviewing SIP actions had a negative
effect on the EPA and State/local partnership.
Consequently, In October 1987, the Deputy Administrator established a
task force of senior EPA managers to examine problems in the way SIP
submittals were reviewed at EPA. 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 on reaching
decisions on many SIP actions, and uncertainty on the part of the State/local
agencies as to the outcome of the SIP review process, the task force made the
following recommendations:
1. Provide a mechanism for early rejection of incomplete suosilttals by the
Regional Offices.
2. Oevelop a policy that allows the Regions to approve nonsubstantial actions
by letter notice.
3. Increase the use of direct rinal rulemaking.
4. Delegate authority for final action on SIP submittals to the Regional
Administrators.
5. Require more strict adherence to formal procedures.
6. Grandfather the basis for decisions from new EPA policies and rules
whenever possible.
7. Improve guidance and coomunlcation.
8. Institute an Improved management system.
In response to these recommendations, a work group composed of Regional
Office and Headquarters staff was formed to develop programs to Ispleaerit
these reforms. Initially, the work group issued a series of Internal pol1cy
memorandums to the Regional Offices. The memorandums which Involve the
expanded use of direct final processing, letter notice, grandfathering
requirements, and completeness policy are in Appendix B.
v1i1.
-------
A cornerstone of the recommendations was the delegation of final sign-off
authority, to .the Regional Administrators for certain categories of SIP
revisions. This measure was Signed to delegate approval /disapproval
Authority on the majority of SIP actions to the Regional Administrators, and
rs -potentially the roost effective recornnendation made by the task force.
The work group defined thr-fee. levels of review needed for SIP actions and
then determined what types St? rcH&iens fall into the categories. Actions
classified as Table 1, which undergo the full Headquarters review, include SIP
Revisions that clearly can a significant impact on the implementation of
national programs/e.g., basic strategies for demonstrating attainment of
ancient standards. Actions classified as Table2, which are forwarded to
Headquarters for a 30-day review* include SIP actions where guidance is
relatively new. This 30-day review provides an opportunity for Headquarters
oversight without adding i significant review requirement. Actions which do
noli require Headquarters review are classified as Table 3 and have no national
impact. Guidance for reviewing these actions is readily available to the
Regional Offices.
ix.
-------
Introduction
The following presents the principal steps in the processing of various
types of SIP actions. It should be noted that the primary respansiotlitx for
classification of each action lies with the Regional Administrator.
Tafrle, 1 SIP Submittal's
1. Formal Submission by the State -- The State formally submits a SIP package
or redesignation request to the Regional Office.
2. Completeness Review -- The Regional Office reviews the submission-for
consistency with the completeness criteria (40 CFR Part 51, Appendix
3. SIP Adequacy Review — The Regional Office reviews the submission to
determine if it is in compliance with EPA policy and CMrequirements*
4. Federal Register Notice Preparation The Regional Office prepares the PR
notice recommending approval/disapproval action and forwards the entire SIP
package to Headquarters for review and formal concurrence.
5. Headquarters Review and Concurrence -- Headquarters staff from OAR, QGC,
and OPPE review the FR notice for national consistency. Headquarters then
forwards the package to the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation fo£ »
concurrence (to the Office of Management and Budget for review, if necessary?
to the Administrator, if the action is a final rulemaking], to EPA's
Regulation Management Staff for processing, and to the Office of the Federal
Register (OfR) for publication.
Table 2 SIP Submittals
1. Formal Submission by the State -- The State formally submits a SIP package
or redesignation request to the Regional Office,
2. Completeness Review — The Regional Office reviews the submission for
conformance with the completeness criteria (40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V).
3. SIP Adequacy Review -- The Regional Office, reviews the submission to
determine if it is in compliance with EPA policy and CAA requirements.
4. Federal Register Notice Preparation -- The Regional Office prepares the FR
notice recommending approval/disapproval action and forwards the draft FR
notice to Headquarters for a 30-day review.
5. Headquarters Review -- Headquarters staff from OAR, OSC, and OPPE review
the FR notice for national consistency. This review should occur prior to
forwarding the FR notice to the Regional Administrator for signature.
6. Regional Administrator Signature -- The Regional Office final izes t1-- FR
notice and obtains the Regional Administrator's signature. The package
-------
Tahlg 3 Submittals
1. Formal Submission by toe State -- The State formally submits a SIP package
jr redesignatlon request to the Regional Office.
2. Completeness Review <•- The.;Reg1onal Office reviews the submittal for
consistency with the completeness criteria (40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V).
3. SIP Adequacy Review -- The Regional Office reviews the submittal to
determine if 1t 1s consistent with EPA policy and CAA requirements.
4. Federal Register Preparation -- The Regional Office prepares the FR notice
approving/disapproving the action.
5. Headquarters Review -- The Regional Office sends SIP disapprovals to the
Regional Activities Section, Regional Operations Branch, for a 2-day review.
6. Regional Administrator's Signature -¦« The Regional Administrator signs the
package, it is sent to the RMS, and then forwarded to the OFR for publication.
Hgures 1, 2 and T show the sequence of steps in the process.
xi.
-------
PROCESSING SEQUENCE OF TABLE t SIP SUBMITTALS
Figure 1
xi1.
-------
PROCESSING SEQUENCE OF TABLE 2 SIP SUBMITTALS
Figure 2
xiil.
-------
PROCESSING SEQUENCE OF TABLE 3 SIP SUBMITTALS
Rgire 3
xiv.
-------
I. Determination nf Completeness and Development of tho Federal Register
Notice and Supporting Documents at the Regional Office
Upon receipt of a State's submittal to revise their SIP, EPA reviews the
submittal for consistency with the completeness criteria to determine if all
the necessary components have been included to allow EPA to properly review
and act on the substance of the submittal. This is a quick screen to
determine the reviewability rather than the approvability of a SIP submittal.
When a submittal is determined to be complete, EPA will inform the State by
letter of its positive determination and the proposed processing schedule. If
a submittal is determined to be incomplete, the submittal may be returned to
the State with a letter listing the deficiencies. The Regional Office will
notify the State of the completeness determination generally within 45 days of
receipt of the submittal. The EPA will not conduct further rulemaking on an
incomplete submittal until the State provides any missing material. (A copy
of the Completeness Criteria final rulemaking is included in Appendix A.)
After a positive determination of completeness has been made, the
Regional Office analyzes the submittal and prepares a FR notice and technical
support document (TSD) explaining the requirements for the action, describing
what the State has submitted, and evaluating the revisions against the
requirements in the CAA and EPA policy and guidance. The following is an
explanation of the State submittal, a description of the analyses that are
made by the Regional Offices, and a 11st of the documents that the Regional
Office assembles/prepares and forwards to Headauarters in order to process a
SIP revision.
A. The State Submittal
6. Determination of the Type and Category of Action
C. Technical Support Document
0. Federal Register Notice
E. Material for Incorporation by Reference
F. OFR Transmittal Meoorandua
6. Action Heaorandua
H. Communications Strategy
1. Public Coonents
J. Request for 0MB Review Form (SF-83)
K. Federalism Review Form (EPA 3720-11)
L. FR Typesetting Request Form (EPA 2340-15)
1
-------
M. FR Format Checklists
N. Part D Docket
0. Distribution
A. The State Submittal
The State formally submits a request for a SIP revision or redesignate
request to the Regional Office. The Regional Office reviews the submittal for
consistency with the completeness criteria. After a positive determination of
completeness has been made, the Regional Office reviews the package to
determine if it is consistent with EPA policy and CAA requirements.
B. Determination of the Type and Category of Action
Each Regional Office must determine the type as well as the category of
action.
1. Type of Action
All actions must be processed in one of the four ways: a direct final
rulemaking, parallel processing, letter notice, or sequential processing (a
proposal and then a final rule is published).
Direct Final -- Any SIP action wHich 1s judged to be noncontroverslal and
where no adverse public comment 1s anticipated can be processed as a direct
final rulemaking. This process allows EPA to go directly to final rulemaking
without publishing a proposed rule. Appendix C includes a detailed discussion
of packages processed as direct final rules, as well as boilerplate Federal
Register language. Also, Appendix C includes an example of a FR notice
withdrawing a direct final rule because adverse comments were submitted or
notice of intent to submit adverse comments was received. This method of
processing State submittals has been effective in reducing processing delays
and minimizing EPA resource requirements. One of the SIP reform measures
called for increased use of direct final rulemaking. See Appendix 8 for the
memorandum to the Regional Offices recommending expanded use of the direct
final approach.
Parallel processing -- Parallel processing requires the State and EPA to work
together to propose the regulation at the same time, hold concurrent comment
periods, and jointly review comments. While parallel processing does not
reduce EPA review requirements, the delay between final State action and final
rulemaking is reduced. Appendix D Includes a detailed discussion of parallel
processing and boilerplate language.
Letter Notice -- Under the letter notice procedure, EPA will use letters to
affected States and parties rather than notice and comment rulemaking to
approve insignificant. SIP actions. A final rulemaking will not be published
in the FR prior to sending the letter, which will be the Agency's final action
approving such minor actions. The Regional Offices will publish a summary
list of all letter notice actions in the FR every three months to keep the
-------
general public Informed of SIP matters. Appendix B Includes memorandums
describing the procedures for letter notice approval and a copy of a letter
notice action.
Sequential Processing -- Sequential processing 1s the most time consuming
process for publishing a SIP action. The EPA proposes action on a rule,
requests public comments, and publishes the final action on the State
submittal 1n the FR. To reduce some processing time, abbreviated formats for
noncontroversial final SIP actions (brief final FR notices) will be allowed
assuming, that no significant comments were received, no changes were made as a
result of the public comment.period, and no outstanding issues remain.
(Please note that direct final rules should not be processed in this format.)
An example of an abbreviated format can be found in Appendix E.
2. Category of SIP Action tj.> ^ y>1
All SIP actions fall into either Table 1, 2, or 3. Below Is a list of
the categories of SIP actions that fall into these tables. It is the
responsibility of the Regional Administrator to make the final determination
of the classification of any particular action. However, if there is
uncertainty by either a Regional Office or a Headquarters reviewing office, as
to which category a SIP submittal falls under, the Regional Operations Branch
should be contacted to make such a determination.
3
-------
Table! I
The following SIP actions must undergo full Regional Office and
Headquarters review with final decisionand sign-off by the Administrator.
Note that the authority to sign off on proposed rules has been delegated to
the Regional Administrators. ' 7
- O3 redesignatlons and O3 attainment plans (including I/M programs)
- CO attainment plans dealing with area-wide problems
- CO redesignatlons except those relating to point-source only problems or
hot spots
- Group I PM-10 plans (attainment demonstrations) Including those resulting
from committal SIPs
- New area-wide VOC regulations (e.g., per CTG requirements, or Post-87
requirements)
- VOC revisions with long-term averaging (I.e., greater than 24 hours)
- SO* revisions involving (a) unresolved national issues (e.g., stack height
remand, statistical attainment demonstrations, expected exceedances methods);*
(b) more than one Regional Office; (c) international issues.
• SIP revisions proposing or revising State-developed air quality dispersion
model guidelines, and SIP revisions based on the use of non-approved models or
deviations from EPA's modeling guidance
- SIP revisions where EPA 1s under a court-ordered schedule (e.g., Indiana
S02 SIP)
- S02 State-wide plans (all elements)
- SIP's for new generic State-wide programs (e.g., bubbles, PSD/NSR)
- PSD/NSR SIP's submitted to comply with Post-87 O3/CO policy
• PSO/NSR SIP's for PM-10 Group I areas
- PSO/NSR SIPs submitted to comply with Alabama Power decisions
- Bubbles which trade off growth allowances
- V1s1b1l1ty plans that address existing Impairment
- Any FIP
- Any action proposing or loosing a sanction
- Any SIP revision, approval/disapproval of which would significantly deviate
from national policy
4
-------
Table 2
The following SIP actions are delegated for Regional Administrator
decision and sign-off (proposed and final) but require a 30-day opportunity
for Headquarters review before sign-off;
- Particulate natter emissions relaxations
- VOC revisions with extended compliance schedules affecting nonattainment
areas
- CO attainment plans dealing with hotspots
- CO redesignatlons relating to point-source only problems and hot spots
- SOg area-wide and source-specific SIP revisions and redesignations, where
the source(s) or background sources in the aggregate have allowable emissions
of 25,000 TPY or more (except primary nonferrous smelters or emission trading)
- SO2 revisions with (a) averaging times greater than the short-term SO2
NAAQS; (b) revised emission limits due to changes in stack height credits
- Visibility SIP's Involving Regional haze
- Direct final rulemaking in categories identified for Administrator sign-off'
(See Table 1)
• Table 1 proposed actions can be processed as final Table 2 only when no
adverse comments were received on the proposed rule
- Any other action not listed elsewhere
5
-------
Table 3
The following SIP actions are delegated for Regional Administrator
decision and sign-off (proposed and final). Headquarters-reyiewisnot }
required but may be requested by the Regional Office.
- All other bubbles and all other single-source regulations
- VOC extended compliance schedules (except those affecting nonattainment
areas)
- PM-10 Group II and III SIP's
- TSP redesignations
- Lead attainment plans and revisions
- All other SOg SIP's, including redesignations; ambient monitoring plans;
malfunction rules; State AAQS
- State stack height regulations and negative declarations
- All other PSD/NSR SIP's
- All other visibility plans
- 111(d) plans/negative declarations
- All other direct final rulemaking
- All letter hotice actions
6
-------
C. Technical Support Document fTSDl
For all SIP and redes1gnat1on actions, appropriate documentation to
support EPA's evaluation of the submittal against Agency policy, guidance and
the CAA 1s mandatory. If the Issue 1s straightforward and narrow in scope,
this supporting Information can be included in the notice. When an Issue is
complex and needs a detailed explanation, a TSO should be prepared. It should
pull together all the materials generated during a review into one,
comprehensive document. The key 1s to assure that someone with a general
knowledge of environmental policy could understand why EPA is acting as
claimed in the notice. The TSD's are particularly important when a SIP
revision alters an emissions limitation and consequently alters a control
strategy. A well-written support document will be particularly invaluable if
EPA's action 1s challenged 1n court. A copy should always be placed in the
Region's docket.
The following information should be included 1n a TSD.
1. Background of Revision
This should include a brief summary of the revision and Its impact on the
SIP and any other background material that 1s relevant to subsequent readers.
In addition, any history of the action that might reflect on EPA's processing
schedule.
2. Adequacy of Control Strategy Demonstration and Compatibility with
EPA Pol icy
This should summarize the type of control strategy demonstration
conducted, including the model used, if any. It should.identify any
inadequacies in the State submission, and explain how those Inadequacies were
resolved. It should discuss whether the action is compatible with EPA
guidance and policy.
3. Technical Aspects of the Submittal
This should Include:
a. A sunnary of the significant input parameters to any model used,
including air quality data; any assumptions used in the control strategy
demonstration; and any unusual features of the demonstration (such as those
accounting for complex terrain, stack height, emissions growth, etc.)
b. An EPA evaluation of supporting documentation that accompanied
the SIP revision, Including conformance to EPA policy and any claims of
technological or econoalc Infeaslbll1ty (e.g., for alternative RACT requests).
4. Projected Impact of the Revision
This should include the trends In air quality and emissions for the area,
and any impact on the compliance status of affected sources, including the
impact of potential growth (i.e., maintenance of the air quality standards) in
the area.
7
-------
5. Recommendations
The TSO should Include a discussion of approvabll1ty, the need for further
action by the State, and/or a discussion of the response required from the
State for full approval of the action.
The TSD should be prepared for the proposed rulemaking action. The
information in the TSD should have been considered by the Regional Office
during the review process and should be readily available. In addition, the
TSD should list any specific EPA guidance documents relied upon by the
Regional Office in preparing the rulemaking action. Should EPA's position
related to the approvabll1ty change prior to final rulemaking, the reasons
behind the change are normally addressed in the notice of final rulemaking
rather than redrafting the TSD. A supplement to the TSD should be prepared if
the Regional Office determines EPA's change of position regarding the SIP
action warrants 1t or if any commenter submits new technical information.
Any TSO should always be included in the comprehensive internal file
which the Regional Office retains on each State-submitted SIP revision.
D. Federal Register Notice
The Federal Reoister Document Drafting Handbook. April 1986, was designed
to help Federal agencies prepare documents for publication in the FR. The
following pages contain specific Instructions for preparing a FR notice
announcing the Agency's approval or disapproval action on a SIP revision.
(See Appendix E for examples of an extension of a public comment period, a
withdrawal notice, and a correction notice.)
Note: Each FR notice should be paginated at the bottom center beginning at
page 2 and the body of the preamble and rulemaking pages must be double
spaced.
1. Body of the Preamble
Include the CFR part specific to the action that is being taken.
Heading for Part 52 Actions
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
Approval and Promulgation of A1r Quality Implementation Plans;
State; Title
Heading for Part 62 Actions
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 62
Approval and Prooulgation of State Plans for
Designated Facilities and Pollutants;
State; Title
8
-------
Heading for Part 81 Actions
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
Designation of Areas for A1r Quality Planning Purposes;
State; Title
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Proposed Rulemaking; Final
Rulemaking (See Appendix F for example language)
SUMMARY: The summary 1s a brief description of the document, written in
language that a nonexpert will understand. It must answer three questions:
(1) What does this document do? (2) Why is this action necessary? (3) What
is the intended effect of this action? The summary must state 1f the action
is an approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The summary is not intended
to prove a point or argue a case. Supporting information, details, and
precise legal citations do not belong in the summary.
EFFECTIVE DATE: (30 days from date of publication) 5 U.S.C. Section 553(d)
requires that a rule's effective date be at least 30 days after publication.
If EPA feels that the public needs more time to comply with a rule, the
effective date can be longer than 30 days. (See Appendix F for example
language.)
DATES: Use this heading if more than one date is mentioned, e.g., direct
final rules, the date public comments must be submitted by, announcement of
public hearing dates, etc. (See Appendix F for example language.)
ADDRESSES: Any relevant addresses such as the Regional Office contact,
location of information, public hearings, if appropriate. (See Appendix F
for example language.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The name and FTS and commercial telephone
number of a person in the Agency to contact for additional Information about
the document is required.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section presents the regulatory history of a
rulemaking document. It discusses the background Information in sufficient
detail necessary to explain the basis and purpose of a final rule or give
adequate notice of the Issues to be commented on in a proposed rule. This
information oust be presented 1n language easily understood by the public.
Descriptive headings may be used to present material contained 1n this section
and should be used If the document 1s a long one. Oetalled technical
discussions are presented in the TSD rather than the notice.
In responding to comments in the preamble, EPA need not respond to each
individually Identified comment. Rather respond only to the significant
issues raised 1n the comments. Where a separate "response to comments"
document exists, 1t should be cited.
9
-------
Part 81 actions are responses to requests from a State to change a
pollutant's attainment status. The State's submittal should be characterized
as a request rather than a SIP revision. Also, be sure to Identify the
counties Involved.
Summary of Action
At the end of the discussion, begin a new section entitled "Proposed or
Final Action." After a lengthy discussion of issues and policies, it often is
difficult to determine exactly what EPA intends, particularly in proposed
rules. This section should clearly and succinctly state what action EPA 1s
taking.
The OGC and AQMD developed guidance on when a Regional Office might take
"no action" on a portion of a revision. The memorandum is incorporated into
this document as Appendix G.
Boilerplate Language
Boilerplate language is generic wording on various topics that is
inserted in PR notices. However, the boilerplate language that follows is not
included in all FR notices; rather you determine which language is appropriate
depending on the type and category of action. Boilerplate language 1s
inserted into FR notices 1n the order that is listed below: (a) Applicability
to Future SIP Decisions, (b) Recodification Generic Language, (c)
Reclassification of Table 1 to Table 2 SIP Action, (d) Regulatory Flexibility
Act, (e) Executive Order 12291 (0MB review), (f) Section 307 Petition
Language, (g) Thesaurus Terms, and (h) Authority Citation. The following is
the exact wording that is used.
a. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions
In processing SIP submittals, past actions by the Agency (either within
the same Region or by another Region) on similar SIP submittals may not be
cited as the primary basis of the rationale for approving or disapproving a
current SIP submittal. Such reliance can have the effect of creating Agency
policy with regard to a category of SIP action where no such policy exists or
is intended to exist. Instead, the rationale for Agency action presented in
the FR notice should be discussed in terms of the relevant statutory,
regulatory, and policy requirements 1n the context of the local factors
relevant to the action under consideration and any unique factors presented by
the State 1n submitting the revision. Where a similar decision n!as been
reached on a previous SIP submittal, reference to the past decision to provide
additional support to the current decision 1s appropriate. However, in no
case, should itiy Individual decision (past or present) be considered a
precedent for making other similar decisions. To clarify the point that SIP
actions do not set precedent for the Agency's actions 1n other SIP revision
requests, the following language must be Incorporated into each FR notice
classified as Table 2 or 3:
Nothing 1n 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
10
-------
State Implementation plan shall be considered separately 1n light of
specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
b. Recodification Generic Language
The following generic language was developed to Inform the public when
EPA is approving a renumbering of a regulation and not reapproving the
substance of the regulation against current policies. It should be included
in all FR notices that approve a renumbering of a regulation. The language is
as follows:
EPA has not reviewed the substance of these regulations at this
time. These rules were approved into the State implementation plan
in previous rulemakings. The EPA 1s now merely approving the
renumbering system submitted by the State. The EPA's approval of
the renumbering system, at this time, does not imply any position
with respect to the approvability of the substantive rules. To the
extent EPA has issued any SIP calls to the State with respect to the
adequacy of any of the rules subject to this recodification, EPA
will continue to require the State to correct any such rule
deficiencies despite EPA's approval of this recodification.
(See Appendix L for the memorandum entitled, "Review of State Regulation ,
Recodifications.")
c. Reclassification of Table 1 to Table 2 SIP Action
When a Table 1 SIP action does not receive adverse comments on the
proposed rule, it can be processed as a Table 2 final rule. To ensure full
public awareness of such action, the following language must be Included in
any SIP action that is reclassified from Table 1 to Table 2:
Today's action makes final the action proposed at (FR citation). As
noted elsewhere 1n this notice, EPA received no adverse public
comment on the proposed action. As a direct result, the Regional
Administrator has reclassified this action from Table 1 to Table 2
under the processing procedures established at 54 FR 2214, January
19, 1989.
(See Appendix L for the memorandum entitled, "Supplemental Guidance on
Processing Procedures for Final Rulemaking Actions.")
d. Regulatory Flexibility Act Language
The purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (46 FR 8709) 1s to reduce
the burden of Federal regulations on small entitles, I.e., small businesses,
government jurisdictions, and private organizations. Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, EPA oust assess whether an action will have a significant
impact on small entities. Since SIP actions do not have a significant
economic Impact on small entitles, the language below should be Included In FR
notices approving or disapproving proposed or direct final rules.
11
-------
The following regulatory flexibility boilerplate language should be
Included 1n Table 1 proposed* rules for Parts 52 and 62.. It should also be
Included In Table 2 and 3 proposed and direct final rules for Parts 52 and 62
Under 5 U.S.C. Section 605(b), I certify that this SIP revision will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entitles (See 46 FR 8709).
The following regulatory flexibility boilerplate language should be included
in Table 1 proposed rules for Part 81 redeslgnatlons:
Under 5 U.S.C. Section 605(b), I certify that redesignations do not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities (See 46 FR 8709).
The following regulatory flexibility boilerplate language should be included
in Table 2 and 3 proposals and direct final rules for Part 81 redesignations:
Under 5 U.S.C. Section 605(b), the Administrator has certified that
redeslgnatlons do not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities (See 46 FR 8709).
Note: Regulatory flexibility language is included 1n proposed rules and
direct final rules only. The authority to assess whether an action has an
Impact on small entitles has been delegated to the Regional Administrators oft
Parts 52 and 62 only. Part 81 redesignations, however, need to be certified,
by the Administrator.
On final rules (this does not include direct final actions) language does
need .to be inserted unless public comment has been received on the
certification in the proposal. If comment has been received on the proposal,
it should be addressed 1n the final rule and the action should be recertified.
Any questions about Regulatory Flexibility Act language should be
addressed to Scott Furlong at (FTS) 382-7202.
e. Executive Order fEO) 12291 and 12612
The purpose of E0 12291 1s to reduce the burdens of existing and future
regulations, Increase agency accountability, provide for presidential
oversight, minimize duplication and conflict of regulations, and ensure well
reasoned regulations. Under EO 12291, proposed and final rules oust be
submitted to 0MB for review. However, on November 5, 1981, 0MB exempted
unconditional approvals of revisions to a SIP from the review requirements,
and on December 23, 1981, 0M8 exempted all designations and
redeslgnatlons fro« their review requirements. Additionally, as part of the
SIP reform measures, on January 6, 1989, 0MB agreed to waive for a 2-year
period (ending Deceifcer 31, 1990) Its review of Table 2 and 3 SIP actions
under E0 12291. This 2-year waiver for Table 2 and 3 SIP actions applied to
approvals and disapprovals. Consequently, the only types of SIP actions that
must undergo 0MB review are Table 1 actions that are not full approvals (i.e.,
documents which defer action, take no action, conditionally approve, or
disapprove) and FIP's. Those actions that require 0MB review are submitted
12
-------
for review at both the proposed and final stages of rulemaking. Examples of
boilerplate language that must be inserted into proposed and final rules are
below.
Table 1 SIP actions recpivino OHB review
Under Executive Order 12291, this action is not "major". It has
been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review.
Table 1 SIP actions exempt from 0MB review
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive Order 12291.
Tables 2 and 3 SIP actions
This action has been classified as a Table (2/3) action by the
Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal
Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225). On January 6, 1989,
the Office of Management and Budget waived Table 2 and 3 SIP
revisions (54 FR 2222) from the requirements of Section 3 of
Executive Order 12291 for a period of two years.
The EO 12612 requires all Federal agencies to review regulations to
determine If they have a substantial direct effect on the States. The EO
requires that such actions be governed by a number of federalism principles,
e.g., allowing the States maximum flexibility under the rule. The SIP
revisions generally would not have federalism effects because they are State-
submitted actions and therefore would not have a negative impact on the
affected States. FIP's, on the other hand, would have substantial direct
effect on the States but are generally required by a court order. Boilerplate
language is QflJt included In FR notices on the federalism review; however, all
regulations that are submitted to 0MB are reviewed both under EO 12291 and
12612. Appendix H Includes copies of each order.
f. Petition Language
The following language should be included in all final rules:
Under Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in >jthe United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by (60 days from date of publication). This
action nay not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements (see Section 307(b)(2)).
g. Thesaurus Terms
On January 22, 1981, the Administrative Corant^tee of the Federal Register
promulgated a regulation requiring use of thesaurus terms (See 1 CFR Section
18.20). This regulation requires each agency to include a 11st of Thesaurus
terms for each CFR part affected by each document. To coolly with this
requirement, each EPA office submitting any document for publication 1n the FR
which would affect Parts 52 and 62 must include the thesaurus terms which
13
-------
apply to that action. Terms must be Included on all documents (proposals,
finals, direct finals, summary letter notice). The term air pollution controj
should always be included.
The thesaurus terms for Parts 52 and 62 are listed below. Include the
terms that apply to that action only:
List of Subjects 1n 40 CFR Part 52:
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62:
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Aluminum,
Fertilizers, Fluoride, Intergovernmental relations, Paper and paper
products industry, Phosphate, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfuric acid plants, Sulfuric oxides
The thesaurus terms for Part 81 are listed below. &UL of these terms
should be Included 1n redesignatlon requests.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81:
Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas
NOTE: Thesaurus terms must be listed in alphabetical order.
h. Authority Citation
For all proposed rules and disapprovals with no regulatory text, the
authority citation should be inserted before the date and signature line. The
authority citation should read as follows:
AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642
For final rules, toe authority citation should be Included as Item 1 of
the amendatory language. The wording that should appear 1s below:
1. The authority citation for Part 52/62/81 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642
Date and Signature
Under the SIP refor» measures, final signature authority for Table 2 and
3 SIP actions was delegated to the Regional Administrators. Consequently
Table 2 and 3 proposed and final rules are signed by the Regional
Administrator.
14
-------
Previously, signature authority for all proposed SIP actions was
delegated to the Regional Administrators. Therefore, Table 1 proposals are
still signed by the Regional Administrator, and Table 1 final rules require
the Administrator's signature.
The signature and date should appear on the last page of the preamble.
For Table 1 proposed rules, the name and the words Regional Administrator
should be typed under the signature line. If someone else should sign the
document, the Regional Administrator's name should be crossed out and the
person who was delegated signature authority should be typed below the
signature line. For Table 1 final rules, the name of the Administrator and
the word Administrator should be typed under the signature line.
For Table 2 and 3 proposed and final rules, the name of the Regional
Administrator and the words Regional Administrator should be typed under the
signature line. Again, if someone else signs for the Regional Administrator,
the name should be typed below the signature line. Below are examples of
signature lines.
Signature line for Table 1 proposals and Table 2 & 3 actions
Oate Typed name of RA (or whomever signs
the document)
Regional Administrator
Signature line for Table 1 final rules
Date William K. Reilly
Administrator
The OFR has required that some language (other than the signature and
date line) should appear on the signature page to ensure the integrity of the
document. This can be limited to the thesaurus terms or the authority
citation.
2. Rulemaking paoefs)
The regulatory text of a rulemaking document will ultimately be codified
1n the CFR. The regulatory text of a rule must fit Into the current text of
the CFR. It oust precisely Identify and describe the changes being made to
the CFR. It 1s the Regional Office's responsibility to maintain a record of
sections or paragraphs that are added to the CFR to ensure that paragraphs or
sections are added sequentially and to guard against duplication 1n the CFR.
For example, if paragraph (c)(46) was the last addition to a State's
identification of plan, the next paragraph that must be added 1s (c)(47).
This Information 1s presented in the words of issuance and amendatory
language of the rulemaking document. The words of issuance describe the
15
-------
general effect of the document, and the amendatory language gives specific
Instructions on how to change CFR text. The regulatory text must be drafted
exactly as it is to appear and conform to the structure of the CFR.
All documents that include regulatory text should beain this portion of
the notice on a new page, as follows:
40 CFR Part 52/62/81, Subpart , is amended as follows:
(Note: Pick either Part 52, 62 or 81)
subpart , State
The following pages are examples of regulatory text for Parts 52, 62, and
81.
16
-------
The following is an example of regulatory text for Part 52:
40 CFR Part 52, Subpart , is amended as follows:
SUBPART - State
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642
2. Section 52. 1s amended by adding paragraph to read as follows:
Section 52. Identification of plan
*****
(Five asterisks indicate that one or more paragraphs are not being amended.)
(C) * * *
(Three asterisks indicate that text within a paragraph is not being amended.)
( ) Revisions to the ozone attainment plan were submitted by the Governor on
(date of submittal letter).
(i) Incorporation by reference
(A) North Carolina Administrative Code Regulation 495, Subsections 1
(Definitions), 2 (Legal Authority), 7 (New Source Review), and 10 (Control
Technology) adopted on (insert date).
(B) North Carolina Administrative Code Regulation Number 4 which was
adopted on (insert date).
(ti) Additional material
(A) Letter dated March 19, 1986 from the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Management to EPA.
(B) Narrative SIP, Including an attainment demonstration.
NOTE: The subalttal of material to the OFR must only contain the material
listed under (1)(A) and (B) along with some form of certification from the
State showing an adoption or effective date. The material must be packaged in
order of incorporation with the material listed under (1)(A) appearing first
and (1)(B).appearing second. See section E. IBR for a discussion of the
procedures.
17
-------
The following is an example of regulatory text for Part 62:
40 CFR Part 62, Subpart , is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 62 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642
2. Section 62. is amended by adding paragraph to read as
follows:
Section 62. Identification of Plan
* * * * *
(_) *
( ) Control of sulfuric acid mist from sulfuric acid plants and fluoride
emission from phosphate fertilizer plants were submitted on July 11, 1985 and
adopted on (insert date).
NOTE: The EPA 1s working with the OFR to come to an agreement for the IBR of
111(d) plans.
18
-------
The following is an example of regulatory text for Part 81:
40 CFR Part 81, Subpart , is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 81 continues to reads follows:
AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642.
2. Section 81. is amended by revising the attainment status designation
table for pollutant to read as follows:
Section 81. - pollutant
(RECREATE THE TABLE SO IT REFLECTS YOUR ACTION; BE SURE THE TABLE IS TABULATED
BY COUNTIES SINCE THAT IS HOW THE DESIGNATION IS TRACKED.
Note: Caution should be exercised when revising the table, otherwise a
designation could be revised or replaced that was not intended.
19
-------
E. Material for Tnrnrporatlon bv Reference fTMn
The purpose of IBR 1s to make specific documents federally-enforceable/
defensible without printing them 1n their entirety In the FR. In order to
avoid reprinting State regulations, the OFR has granted EPA authority to
Incorporate by reference State regulations as part of the approved SIP.
However, strict guidelines have been established by the OFR. The State
regulation Is Identified 1n the regulatory text as being incorporated into the
SIP. Material that Is incorporated by reference is specifically referenced in
the regulatory text of a rulemaking document and that material is then made
reasonably available to those affected by such action. All IBR materials are
on file at the OFR and the Public Information Reference Unit (PIRU), which 1s
a part of the Headquarters Library, to meet the "reasonably available
requirement."
The procedures for IBR have been developed by the OFR and are published
at 1 CFR Part 51. The OFR interprets their regulations strictly; therefore it
is important that all materials sent for IBR meet the OFR's requirements. The
following presents specific Instructions on preparation and submission of
material for IBR.
Material is incorporated by reference only when EPA is approving State
submitted material and amending the SIP found 1n the Identification of plan
section of Part 52. Other changes to Part 52 sections and Parts 62 and 81 art*
not incorporated by reference. As shown in the preceding Part 52 regulatory
text example, the Identification of plan section of Part 52 1s amended only
when approving a State regulation thereby Incorporating it Into the SIP by
reference. Specifically the Identification of plan section should be amended
to add a paragraph and incorporate by reference the regulatory material that
is being approved. The identification of plan section 1s not amended 1f a
regulation 1s being disapproved.
It is Important to Identify the regulation in the IBR section of the
identification of plan exactly as the regulation is identified 1n print. For
example, if the regulation that 1s being incorporated by reference 1$
identified in print as "North Carolina Transportation Control Regulation,
effective January 13, 1985," the regulatory text under IBR would be as
follows:
(1) Incorporation by reference
(A) North Carolina Transportation Control Regulation which was
effective on January 13, 1985.
If the material Is not characterized in the CFR exactly as the regulation
is titled, the OFR will not accept the material for IBR. If words are omitted
or the title of a regulation Is paraphrased 1n the IBR section, the material
will be returned to the Regional Office for correction, thereby delaying
publication of the FR notice.
When Incorporating by reference State regulations, the official version
of the State regulation, effective as a matter of State law, should be
forwarded to the OFR. Only the official version can be enforced. The OFR has
20
-------
stated that the official version is usually the published version (not the
typed version submitted by the State). However, not all States publish their
regulations In a State register. Therefore, EPA determined (Headquarters in
consultation with the Regional Offices) the categories of regulations that are
submitted by the States. The categories that the Regional Offices identified
are listed below:
1. Regulations that are published in the State register. These
regulations are not State effective until they are published.
2. Regulations that are effective immediately upon adoption and
signature by the Secretary of State. All of these regulations will have
either an official stamp denoting the date of adoption and signature by the
Secretary of State or some form of certification from the State indicating
that the material was adopted by the State. This certification/letter must
also be incorporated by reference.
3. Regulations that are immediately effective (same as 2. above)
except that the States periodically publish a compilation of their
regulations. The official version is the originally adopted version signed by
the Secretary of State.
The Regional Offices identified the category of regulation each State
submitted to EPA. A list which identifies the categories of regulations
submitted to EPA by Region and State can be found in Appendix I. This list
was forwarded to the OFR and they intend this list to serve as an index to
ensure that the correct material is submitted to them for IBR.
Some form of certification from the State must be included with the IBR
material Indicating the date that the material was effective or adopted by the
State. Many times the effective/adoption date will be printed or stamped on
the regulation. However, in cases where the IBR materials do not contain an
identifying date, the State must submit a letter certifying the date that the
regulation was adopted or effective. In that situation, the letter from the
State would be incorporated by reference. The letter must clearly identify
the regulation by title in order for the OFR to accept it for IBR. The OFR
will nfli accept material for IBR 1f there is no identifying date.
The following documents are the specific parts af a State submittal which
are acceptable for IBR. They are:
- Regulations
- Variances
- Consent/Secretarlal/Board/Comnission/Administratlve Orders
- Official letters froa a State:
••containing coapllance schedules
--indicating how a program will be implemented until a
regulation 1s adopted (as distinguished from interpreting
an existing regulation)
--that are referenced and relied on In
Consent/Secretar1al/Board/Comm1ss1on/Adnhnistrat1ve Order
21
-------
- Source specific permits
- Legislative authority not already Incorporated by reference
- Reasonable further progress (RFP) curves
If the IBR material or the transmittal letter Include the words
"proposed" or "draft" anywhere on the documents, line through the words
proposed or draft. Also, 1f no action 1s being taken on a portion of a
submittal (either because 1t Is not something EPA can regulate under the CAA
or because the Regional Office Intends to address the action 1n a separate
notice - See Appendix H) or the FR notice Is disapproving some portion of the
State submittal, cross out all of the language 1n the submittal letter and the
IBR material which is not being approved. Forward only pages containing
approved materials to the OFR for IBR.
The following materials are nal acceptable for IBR:
- SIP narrative (except for the specific page on which the RFP curve or
SIP-required commitments/schedules are printed)
- Public hearing notices
- Transcripts
- Public certifications
* Modeling/monitoring data
- Negative declarations
• Commitment letters
The OFR does not view these type of documents as being regulatory. These
type of documents can be listed under "Additional material." Any document
that should be explicitly recognized as part of the SIP should be added to the
Identification of plan section under additional material. The OGC has stated
that while documents listed under additional material are not Incorporated by
reference, they are in fact enforceable. For example 1f the State of North
Carolina submitted a letter to EPA dated March 13, 1985 Interpreting how it
will Implement an existing regulation, it would be listed under additional
material. An example of the regulatory text follows:
(ii) Additional material
(A) Letter from the State of North Carolina to EPA dated Harch 13,
1985
These materials should be enumerated to inform the public what a State
has submitted, but tbese documents are not to be sent to the FR for IBR. Only
the material thit 1s listed under IBR Is sent to the OFR.
For commitment letters and negative declarations, however, the CFR should
be amended to add a new section, or an existing section can be revised to add
the commitment. The core paragraph/sentence from the letter should be quoted
in the section that 1s being added or amended. An exaiq>le follows:
22
-------
2. A new Section 52.1237 is added as follows:
Section 52.1237 Stack Height Regulations
The State of Minnesota has committed to conform to the Stack Height
Regulations as set forth in 40 CFR Part 51. In a letter to Mr. David Kee,
EPA, dated January 14, 1987, Mr. Thomas Kalitowski of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency stated:
Minnesota does not currently have a stack height rule, nor do we
intend to adopt such a rule. Instead, we will conform with the
Stack Height Regulations as set forth in the July 8, 1985 Federal
Register in issuing permits for new or modified sources. In cases
where that rule is not clear, we will contact U.S. EPA Region V and
conform to the current Federal interpretation of the item in
question.
If the Regional Office prefers, the commitment letter can instead be listed
under "Additional Material."
The OFR has returned SIP actions because the material submitted for IBR
was not consistent with their requirements. Consequently, the Regional
Offices have had to resubmit materials for IBR because of various problems.
The OFR will not publish a document until the IBR material that 1s submitted
is consistent with their requirements. Delays in publication from a few weete
to several months have occurred while IBR problems are being resolved.
Each Region should ensure that all staff involved in writing SIP
packages are aware of these IBR procedures. Some form of quality control
should be established to assure that only qualified IBR material is forwarded
to the FR. Regions should retain an exact duplicate in the Regional Office
files of the material sent for IBR.
When material is incorporated by reference, the preamble must indicate
that the submittal is available for inspection at:
Public Information Reference Unit
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, O.C. 20460.
Also, include the other addresses where the material is available for
inspection, e.g., the Regional Office, State/local qffice, if appropriate.
The tens "Incorporation by reference" must be included in the 11st of
subjects if material is being approved into the SIP and incorporated.
For Table 1 SIP actions, two copies of the material for IBR should be
forwarded to Phyllis Wright, Regional Activities Section, when the SIP
revision is sent for review. One copy will be sent to the OFR and one copy
will be sent to the PIRU. These documents will be available for public
inspection at these two offices. For Table 2 and 3 SIP actions, two copies of
the IBR material should be forwarded to Vickie Reed, Regulation Management
23
-------
Staff, Office of Program Planning and Evaluation (PM-223), EPA, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, when Table 2 and 3 SIP actions are sent to her
for processing and publication.
Note: When Regional Offices resubmit revised materia] for IBR to the OFR for
anv reason, the Regional Office must also resubmit a revised copy of the
material to Vickie Reed. Vickie will forward the material to the PIRU. This
applies to all categories of SIP actions.
If you have specific questions, please contact Denise Gerth at (FTS) 629-
5550 or Pam Johnson at (FTS) 629-5270.
F. Office of the Federal Register Transmittal Memorandum
The EPA legally incorporates State-submitted SIP material into the FR
through the IBR mechanism when final rules are published. To expedite this
activity, the OFR requires a transmittal memorandum with each final approval
action. It should be double spaced on EPA letterhead (see the example that
follows). The OFR uses the memorandum to tab the IBR material for their
filing system. The memorandum should include the State's two-letter
designation, the State name, the Part 52 identification of plan section number
and the subsection. The narrative language below this material should be an
exact duplicate of the identification of plan language on the rulemaking page
including the wording under IBR. The listing under Additional Material and
anv Other Wording in other Part 52 sections should not be included in the
cover memorandum.
24
-------
SUBJECT: Submission of a Revision to the SIP for the State of North Carolina
for Incorporation by Reference
FROM: Regulation Management Staff, EPA
TO: Office of the Federal Register
Please add this document to the "North Carolina Plan for Implementation
for Air Pollution Control" file and tab it in the appropriate sequence.
Identification of Document
Subpart II - North Carolina
40 CFR Part 52, Subpart , is amended as follows:
1. Section 52. is amended by adding paragraph (c)( ) to read as
follows:
Section 52. Identification of Plan
*****
(c) * * *
( ) Revisions to the ozone attainment plan were submitted by the Governor on
(Hate of submittal letter).
(1) IBR
(A) North Carolina Administrative Code Regulation 495,•Subsections 1
(Definitions), 2 (Legal Authority), 7 (New Source Review), and 10 (Control
Technology) adopted on (insert date).
(B) Regulation No. 4 which was adopted on (insert date).
NOTE: The authority citation and Additional Material section are not included
in this memorandum. Also, if another section of the CFR 1s being amended,
that regulatory text is not included in this memorandum.
25
-------
G. Action Memorandum
All Federal Register notices on SIP actions must be accompanied by an
Action Memorandum. The Action Memorandum must be from the Regional
Administrator on Table 1 SIP actions to the AA for OAR on proposed rules and
to the Administrator on final rules. The Action Memorandum must be from the
Air Division Director on Table 2 and 3 SIP actions to the Regional
Administrator for both proposed and final rules. The Action Memorandum should
contain the same information for both proposed and final rules unless new
information has been received since the publication of the proposal. The
Action Memorandum should provide senior management with a brief but complete
picture of the action to be taken. It is important that action memorandums
contain the information necessary to give a complete picture of the action as
well as related activities. If the Regional Office has submitted two or more
notices which must be published together, or one must be promulgated before
another, state that in the Action Memorandum and discuss' their relationship.
If substantive changes are made to the FR notice during the Headquarters
review for Table 1 SIP actions, the Action Memorandum should be revised to
reflect those changes,
The component parts of an Action Memorandum are listed below:
- Identification of Action
- Summary of Action
- Coordination with State
- Issues
- Procedural Review
An example of the Information which should be included in an Action
Memorandum is shown on the next several pages. It should be typed on EPA
memorandum paper, single spaced, and paginated at the top center.
26
-------
ACTION MEMORANDUM FORMAT
FORMAT FOR TABLE 1 SIP ACTIONS
SUBJECT: Type of SIP Revision and State - ACTION MEMORANDUM
FROM: Regional Administrator
TO: Administrator (Final rulemaking actions)
OR
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
(Proposed rulemaking actions)
THRU: Chief, Regional Activities Section, ROB, AQMO
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-15)
FORMAT FOR TABLE 2 AND 3 SIP ACTIONS
SUBJECT: Type of SIP Revision and State - ACTION MEMORANDUM
FROM: Director, A1r Division
TO: Regional Administrator
IDENTIFICATION OF ACTION
This introductory paragraph should describe the SIP action in one or two
sentences and include the State(s), local area(s), (county, if a
redesignation) and pollutant(s) involved. It should also identify whether the
SIP action is a proposed or final rule, and specify the type of action
(approval, disapproval, deferral, etc).
SUMMARY OF ACTION
This section provides senior management a brief but complete picture of
the action to be taken. It should discuss the SIP action in sufficient detail
(not just repeat the previous paragraph or list regulation titles), and should
include such things as:
Appropriate back<--ound Information including a history of the
important events leading to the rulemaking.
The rationale for the Region's findings and actions.
Any potential changes 1n air quality, Including the effects on
ambient standards and PSO Increments.
The statutory requirements for the action.
27
-------
The emission limits added or modified.
The sources and/or source categories affected and pollutants
Involved.
The geographic areas affected Including the current attainment
status and the potential for affecting other areas.
A description of the major comments received on the proposal (if
final rulemaking).
Any additional technical or legal information that the Region
believes 1s necessary to describe the action, e.g., a description of
how the promulgation of a national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) under revision may affect this action.
This section will normally be between one paragraph and one page in
length.
COORDINATION WITH STATE(S)
This section should describe the coordination between the State(s) and
the Regional Office, and Indicate the State's position on the SIP action. The
reason for any disagreement between the Regional Office and the State should
be included. If the SIP revision affects other States, a summary of any
discussions with those States and, if appropriate, other Regional Offices
should also be Included.
ISSUES
This section should Identify and explain all major Issues associated with
the SIP action and describe any response or recommendations the Regional
Office might have on these Issues. This section should discuss any associated
litigation, describe any local controversy associated with the action, and
identify any organizations, competes, or individuals particularly affected by
the action. It should also summarize the major impacts of the rulemaking, and
point out any other Important policy implications that should be considered by
senior management.
If a Communications Strategy 1s warranted for an action, this section
should include a statement noting that a Communications Strategy has been
prepared and Is Included. If one 1s not necessary, note of that should alio
be made in this section.
28
-------
PROCEDURAL REVIEW
This section should contain those Items Important to the efficient
processing of the SIP package. It should include such things as:
The SIP processing category -- Table 1, 2, or 3.
A discussion of 0MB review requirements or exemption.
The processing procedure that is being used (sequential processing,
direct final, parallel processing, or letter notice).
A list of the Headquarters offices that should review the SIP
package.
The Regional Office staff contact (including telephone number) who
can provide additional information if necessary.
Any other administrative information the Region feels may be
important to help expedite Headquarters processing and review.
Attachments (See figures 4-8 for the list of materials that must be Included
as attachments)
cc: Phyllis Wright, Regional Operations Branch, AQMD
NOTE: All materials for processing Table 1 and 2 SIP actions must be sent to
Phyllis Wright, ROB, AQMD. The ROB will distribute copies to the Headquarters
reviewers.
29
-------
H. Connunicat ions Strategy
When a SIP package Involves issues that are sensitive, potentially
controversial (particularly 1f a disapproval 1s Involved), or of special
public interest, a Communications Strategy Is required. This strategy makes
explicit who will make what kind of announcement to the public and elected
officials when the notice 1s ready to be published. Types of strategies can
range from a low-key Regional Office-Issued press release to one where the
Administrator and the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and
Radiation each make telephone calls (senators, governors, mayors) in a
specific order at a specific time. (See example Communications Strategy in
Appendix.)
The Headquarters Office of Public Affairs holds weekly conference calls
with the Regional Office Public Affairs staff. Among the Items for discussion
are Communications Strategy candidates. Program office liaison with the
Public Affairs staff 1s Important to assure that all potentially sensitive
actions are flagged and information pertaining to the effect of the
publication of EPA's action 1s presented to all relevant members of the
public.
Once a decision 1s made to develop a Communications Strategy, the
Regional Office program staff should make recommendations to the Regional
Office Public Affairs Office about the level and quality of attention the
package should receive.
The goal of a Communications Strategy is both to notify those who have an
interest 1n the publication of EPA action as well as to maximize the good news
aspect of an EPA rulemaking. Sometimes there are Indirect interests. The
announcement of an approval of a conversion to coal in a northern State may be
as important to a coal producing State as to the State that submitted the
revision.
The Communications Strategy should be forwarded with Table 1 packages
that are sent to Phyllis Wright. The Regional Office recommendations will be
sent by the A1r Quality Management Division (AQMD) to the Headquarters Public
Affairs Office at the same time the Federal Register notice is undergoing
Headquarters staff-level review. The Regional Office has the responsibility
to forward a copy of ill Table 2 and 3 communications strategies to the
Headquarters Public Affairs Office at the same time that the FR notice 1s
undergoing review at the Regional Office. This should allow Communications
Strategy developaent to be completed early enough so 1t will not hold up the
package's processing.
The Office of International Activities (OIA) has advised that the
Canadian Embassy must be informed of all S02 SIP revisions and SO?
redesignatIons before publication in the Federal Register. Therefore a
Communications Strategy must be submitted with all proposed and final SOg
rulemaking actions. The AQMD will send a copy of the Communications Strategy
to the OIA before publication of Table 1 SIP actions. The Regional Office has
the responsibility to send a copy of the coonunlcatlons strategy to the OIA
before publication of Table 2 and 3 SIP actions. The OIA In turn will send a
30
-------
cover letter and copy of the Federal Register notice to the Canadian Embassy.
(See figures 4-8 for the number of copies that must be included with each
package.)
If the Regional Program Office, in conjunction with the Regional Public
Affairs Office, determine that a strategy should not be developed,
justification should be presented in the Action Memorandum under ISSUES.
Questions about communications strategies should be addressed to the
Regional Office of Public Affairs.
I. Public Comments
Copies of significant public comments that are received on the proposal
should be sent to ROB when a SIP action is sent to Headquarters for review.
The rationale for including them is to help determine if particular issues are
becoming important nationally and what organizations are raising them. The
public conments will be distributed to AQMD and OGC as part of the review
package.
J. Request for QHB Review Form (SF-33)
An original 0MB form, signed by the Regional Air Branch Chief, and four
copies must be sent with each SIP action that requires 0MB review. As noted
earlier, presently only Table 1, Part 52 actions that are nat full approvals
require 0MB review.
K. Federalism Review Form f EPA form 3720-111
An original and a copy of the Federalism review form must be submitted
with each SIP action that is required to undergo 0MB review. This form does
not require a signature.
L. FR Typesetting Request Form (EPA form 2340-151
Each document that 1s sent to the RMS for processing and publication in
the FR must include a Typesetting Request Form. Each Regional Office pays for
the cost of printing FR notices. This document authorizes the publication and
provides the appropriate accounting reference. The appropriate Regional
Requesting Officer and FR designee should sign this form.
31
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY FOR A SIP ACTION
IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
OAQPS # 410^
EXPECTED DATE OF ACTIONJuly 30, 1990
NATURE OF ACTION & BRIEF BACKGROUND:
ACTION: Approval of a technical amendment^ to the statewide
emission limit for sulfur dioxide which clarifies that the
averaging tine is to be 60 minutes. Also a SIP call under
Section 110(a)(2)(H) to revise an exception provision.
BACKGROUND: In 1983 the Washington Department of Ecology revised
its sulfur dioxide regulations to add specific language
indicating that the emission limitation was to be determined on a
60 minute average. A provision in the regulations which provides
the Director authority to grant exceptions to the general
emission limit does not satisfy Clean Air Act requirements for
SIP revisions.
INTERESTED GROUPS
X State/Local Officials Environmental Groups Press*
X Industry Congressional X Other
TYPE OF COMMUNICATION STRATEGY RECOMMENDED:
X Low Visibility Medium High
No Plan Recommended (Please justify briefly)
SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES RECOMMENDED:
Press Release
Telephone Notifications to Selected Groups/Individuals
X Letters to Selected Groups/Individuals"
Briefings for Selected Groups
Othera (specify)
32
-------
Instructions for SF-B3. EPA 3720-11. and FPA ?3dQ-lS
All three forms are self-explanatory, however, examples of the forms
follow. Below are detailed Instructions for the SF-83.
Request for 0MB Review (SF-831
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
Section 6
Section 7
Section 8
- Classification
- Stage of
development
- Type of review
requested
Section 9
self-explanatory
"2060B
self-explanatory
self-explanatory
If more than one legal authority 1s involved,
cite principal one
self-explanatory
¦None-
All SIP actions ar "nonmajor"
self-explanatory
Most are "standard"
If more than one section is affected, cite
principal one
Section 10 No
Section 11 N/A
Signature of Program Official -- The Branch Chief is authorized to sign.
Signature of Authorized Regulatory Contact -- The RMS signs here
Federalism Review fEPA 3720-111
An example of a form that is filled out follows.
FR Typesetting Request fEPA 2340-151
An example of a form that 1s filled out follows.
33
-------
Request for 0MB Review
form. Do not use the same SF S3
1 review and approval under
¦orUnt
¦""'mctions before i
tfl an Executiw Order
k Reduction AcL
u*r alt Questions in Part I. K this request it for review under E.O.
91. complete Part II and sign tha regulatory certification, tf this
est is (or approval undar tha Paperwork Reduction Act and 5 CFR
0, skip Part II. complete Part III and sign the paperwork certification.
Sand three copies of this form, tha material to bt
paperwork—three copies of tha supporting statement, to
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Office of Management and Budget
Attention: Docket Library, Room 3201
Washington. DC 20503
. and fc
;T 1, ¦ Complete This Part for All Requests.
wnmenvagency and Bwreaw/ottce ongmrang request
EPA, Region IV, Air Programs Branch
2. Agency esoe
2 0 6 0
¦me of person wno can best answer question* regarding ttw request
Dick Schutt
M o 1 information oallactnan or ruwneiune
Te*epnone number
( FTS j 257-2864
Proposed Approval of Raleigh's I/M Program
gaJ Jirtnortty for information couecbon or run (art Urmta Sutts Coot.Pu&K law, or Luoitnm Orotrj
42 ^ 7401-7642
«Ctt4 public (Owe* SB out tp&r)
ndtvtOuats or households
> or local fooenwfiitt
3 O Farm
4 ~ Businecses or other for-profit
5 Q Federal agencies or employees
6 ~ Non-profit institutions
7 ~ Small busmeties or orpniationt
IT li.—Complete This Part Only If the Request Is for 0MB Review Under Executive Order 12291
¦gulttton Identifier Number (RIN)
or. None auigned E3
at et twomiuiori (cum one oes m* regulation contaet reporting or recordkeeping requirements that reouir* 0MB aporwai under me Paoarwort RodueMfl Act
id 5 CFR 1320? ~ Vet £?*
' a maior rule, is there a regutatary impact analysis attached? . . . . H/A I Q *«s 2 D *
!"No." a»0OW8 waive the inetyHt? 3D Yts *0*
location for Regulatory SwbmtaaJona
lubmirting tha request lor 0MB nrww, the authorised regulatory contact and the program offioai certify that the refinements of LO. 12291 and an, «pokjb*
iture of program^«al
Air Branch Chief
Oate
luinound regulatory contact
Vickie Reed's Office signs here
Oete
OMB w
7woom
O-lOi
34
tf I Mil I r«no U (8»» » I
^•«ac/u«0 Br Ow
-------
UrwSdSUMwSwwoJwivImirProiISoirAoSncv"
Washington, DC 2M0
Federalism Review*
Nam* at Action
For example, "Proposed disapproval of Ralegh I/M Program"
ProQfwn Oftic*
Air Programs Branch, EPA, Region IV
We have reviewed this action tor federalism effaces. Our finding is as follows:
|*| Ho federalism effects. Federalism assessment h not required.
1 | Federalism assessment is not required. Action is mandated by statute (explain below).
j 1 Federalism assessment is not required. Action is necessary to carry out statutory requirement (explain below).
j j Federalism assessment is required (attached).
ErpiwHlon
1
'See "Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 12612: Federalism.'
PA Form 37X0-11 (1-e»» 35
-------
FEDERAL REGISTER TYPESETTING REQUEST
1. title
Proposed SIP Revision Approving the Raleigh I/K Program
Kinmlor Comolata lta>n» 1. 2. 7.
a. a. 10. n. 12 wo 13.
coov number 7 and ubmlt tna
baianca «Hn manuKriot coov to
»a H«j. Fadarat Ragtaar Ofltca.
HQ Fadaral Ragtatar Otltc,: Cam-
Plata ham* 3, 4, S ana 8. Natain
coov numbar 6 and aubmlt baianca
re Hq. Printing Managamant.
4ITTING ACTIVITY
A1r Programs Branch, EPA, Region IV
3- ASSIGNED FRL NUMBER thebd* tip* 4 mimthc dwem for tatxnflctncn.}
Vickie Reed will assign an FRL number
4. OPEN ACQUISITION NUMBER
Vickie Reed will fill 1n
5. BILLING CODE
Vickie Reed will fill 1n
a. forwarded to qsa. nars - signature
Vickie Reed will fill 1n
DATE
7. NUM
10
a. estimateo number of columns
5
9. ESTIMATED COST
$625.00
ML FINANCIAL DATA
FMO USE
(a)
O
T
(b>
DOCUMENT
CONTROL NO.
(e)
/ACCOUNT NO.
(d)
OBJECT
CLASS
la)
AMOUNT If) |
DOLLARS | CTS |
1
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
IS
17
ia
19
20
31
32
33
34
38
3A
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
48
40
47
48
49
SO
81
82
S3
S4{95|56|
3
0
0
6
2
5
0101
1
O
0
|
2
0
0
I
11. SIGNATURE: la) REQUESTING OFFICER
Regional Office Signature — Branch Chief
IX SIGNATURE: (a) FEDERAL REGISTER OESIGNEI
Regional Office Signature—FR Contact
(b> OATE
(e) '
(b) OATE
(el TELEPHONE NUMBER
13. FUNOS ARB AVAILABLE (Comamttmtat Otrt)
Regional Office Signature
Estimate that 2 double spaced pages equal 1 column
Estimate cost 1s $125.00 per column.
Regional Office fills in Document Control No., Account No., and Object Class.
-------
M. Federal Register Document Checklists
The checklists for proposed and final rules were prepared to assist the
Regional Offices when they prepare documents for publication in the FR. A
completed checklist must be attached to each Table 1 SIP revision submitted to
Headquarters for review (See Appendix J for copies of the checklists).
n. part P Docket
The docket 1s an organized and complete file of all Information
considered by the Agency during development of rulemaking. Oockets are
normally set up by and retained at the Regional Office. Information on the
content and structure of dockets may be obtained from the EPA Central Docket
Section in Washington at (ETS) 382-7548, OGC, or from each Office of Regional
Counsel.
For rulemaking actions, an administrative record is required. It is
recommended that the Regions keep a detailed docket on each action 1n case of
litigation. This is particularly true for major actions such as Part D SIP
revisions. Oockets have several advantages that could be brought to the SIP
review process. These include: (1) providing an organizational format for
Agency review and response to comments, (2) serving as the record for judicial
review, and (3) providing a central location for the public to examine
documents relevant to the rulemaking process. Host Regional Offices have
adopted some form of a docket system. While the CAA does not require a
docket, OGC recommends that each Regional Office establish a docket system f&r*
each SIP submittal to be available no later than the date the proposal 1s
published.
An example docket follows:
I. The EPA Guidance Documents (List all relevant guidance documents that
the Regional Office considered when preparing this rulemaking).
II. SIP Submission from State
A. State SIP Revision Package
B. State Support Documents
III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Notice of Availability of State Submittal (if such notice was
IssuedJ
B. FR Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
C. Any support documents and guidance memorandum referred to or
depended on 1n the FR notice of proposed rulemaking
D. Any factual memorandums prepared by EPA which are centrally
relevant to the proposed rulemaking and which were prepared prior to the
notice of proposed rulemaking
37
-------
E. Technical Support Document
IV. Public Comments Received 1n Response to the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking within the Official Comment Period
(This section may be subdivided into comments and responses, or the responses
may follow each individual comment, or a separate section may be established
for response to comments. In addition, 1t may be necessary to establish a
subpart of this section or a new section to cover coiranents received after the
close of the comment period. In the past, the Agency has examined these
comments if time allowed.)
V. Final Action
A. The Federal Register Notice of Approval/Disapproval
8. The Technical Support Document (including any factual memorandums
of central relevance to the final rulemaking).
C. Response to Comments Document
VI. Miscellaneous Correspondence and Documents (Optional)
Under the CAA [Section 307(d)], EPA must prepare a formal docket for al>
EPA-originated rulemaking [e.g., Federal Implementation Plans (FIP's)].
Copies of the docket must be kept at the appropriate Regional Office and at
OGC's Central Docket Section. The preamble must include the number, the
location of the docket, and the times the docket will be available for public
inspection. It 1s the Regional Office's responsibility to deal directly with
the Central Docket Section to ensure that all relevant material concerning a
Federal promulgation is on file. (See Appendix K for the guidelines on
setting up a docket.)
0. Distribution
The next five pages (figures 4-8) list the materials that must be
included 1n the packages sent to Headquarters by category of SIP (Table 1, 2
or 3). For Table 1 and 2 final actions (this does nai include direct finals),
fewer copies of the State submittal can be forwarded to the Headquarters
reviewing offices if there have been no changes from the proposed action, no
significant consents received, or no changes in the State submittal or TSD.
If there have been any changes since the proposed rule, the new materials must
be submitted with the final rule. Note that copies of public comments should
be submitted to AQMD and OGC with the final rules. It 1s the Regional
Office's responslbH1ty to ensure that all FR notices and accompanying
materials are complete, readable, accurate, and properly organized.
38
-------
NUMBER OF COPIES (INCLUDING ORIGINALS) SENT TO AQMD FOR PROCESSING
TABLE 1 PROPOSED SIP ACTIONS
After the Regional Administrator has signed the Action Memorandum and FR
notice, the Regional Office has the responsibility to forward a complete
package to Phyllis Wright for processing. Table 1 proposed SIP actions that
are sent to Phyllis must Include the following Items:
(1) Original Action Memorandum and 10 copies
(2) Original FR Notice and 14 copies
(3) Seven copies of the TSD
(4) Eight copies of the State Submittal
(5) Four copies of the Communications Strategy
(6) Original and four copies of the 0MB form
(for actions that are qq£ full approvals)
(7) Two copies of the Federalism form
(for actions that are q& full approvals)
(8) One FR Typesetting Request form
(9) One copy of the FR Format Checklist
Phyllis Wright will distribute copies of the material to all of the
Headquarters reviewing offices. Following 1s a 11st of the Headquarters
reviewing offices and a description of the type of SIP actions that they must
formally concur on by calling Phyllis Wright. When a reviewing office
receives a SIP action that does not involve their particular area of concern,
they are not required to call in their concurrence to Phyllis Wright.
- AQM) - all SIP actions
- 06C - all SIP actions
- OPA - all SIP actions
- SSCD - SIP actions involving stationary sources
- FOSD - SIP actions involving mobile sources, e.g., RVP SIP's, Stage II
- ECTD - SIP actions Involving I/M
- RIS - SIP actions involving emission trades (bubbles)
Figure 4
39
-------
NUMBER OF COPIES (INCLUDING ORIGINALS) SENT TO AQMD FOR PROCESSING
TABLE 1 FINAL SIP ACTIONS
After the Regional Administrator has signed off on the Action Memorandum
and FR notice, the Regional Office has the responsibility to forward a
complete package to Phyllis Wright for processing. Table 1 final SIP actions
that are sent to Phyllis Wright must include the following items:
(1) Original Action Memorandum, and 11 copies
{?.) Original FR Notice and 16 copies
(3) Eight copies of the TSD
(4) Eight copies of the State Submittal*
(5) Two copies of the IBR material
(6) Original cover memo to OFR transmitting IBR
(7) Two copies of significant public comments
(8) Five copies of the communications Strategy
(9) Original and four copies of the 0MB form
(for actions that are nfli full approvals)
(10) Two copies of the Federalism form
(for actions that are flfli full approvals)
(11) One FR Typesetting Request form
(12) One copy of the FR Format Checklist
Phyllis Wright will distribute copies of the material to all of the
Headquarters reviewing offices. Following is a list of the Headquarters
reviewing offices and a description of the type of SIP actions that-they must
formally concur on by calling Phyllis Wright. When a reviewing office
receives a SIP action that does not involve their particular area of concern,
they are not required to call 1n their concurrence to Phyllis Wright.
- AQMD - all SIP actions
- OGC - all SIP actions
- OPA - all SIP actions
- SSCD - SIP actions Involving stationary sources
- FOSD - SIP actions involving mobile sources, e.g., RVP SIP's, Stage II
- ECTD - SIP actions Involving I/M
- RIS - SIP actions Involving emission trades (bubbles)
•If additional material has not been received from the State, the Regional
Office will not be required to resubmit the State submittal to the ROB for
distribution to the Headquarters reviewers. The Regiohal Office must send a
memorandum certifying that no new material was submitted by the State. The
memorandum must be from the Regional Section Chief to Johnnie Pearson, Chief,
Regional Activities Section, ROB, and be included 1n the package that is sent
to Phyllis Wright.
Figure 5
40
-------
NUMBER OF COPIES SENT TO AQMD FOR PROCESSING
TABLE 2 PROPOSED AND FINAL SIP ACTIONS
After the Regional Office has prepared a draft action memorandum and FR
notice, the Regional Office has the responsibility to forward a complete
package to Phyllis Wright for processing. Table 2 proposed and final SIP
actions that are sent to Phyllis Wright must include the following items:
(1) Eight copies of the action memorandum
(2) Eight copies of the FR notice
(3) Eight copies of the TSD
(4) Eight copies of the State submittal*
(5) Two copies of significant public comments (for final actions)
Phyllis Wright will distribute copies of the material to all of the
Headquarters reviewing offices. When a reviewing office has concerns about a
particular SIP action, they should submit a memorandum to the Regional Office
outlining their concerns within 30 days. A copy of the memorandum must also
be sent to Phyllis Wright. Following is a 11st of the Headquarters reviewing
offices and a description of the type of SIP actions that they have
responslbllity for reviewing.
- AQMD - all SIP actions
- 06C • all SIP actions
- OPA - all SIP actions
• SSCD - SIP actions Involving stationary sources
• FOSD - SIP actions Involving mobile sources, e.g., RVP SIP's, Stage II
- ECTD - SIP actions Involving I/M
- RIS - SIP actions Involving emission trades (bubbles)
*0n final SIP actions, if additional material has Q£l been received from the
State, the Regional Office will not be required to resubmit the State
submittal to the ROB for distribution to the Headquarters reviewers. The
Regional Office oust send a memorandum certifying that no new material was
submitted by the State. The Beaorandum must be froa the Regional Section
Chief to Johnnie Pearson, Chief, Regional Activities Section, ROB, and be
Included In the package that 1s sent to Phyllis Wright.
Figure 6
41
-------
NUMBER OF COPIES SENT TO THE REGULATION MANAGEMENT STAFF (RMS)
FOR PROCESSING AND PUBLICATION
OF TABLE 2 PROPOSED AND FINAL SIP ACTIONS
After the 30-day Headquarters review is completed, the Regional Office
should obtain the Regional Administrator's signature. After that, the
Regional Office has the responsibility to forward a complete package to Vickie
Reed, RMS, Office of Program Planning and Evaluation, for processing and
forwarding to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. Packages
sent to Vickie Reed must include the following items:
(1) Original signed Federal Register notice and four copies
(2) Federal Register Typesetting Request (EPA Form 2340-15)
(3) Cover memorandum to the OFR and 2 identical copies of the IBR
material, only if the action is a final Part 52 approval
Vickie Reed's address is:
Regulation Management Staff (PM-223)
Office of Program Planning and Evaluation
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460.
At the same time, the Regional Office has the responsibility to forward
all communication strategies directly to Brenda Green, Office of Regional
Operations and State and Local Operations. Brenda Green's address is:
Office of Regional Operations and State and Local Operations
Environmental Protection Agency (HI502)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460.
The Regional Office also has the responsibility to forward a copy of all
communication strategies on SO* SIP actions and SO? redesignation requests to
the Office of International Activities. The address 1s:
Office of International Activities
Environmental Protection Agency (A-106)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, O.C. 20460.
Figure 7
42
-------
NUMBER OF COPIES SENT TO ROB AND RMS FOR PROCESSING AND PUBLICATION
OF TABLE 3 PROPOSED AND FINAL SIP ACTIONS
Table 3 SIP actions are not distributed to the Headquarters reviewing
offices prior to publication. All Table 3 disapproval actions must be sent to
ROB, AQW) (Phyllis Wright) before publication 1n the FR for a 2-day review,
prior to the Regional Administrators signature. This 1s not a substantive
review of the notice, rather It 1s a review to ensure that no language has
been Included 1n the notice that 0MB would have reasonably objected to if they
had reviewed the action. The ROB will contact the Regional contact directly
before the end of the 2-day review with their concurrence or comments.
After the Regional Office has obtained the Regional Administrator s
signature, the Region has the responsibility to forward a complete package to
Vickie Reed for processing and forwarding to the Office of the Federal
Register for publication. Packages sent to Vickie Reed must include the
following items:
(1) Original signed Federal Register notice and four copies
(2) Federal Register Typesetting Request (EPA Form 2340-15)
(3) Cover memorandum to the OFR and 2 identical copies of the IBR
material, only if the action is a final Part 52 approval
Vickie Reed's address is:
Regulation Management Staff (PM-223)
Office of Program Planning and Evaluation
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460.
At the sane time, the Regional Office has the responsibility to forward
the communications strategy directly to Brenda Green, Office of Regional
Operations and State and Local Operations. Brenda Green's address 1s:
Office of Regional Operations and State and Local Operations*
Environmental Protection Agency (H1502)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460.
The Regional Office also has the responsibility to forward a copy of all
communication strategies on SO* SIP actions and S02 redeslgnatlon requests to
the Office of International Activities. The address 1s:
Office of International Activities
Environmental Protection Agency (A-106)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, O.C. 20460.
Figure 8
43
-------
II. Headquarters Review
A. SIP Package Distribution
The Regional Office should send the completed SIP package and appropriate
copies for all Headquarters reviewing offices to the Regional Activities
Section, ROB, AQMD, at the following address:
Regional Operations Branch (MD-15)
ATTN: Phyllis Wright
Air Quality Management Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
Only if you are using an overnight delivery service, use the following
address:
Regional Operations Branch (MD-15)
ATTN: Phyllis Wright
AQMD, OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
N.C. Mutual Life Insurance Building, Room 533
411 West Chapel Hill Street
Durham, NC 27701.
Regional Offices should no longer place the packages for each
Headquarters reviewing office in individual envelopes. Instead, a rubber bafid;
should be put around the materials for each office and the reviewing office'| '
acronym should be written in the top right-hand corner of the first page. ,
Please include only one SIP-action in the large envelope sent to RAS. The RAS
will then distribute the packages to all of the SIP reviewing offices (located
in Washington, Ann Arbor, and Durham) for review and concurrence.
44
-------
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
OF OFPICtS INVOLVED IN THE SIP REVIEW PROCESS
*Office of Enforcement participates through SSCD
Figure 9
-------
LIST OF nPPTf.F ABBREVIATIONS
A ADMINISTRATOR
AX Office of the Administrator (Correspondence Control)
OAR OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
AA ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
OAQPS OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
AQMD Air Quality Management Division
Regional Operations Branch
Ozone/CO Programs Branch
SOj/Particulate Matter Programs Branch
Noncriterla Pollutant Programs Branch
SSCD Stationary Source Compliance Division
Technical Support Branch
OMS OFFICE OF MOBILE SOURCES
ECTD Emission Control Technology Division (Ann Arbor, MI)
Technical Support Staff Branch
FOSD Field Operations and Support Division
Field Operations and Compliance Policy Branch
OGC OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
ARD Air and Radiation Division
SIP's Branch
National Standards Branch
Anfcient/Moblle/NSPS Branch
OE OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
OPPE OFFICE OF POLICY, PLANNING, AND EVALUATION
OPA Office of Policy Analysis
Air Economics Branch
OSR Office of Standards and Regulations
RMS Regulation Management Staff
RIS Regulatory Innovations Staff
OARM OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION ANO RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
OA Office of Administration
PIRU Public Information Reference Unit
RO REGIONAL OFFICE
RA REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
OFR OFFICE OF FEDERAL REGISTER
0MB OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT ANO BUOGET
Figure 10
46
-------
B. Roles and Responsibilities of SIP Reviewing Off1^
The primary function of Headquarters 1n the review of SIP packages is to
ensure that the rulemaking 1s consistent with national policy, that each
action meets legal requirements of the CAA, and meets the structural
requirements specified by the OFR. Headquarters reviewers should restrict
comments to major policy, and technical and legal Issues. Reviewers should
not rewrite FR notices because they disagree with the Regional Office's style.
Figure 9 shows a schematic of the offices; Figure 10 lists the Headquarters
reviewing offices, indicating their acronyms.
The following sections discuss the Individual roles of EPA Headquarters
offices.
1. Office of A1r and Radiation (OAR)
a. Office of A1r Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality
Management Division, Durham, NC, and the Stationary Source Compliance
Division, Washington, D.C. The AQMD contains four components which coordinate
and review SIP actions and the SSCO also reviews SIP actions.
I. Regional Operations Branch, AQMD - The ROB's primary
responsibility 1s to coordinate the review of SIP actions 1n Headquarters and
review actions for conformance with generic requirements. This includes
receiving and distributing SIP actions for review; updating and maintaining
the SIPTRAX bulletin board; expediting the SIP review, e.g., litigation
sensitive or enforcement pending SIP revisions; reviewing SIP disapprovals for
potential 0MB red flags; serving as the liaison with 0MB on SIP actions;
preparing management reports on outstanding SIP actions and processing trends;
and guidance memoranda on SIP processing procedures. The ROB will also review
the FR notice for conformity to basic SIP policy not inherently the
responsibility of a specific program office.
II. Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, AQMD - The OCOPB
provides technical support and assistance to the Regional Offices on the
development, evaluation, and promulgation of all SIP submittals that involve
ozone, carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen. For Table 1 SIP actions, the
OCOPB has the responsibility to recommend concurrence, concurrence with
comment, or nonconcurrence to the Assistant Administrator (AA) of the Office
of Air and Radiation (OAR).
III. SOg/Partlculate Matter Programs Branch, AQMD - The SOPMPB
provides technical support and assistance to the Regional Offices on the
development, evaluation, and promulgation of all SIP submittals that involve
sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, visibility, and lead. For Table 1 SIP
actions, the SOPMPB has the responslhllIty to recommend concurrence,
concurrence with comment, or nonconcurrence to the AA of OAR.
1v. Noncriterla Pollutant Programs Branch, AQMD - The NPPB
provides technical support and assistance to the Regional Offices on the
development, evaluation, and promulgation of all SIP submittals that Involve
new source review, prevention of significant deterioration, permits, and
47
-------
Section 111(d) plans. For Table 1 SIP actions, the NPPB has the
responsibility to recommend concurrence, concurrence with comment, or
nonconcurrence to the AA of OAR.
v. Stationary Source Compliance Division - The SSCD is primarily
responsible for reviewing the enforceability of SIP revisions that involve
regulations for the control of stationary sources and 111(d) plans. This
includes reviewing the specificity of the emission limitations, test methods,
compliance schedules (categorical and source specific), and excess
emission/malfunction provisions. In addition, SSCD participates in the review
of other SIP actions such as bubbles, NSR/PSD regulations, and emission
limitations with long-term averaging requirements. The SSCD has the
responsibility to coordinate the review of SIP actions with the Air
Enforcement Division, Office of Enforcement. For Table 1 SIP actions, SSCD
has the responsibility to recommend concurrence, concurrence with comment, or
nonconcurrence to the AA of OAR.
b. Office of Mobile Sources (OMS), Washington, D.C. and Ann Arbor,
Michigan - The OMS contains two components which coordinate SIP actions as
follows:
1. The Emission Control Technology Division (ECTD) of OMS in Ann
Arbor, Michigan, provides technical and policy support to the Regional Offices
for portions of the SIP related to inspection/maintenance. For Table 1 SIP
actions, the ECTD has the responsibility to recommend concurrence, concurrenae,
with comment, or nonconcurrence to the AA of OAR.
ii. The Field Operations and Support Division (FOSD) of OMS in
Washington, D.C., provides technical, legal, and policy support with regard to
enforcement of regulations to control emissions from mobile sources. Such
regulations include inspection/maintenance, tampering/misfueling, service
station vapor recovery (Stages I and II), lead control measures, control of
reid vapor pressure, and transportation control measures. The FOSD is
concerned that these regulations be enforceable and consistent with national
enforcement policy. For Table 1 SIP actions, the FOSD has the responsibility
to recommend concurrence, concurrence with comment, or nonconcurrence to the
AA for OAR.
2. Office of General Counsel fOGH
The A1r and Radiation Division (ARD) of OGC reviews all SIP actions for
national consistency and legal sufficiency. Its primary concern is that SIP
actions are legally consistent with the CAA and other federally-mandated laws
and regulations. For Table 1 SIP actions, the ARD has the responsibility to
recommend concurrence, concurrence with comment, or nonconcurrence.
3. Office of Pol lev. Planning and Fvaluatlon fOPPE)
a. Office of Standards and Regulations (OSR), Washington, D.C.
i. The Regulation Management Staff (RMS) serves as the liaison
between EPA, the Office of the Fe *ral Register, and the Office of Management
48
-------
and Budget. The RMS 1s Involved primarily with the detailed writing
provisions of the FR requirements. The RMS reviews such areas as FR
boilerplate language and whether 0MB review 1s necessary and 1f all
appropriate forms are Included.
11. The Regulatory Innovations Staff (RIS) reviews SIP actions
related to emissions trading for consistency with EPA's Emission Trading
Policy Statement. This statement Includes alternative emission control plans
(bubbles). For Table I SIP actions, the RIS has the responsibil1ty to
recommend concurrence, concurrence with comment, or nonconcurrence to the AA
for OPPE.
b. Office of Policy Analysis (OPA), Washington, O.C. - The OPA's Air
Economic Branch conducts evaluations of proposed regulations pursuant to Its
responsibility for procedural management and substantive evaluation of the
Agency's air pollution regulations. The OPA reviews focus on areas where
policy Is not clearly resolved, or where there are cumulative impacts caused
by several actions. The OPA also reviews regulations to determine if they are
consistent with national policy. The OPA has the responsibility to recommend
concurrence, concurrence with comment, or nonconcurrence to the AA for OPPE.
4. Office of Administration and Resources Management (0ARM1
The Information Management and Services Division (IMSD) of OARM contalrvs
the Public Information Reference Unit (PIRU) which serves as a focal point in
making EPA FR actions available to the public.
5. Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
The OMB reviews Table 1 SIP actions which are not fully approved by EPA
to determine If the action is consistent with Executive Orders 12291 and
12612. The Intent of EO 12291 is to assure that Agency rules are applied
within the context of the statutory authority. EO 12612 addresses regulations
that have substantial direct effects on the States and requires that such
actions be governed by a number of Federalism principles. The OMB 1s allotted
ten days for review of rulemaking actions, however, this.review period can be
extended.
6. Office of the Federal Register
The OFR reviews all documents that are published 1n the Federal Register
to ensure that they meet the requirements of The Federal Register Act and the
Administrative Procedures Act. The FR system 1s composed primarily of two
major publications, the dally Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations. The OFR can assist drafters In preparing documents for
publication, e.g., organizing and drafting document text, preparing a document
1n the proper format, scheduling a document for publication, complying with
IBR requirements, etc.
49
-------
C. SIP Concurrence Process
1. Review Periods
The ROB will establish the beginning and the end of the Headquarters
concurrence period when a complete SIP package is received from the Regional
Office. The ROB will then distribute packages for review to the all of the
Headquarters reviewing offices. A delay in the review process may occur if an
incomplete package is forwarded to Headquarters. The concurrence periods for
SIP actions are below:
Table 1
Table 1 SIP actions will undergo a 30-day staff level review period.
These type of actions require a formal concurrence, concurrence with conment,
or nonconcurrence by the appropriate Headquarters reviewing offices before the
action may be forwarded to the AA for Air and Radiation for sign off, 0MB for
review (on disapprovals), the Administrator for signature (on final actions),
the RMS for processing and publication in the FR.
Table 2
Table 2 SIP actions are sent to Headquarters for a 30-day review prior to»
signature by the Regional Administrator. At the completion of the 30 days,
the Regional Offices should finalize the FR notices and any supporting
documentation. Regional Offices should not expect' a concurrence in the form
of a telephone call or memorandum from the Headquarters reviewers. Comments
submitted by Headquarters .reviewers should be considered prior to submitting
the FR notice to the Regional Administrator for signature. The Regional
Office retains the responsibility for the action and, therefore, has the final
decision authority. After the Regional Administrator has signed the action,
the package should be sent to the RMS for processing and publication in the
FR.
Table 3
Headquarters review for Table 3 actions is generally not required. Only
Table 3 SIP disapprovals are sent to the ROB for a 2-day review. The purpose
of this review 1s to examine the FR notice for language that might raise
concerns with Of®. This review, which is performed by ROB, will not involve
the basic content of the notice. The Regional Office may, at any time,
request a review of a Table 3 action by the Headquarters program offices but
no such review Is required under the SIP reforms.
50
-------
2. Headquarters SIP Processing Contacts
The following SIP processing contacts have been established for each
Headquarters office Involved In SIP concurrence:
EEI££
3C
iCD
)SD
S
MD
TO
CONTACT
Bonlta Foil 1ns
Gene Durman
Gerald Kraus
A1 Mannato
Barry Elman
Phyllis Wright
Denlse Gerth
Pan Johnson
Jane Armstrong
telephone
382-7610
382-5490
382-2829
629-5369
629-5550
629-5270
374-8471
MAIL COPE
LE-132A
PM-220
EN-341
382-2667 EN-397F
382-2727 PM-223
HD-15
MD-15
MD-15
E-HAIL
2821
2141
6203
6421
2150
6258
6258
6258
6431
SH-
ALL
All
Stationary
Source
Control
Mobile Sourc
Control
Alternative
Enlist on
Contrpl^Plar
(Bubblf
All
All
Inspection/
Maintenance
Each Headquarters reviewing office has the responsibility to call AQW)
to concur with SIP packages and to return the concurrence/coonent routing
sheet no later than the end of the review period, upon submission of contents
to the Regional Office, or to explain problems that are delaying concurrence.
Any problems encountered should be discussed with the Regional Office as early
as possible in the review period, and ROB must be notified.
51
-------
3. Negotiation Process
In order to process SIP actions within the 2 month time frame,
communication, understanding, and cooperation between Headquarters and the
Regional Offices are necessary. The ROB will monitor the SIP review process,
notify reviewers and program managers of delays, and help coordinate the
resolution of problems preventing concurrence or signature. A summary of the
negotiation process follows.
Table 1 SIP actions undergo a 30-day staff level Headquarters review.
These actions, however, are not forwarded until all reviewers have either
concurred, concurred with comment, or nonconcurred. Frequently, the reviewing
offices will request changes to the language in the body of the notice. Minor
changes usually are readily agreed upon by both Headquarters and the Regional
Offices. Negotiations between the Regional Office and the reviewing offices
are sometimes prolonged and extend beyond the 30-day review period. It 1s
important to resolve any issues as expeditiously as possible and strive to
process SIP revisions in the 2-month time frame.
When the Regional Office and Headquarters agree on any changes, it is the
responsibility of the Regional Office to submit the changes to ROB.
Generally, however, the Regional Office will not revise the FR notice or TSD
until all reviewing offices have provided comments to the Region or concurred
on the action. Depending on the significance of the changes, the ROB will
send the revision to the reviewing offices for review and concurrence. The
review period for a revised SIP action will usually not exceed 10 working
days. The majority of changes are sent to the reviewing offices, however,
typographical errors or minor word replacements are not sent to the reviewing
offices for review and concurrence.
When changes are agreed to, the Regional Office should send the revision
to a SIP action to Phyllis Wright by mail service. If necessary, changes can
be sent by E-Mail (EPA6258 Attn: Phyllis Wright). If the changes amend the
substance of the action, a corresponding change should be made in the Action
Memorandum. New pages to a document should be numbered such that tJiey can
replace old pages. If the rewrite is more expansive than the page(s) to be
replaced, use letters after the page number (e.g., 16a, 16b would be
substituted for old page 16). When the Regional Office submits a revised FR
notice. TSO. or Action Memorandum, they are responsible for resubmitting the
revised document and copies to ROB. The number of copies that are required is
the same as was submitted with the oriqinaVSIP action. The responsibility
for the package will revert to Headquarters responsibility when the revision
is confirmed as received and complete (i.e., the appropriate number of copies
are included).
In situations where the Regional Office and Headquarters cannot agree on
an issue, the Headquarters office must prepare a concurrence with comment, or
nonconcurrence memorandum from the appropriate Air Division Director to the
Director, OAQPS. The original, signed memorandum should be forwarded to ROB
so that it can accompany the SIP action. Initially ROB, in conjunction with
the appropriate Headquarters reviewing offices, will present the outstanding
issue to the Director, OAQPS. The Director, OAQPS, will then contact the
52
-------
Regional Division Director to try to resolve the Issue. If the issue cannot
be resolved, the SIP package will be forwarded to the AA for OAR for
resolutlon.
The reviewing office must also forward a copy of the concurrence with
comment, or nonconcurrence memorandum to the Regional A1r Branch Chief and the
person who Initiated the FR notice 1n the Region.
Table 2 SIP actions are sent to Headquarters for a 30-day review. Thii
review is not intended to be a veto authority but rather to provide the
Headquarters reviewers an opportunity to review and comment on the action.
Consequently, the reviewers can suggest changes to a SIP action but the
Regional Office retains the responsibility for the action and, therefore, has
the final decision authority.
Table 3 SIP actions are not generally sent to Headquarters for review. A
Regional Office may, however, request Headquarters review. The Regional
Office has the final decision authority if changes are suggested by a
reviewing office.
4. Concurrence, Signature, and Publication
Once all reviewers have either concurred, concurred with comment, or
nonconcurred, Table 1 actions are sent to the AA for concurrence. The normal
time for AA review 1s 5 working days although some complicated packages have
taken longer. Next the package is sent to 0MB, 1f necessary (Table 1 actions
that are ofil full approvals). The 0MB has 10 working days to review the
action; however, 0MB can request an extension of the review period. These
extensions are open ended. Table 1 final rules are then forwarded to the
Administrator for signature. Review by the Administrator's office normally
takes 5 days, however, more complicated packages or those with sensitive
issues may take longer. Processing by the RMS normally takes from 1-2 days.
Processing by the OFR and publication in the FR normally takes 3 days. Note
that if the RMS or the OFR encounter problems with the regulatory text or IBR%
material, missing typesetting requests forms, etc., a delay in the publication
of the document will occur.
5. Withdrawal of SIP Submittals
The Regional Office has the option of withdrawing a SIP action that 1s at
Headquarters. Instances where that might occur are when a State requests that
EPA stop processing a submittal, when the Regional Office decides on a
different course of action, etc. The Regional Office Air Section Chief must
send a memorandum to the Chief, Regional Activities Section, ROB, requesting
the SIP action be withdrawn from Headquarters. The memorandum should specify
the basis for withdrawing the action from Headquarters review and Indicate
whether the Regional Office wants ROB to return the paperwork to then. The
ROB cannot withdraw a SIP action until such memorandum Is received.
53
-------
III. SIP Responsibility (S-2/5-2) and Tracking
A. SIP Responsibility
In 1981, the 5-2/5-2 accountability system was established. The
guidelines set a 14-month timetable for decisions on SIP submittals. Under
the 5-2/5-2 system, the Regional Offices have 5 months to review a submittal
and prepare a rulemaking notice at both the proposed and final stages.
Headquarters then has 2 months at each stage to review, comment, and publish
the rulemaking notice in the FR.
Implementation Of the SIP reforms caused EPA to revise its guidance on
the 5-2/5-2 timetable to reflect the reform initiatives. The period of time
considered reasonable for acting on SIP revisions varies according to the
category of SIP. A table listing the time frames for acting on SIP submittals
which 1s a variation of the original 5-2/5-2, is below. This table was
published in response to a comment that was received on the completeness
criteria final rule. The CAA Amendments are expected to specify a time frame
for EPA to act on SIP submittals which will make the 5-2/5-2 accountability
system obsolete.
During the 5-month time frame when a Regional Office is drafting a FR
notice, the action is considered to be the responsibility of the Regional
Office. When an action is received in Headquarters for the 2-month review, it»
is considered to be Headquarters responsibility. Upon publication in the FR,
the responsibility for action reverts back to the Regional Office with 5
months from date of proposal to complete action on the final notice. When the
final FR notice is received in Headquarters, it again becomes Headquarters
responsibility. In situations where revisions are being parallel processed,
the second 5 months begin when the final State submittal 1s received or the
proposed rule is published by the Regional Office, whichever is later.
During the Headquarters review period, it is possible that a SIP action
may revert back to the Regional Office's responsibility. The following list
is not intended to indicate all possible situations where the responsibility
would shift back to the Regional Office. Some examples include:
(a) When significant portions of the FR notice must be rewritten.
(b) When additional information must be obtained from the State.
(c) When an action 1s not consistent with national policy.
(d) When material for IBR is incomplete.
The Regional Office and Headquarter personnel must keep ROB fully
informed of their discussions on each SIP action. A case-by-case
determination will be made to ascertain which office has responsibility for
the SIP action. When an action reverts to the Regional Office's
responsibility, ROB will notify the appropriate Regional Office Section Chief.
54
-------
If other problems arise, ROB will determine who has responsibility for an
action. For example, if there are unresolved national policy issues, the
action would stay the responsibility of Headquarters. Often problems that
require a SIP. package to be returned to the Regional Office can be avoided by
direct discussion between Regional Office and Headquarters staff during the
Regional review of the State submittal and development of the notice.
b. Tracking
The ROB 1s responsible for managing the Headquarters SIP review and
tracking system.
The ROB will provide each Headquarters review office and Regional Office
periodic computerized status reports of all SIP packages undergoing
Headquarters review. The ROB will also ensure the AQMD/B8S is updated weekly.
This update is generally performed on Wednesday afternoons.
The ROB will generate and distribute to the Regional Offices quarterly
reports on SIP processing.
55
-------
5-2/5-2 Tracking
ictittTfft
Pnpoul
Flaal 1
feguaal Office
BMdqmrt«n
toqional Office
BMdqwrttn
Tfcltl
9 rati*
2 aoathi
5 Mfitbi
2 rathe
fiblc n
5 mttt
1 aootb
5 aoathi
1 aoatb
Tahla n/Dinct
S aoathi
1 aeatfc
Nasi telwrtrim
libit m
5 ntfe
5 aoatta
Tafel* m/UiKt
5 rata*
flail fnltwHm
Table m/Utte
3 aoathi
ictic*
Figure 11
56
-------
IV. Listings of Names anH Telephone Numbers
A. REGIONAL OFFICE SIP REVIEWERS
Region I (E-mail 9138) [Fax (FTS) 835-3468]
Stephen Perkins - 835-3245 - Chief, State Air Programs Branch
David B. Conroy
Cynthia Green
Lynne Hamjian
Robert Judge
Nam Nguyen
Emanuel Souza
Vacancy
Vacancy
835-3254 - Chief, Planning and Technical Evaluation
Section
835-3244 - Ozone (Plans & Redesignations)
835-3250 - Maine, NS& and PSO
835-3248 - Rhode Island, Emission Inventories
835-3249 - New Hampshire, NSPS/NESHAP Delegations
835-3246 - Massachusetts, General SIP
Coordinator
835-3252 - Connecticut, VOC, Emission Trading
835-3247 - Vermont, 111(d) Plans
Susan Studlien
Vacant
835-3221 - Chief, Technical & Program Support Branch
835-3225 - Chief, Technical Assistance Section
Ian Cohen
Peter Hagerty
Brian Hennessey
Gary Blais
Tom Wholley
835-3229 - Ozone Modeling (CT, NH)
835-3224 - Mobile Sources
835-3223 - Ozone Modeling (MA, ME), S02, PM-10
Visibility, Stack Heights
835-3220 • Ozone Modeling (RI, VT)
835-3233 - CO (Plans & redesignations), Lead
Region II (E-Mail 9260 or 9261) [Fax (FTS) 264-7613]
Bill Baker - 264-2517 - Chief, Air Programs Branch
Rudy Kaplchak
Paul Truchan
John Walsh
Stan Stephanson
Matt McCarthy
Rich Graciano
Ray Werner
Bob Kelly
264-2517 - Chief, Implementation Section
264-2517 - (NY, NJ Stationary Sources)
264-2517 - (NY, NJ, Puerto R1co, Virgin Islands
Mobile Sources)
264-2517 - (PM-10)
264-2517 - (NY, NJ Stationary Sources, NY I/M)
264-2517 - (NJ I/M)
264-2517 • Chief, Impact Assessment Section
264-2517 - (Stack Heights)
57
-------
REGIONAL OFFICE SIP REVIEWERS
Region III (E-Ma11 9350
Marcia Spink - 597-8486
Joseph Kurtz
Kelly Sheckler
Charlene Spells
Hal Frankford
David Campbell
David Arnold
Kelly Bunker
Cynthia Stahl
Jackie Lewis
Rebecca Taggart
Raymond Forde
Larry Budney
Reoion IV (E-Mail 9470)
Bruce Miller - 257-2864
Tom Hansen
Vacant
Kay Prince
Becky Allenbach
Diane Altsman
Liz Wilde
Dale Aspy
Jewel Grubbs
01ck Schutt
Beverly Hudson
Rosalyn Hughes
Vickie Boothe
D1ck Schutt
Carl a Pierce
or 9351) [Fax (FTS) 597-7906]
- Chief, A1r Programs Branch
597-8486 - Chief, Project Management Section
597-2746 - (Allegheny County, Delaware & N0X
Delegations)
597-2746 - (Virginia, Philadelphia)
597-1325 - (Pennsylvania, Maryland)
597-1325 - (D.C., West Virginia, NESHAP, NSPS
Delegation)
597-4556 - Chief, Programs Planning Section
597-4554 - (I/M, Anti/Tampering)
597-9337 - (0,/C0, SOCMI Regs.)
597-6863 - (03/C0, SOCMI Regs.)
597-9189 - (O3/CO, SOCMI Regs.)
597-8239 - (O3/CO, SOCMI Regs.)
597-0545 - (Oj/CO, SOCMI Regs,)
[Fax (FTS) 257-5207]
- Chief, Air Programs Branch
257-2864 - Chief, Southern Planning and Air Toxics
Section
257-2864 - Chief, Southern Planning Unit
257-2864 - Florida, VOC
257-2864 - Georgia, Lead
257-2864 - Mississippi
257-2864 - Alabama
257-2864 - I/M
257-2864 - Chief, Northern Planning, Grants and
Monitoring Section
257-2864 - Acting Chief, Northern Planning Unit
257-2864 - South Carolina, SO?
257-2864 - North Carolina
257-2864 - Tennessee & Kentucky (VOC)
257-2864 - Kentucky, SIP Processing
257-2864 - Tennessee, Permitting
58
-------
REGIONAL OFFICE SIP REVIEWERS
Reolon V (E-Mail 9553) [Fax (FTS) 886-0617]
Steve Rothblatt - 353-2211 - Chief, Air and Radiation Branch
Gary Gulezian
Robert Miller
Randy Cano
Maggie Greene
Fayette Bright
E. Marie Huntoon
Uylaine McMahan
Anne Tenner
Joseph Paisie
Carlton Nash
886-6258 - Chief, Regulatory Analysis Section
353-0396 - Chief, Regulatory Review Unit
886-6036 - (Illinois)
886-6088 - (Ohio)
886-6069 - (SIP Dockets)
886-6034 - (Indiana)
886-6031 - (Wisconsin and Michigan)
886-3849 - (Minnesota)
353-2207 - Chief, Technical Analysis Section
886-6030 - Chief, Ambient Assessment Unit
Peter Spyropoulos 886-6073 - Chief, A1r Planning Section
Jay Bortzer 886-1430 - Team Leader, Mobile Source Unit
Larry Kertcher - 353-2081 - Chief, Air Compliance Branch
Shirley Mitchell 886-6802 - Chief, Compliance Section 1 (IN. OH, WI)
George Czernlak 353-2088 - Chief, Compliance Section 2 (IL, MI, MN)
Region VI (E-Mail 9663) [Fax (FTS) 255-2164]
Gerald Fontenot - 255-7204 - Chief, Air Programs Branch (6T-A)
Thomas D1ggs
John Behnam
Becky Caldwell
Jim Call an
John Crocker
Bill Deese
Gregg Guthrie
Mark Sather
Bill Nally
J 1m Yarborough
Candy Garrett
Hal Brown
255-7214 - Chief, Planning Section (6T-AP)
255-7214
255-7214
255-7214
255-7214
255-7214
255-7214
255-7214
255-7214
255-7214
255-7214
255-7214
PM-10, PSD/NSR SIPs, Delegations)
(Texas, Ozone, Global Wanning)
(VOC Regs., Lead SIP's)
(Visibility SIP's, SIP Processing Reform)
(Arkansas, Workplans, CFC, Freon)
(Oklahoma, VOC Regs., S02 Contact)
(New Mexico)
(Louisiana, Bubbles)
(Modeling, U.S./Mexico)
(I/M, Transportation, Mobile Sources)
(I/M)
59
-------
REGIONAL OFFICE SIP REVIEWERS
Region VII (E-Mail 9762) [Fax (FTS) 276-7065]
Carl Walter - 276-7020 - Chief, Air Branch
Wayne Leidwanger 276-7020 - Chief, A1r Planning & Development Section
Dewayne Durst
Larry Hacker
Wayne Kaiser
Michael Marshall
Carol LeValley
276-7020 - (PM-10, Lead, Visibility, Acid Rain)
276-7020 - (Missouri, Nebraska, Ozone, Stack Height,
I/M)
276-7020 • (Kansas, Iowa, A1r Toxics)
276-7020 - (Indoor A1r)
276-7020 - (SIP Coordinator)
Region VIII (E-Mail 9853) [Fax (FTS) 330-1647]
Douglas Skie - 330-1750 - Chief, Air Programs Branch
Dean Gillam 330-1762 - Chief, Planning Section
Lee Hanley
Laurie Ostrand
330-1766 - (SIP Processing Team Leader)
330-1814
Region IX (E-Mail 9931) [Fax (FTS) 556-6612]
Oavid Calkins - 556-5261 - Chief, Air Programs Branch
Colleen McKaughan 556-5170 - Chief, SIP Section
Cynthia Allen
Bill Davis
John Estrem
Moee Goldberg
Doris Lo
Ellen Robert1
Julie Rose
John Ungvarsky
Ginger Vagenas
Jul 1a Barrow
Barbara Bates
Sylvia Dugre
Fran Wlcher
556-5244 - General SIP's, VOC, NSPS/NESHAPS
556-8935 - General SIP's, VOC
556-5291 - General SIP's, VOC
556-5250 - NOX, SOx, VOC, Source Specific SIP's,
Redesignations
556-5244 - General SIP's, VOC
556-5228 - SIP Tracking, SIP Dockets
556-5205 - SIP Processing Team Leader, SIP Policy
Contact, VOC, 1BR, Amendatory Language
556-5205 - General SIP's, VOC Policy Work Group
Contact
556-5291 - General SIP's, VOC, SIP Call
556-5154 - Chief, Technical Evaluation Section
(I/M, Emission Inventory, Modeling,
Transportation, PM-10)
556-5324 - PM-10 SIP's, Modeling
556-5323 - I/M, Alternate Fuels
556-5201 - FIP's
60
-------
REGIONAL OFFICE SIP REVIEWERS
Region IX (Cont.)
Wally Woo 556-5152 - Chief, State Liaison Section
(Plan Review/Approval, FIP's)
Dave Jesson 556-5310 - South Coast SIP
Bruce Livingston 556-5346 - South Coast FIP
Ken Bigos - 556-5568 - Chief, A1r Operations Branch
Matt Haber 556-5370 - Chief, New Source Review Section
(Permitting Rule Review/Development)
Bob Baker 556-5525 - Permits, PSD, Source Specific SIP's)
Gerardo R1os 556-5442 - NSR/PSD Rules
Chuck Seeley 556-5367 - Chief, Compliance Section
Mark Samolis 556-5349 - Chief, Environmental Assessment Section
(Monitoring, Inspections)
John Kennedy 556-5384 - Chief, Compliance & Oversight Section
(District/State Audits, Phase III)
Region X (E-Mail 9062 or 9063) [Fax (FTS) 399-0110]
George Abel - 399-4166 - Chief, Air Programs Branch
Dave Kircher 399-4198 - Chief, Air Programs Development Section
Dave Bray 399-4253 - PSD, NSR, Bubbles
Laurie Krai 399-0180 - General SIP Coordinator
Mike Lldgard 399-4233 - Mobile Sources, CO/Ozone
George Lauderdale 399-6511 - TSP, PM-10, Lead
R1ndy Ramos 399-6510 - TSP, PM-10
61
-------
B. REGIONAL SIP PROCESSING CONTACTS
Emanuel Souza (APS-2311)
EPA Region I
State Air Programs Branch
John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg.
Boston, HA 02203
835-3246
Paul Truchan
EPA Region II
Air Programs Branch
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
264-2517
Hal Frankford
EPA Region III
Air Programs Branch
841 Chestnut Bldg.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
597-1325
Dick Schutt
EPA Region IV
Air Programs Branch
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
257-2864
Bob Miller
EPA Region V
Air & Radiation Branch (5AR-26)
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
353-0396
John Crocker (6T-AP)
EPA Region VI
Air Programs Branch
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
255-7214
Carol LeValley
EPA Region VII
Air Programs Branch
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
276-7020
Lee Hanley (8AT-AP)
EPA Region VIII
Air Programs Branch
999 18th St., Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
330-1766
Julie Rose
EPA Region IX (A-2-3)
Air Programs Branch
1235 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
556-5205
Laurie Krai (M/S 532)
EPA Region X
Air Programs Branch
1200 Sixth Avenue (AT-092)
Seattle, WA 98101
399-1080
62
-------
C. REGIONAL AIR BRANCH CHIEFS
Stephen Perkins, Chief
State Air Programs Branch
EPA Region I (APB-2311)
J.F.K. Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203-2211
(E-mail 9138)
Susan Studlein, Chief
Technical & Program Support Branch
EPA Region I (ATS-2311)
J.F.K. Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203-2211
(E-Mail 9136)
William S. Baker, Chief
Air Programs Branch
EPA Region II (Room 1005)
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(E-Mail9261)
Marcia Spink, Chief
A1r Programs Branch - (3AM10)
EPA Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(E-mail 9351)
Bruce P. Miller, Chief
Air Programs Branch
EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(E-mail 9470)
Stephen H. Rothblatt, Chief
Air and Radiation Branch
EPA Region V (5AR-26)
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(E-mail 9553)
Gerald Fontenot, Chief
Air Programs Branch
EPA Region VI (6T-A)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(E-mail 9663)
Carl M. Walter, Chief
Air Branch
EPA Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(E-mail 9762)
Douglas M. Skie, Chief
Air Programs Branch
EPA Region VIII (8AT-AP)
999 18th Street
Denver Place-Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(E-mail 9850)
David L. Calkins, Chief
Air Programs Branch
EPA Region IX (A-2)
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(E-mail 9930)
George Abel, Chief
Air Programs Branch
EPA Region X (AT-092)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(E-mail 9063)
63
-------
0. HEADQUARTERS SIP REVIEWERS
Air Quality Management Division (0AQPS1 (E-mail 62231
Alan Basal a
Dennis Crumpler
David Cole
Ted Creekmore
Doug Grano
Sheila Hoi man
Gretchen Hume
Bill Johnson
Sharon Reinders
Laurel Schultz
Denise Scott
Martha Smith
Butch Stackhouse
Mike Trutna
629-5426 111(d) Plans
629-0871 PSD and NSR
629-5565 CO & VOC Redesignations
629-5699 CO Plans
629-5255 SO?
629-0861 VOC
629-0642 Monitoring and SO?
629-5245 VOC
629-5284 CO, TCMs, I/M
629-5511 VOC, Bubbles
629-0870 Visibility
629-5314 Lead, PM-10, Opacity
629-5351 Stack Heights and SO?
629-5345 111(d) Plans
Office of General Counsel fE-mail 28211
Pat Embrey
382-7616
Stack Heights, SO?
Greg Foote
382-7625
NSR, PSD, Visibility
Howard Hoffman
382-7632
Bubbles, Lead, Long-Term VOC Averaging,
Cross-line Averaging
Robert Martlneau
382-7606
111(d) Plans
David Novello
382-7730
PM-10
Rich Ossias
382-7631
Ozone
Kendra Sagoff
382-7606
NOx
Sara Schneeberg
382-7606
VOC RACT Changes, Compliance Date Extensions
I/M, CO Redesignations I Plans, Ozone
Stationary Source Compliance Division fE-mail 62031
Karin Ashe
Myra Cypser
Sylvia Jones
Sally Mitoff
Micky Post
Kathy Rafferty
Howard Wright
382-2889 Regions IV, VII
382-287? Bubbles, Emissions Trading
382-2876 Regions III, VI, VIII
382-2875 Visibility, PSD, NSR, 111(d) Plans
382-2869 Regions IX, X
382-2129 Regions V, II
475-7034 Region I
Office of Policy Analysis tE-mail 21411
John Chanberl1n 382-2762
Gene Durnan 382-6921
Field Operations and Support Division (E-mail 64271
Paul Argyropoulos 475-8834 Regions I, III, V, VI, and IX
Bonnie Crystal 475-8837 Regions II, IV, VII, VIII, and X
64
-------
Office of Mobile Sources fE-mail 6435)
Erik Herzog 374-838* Inspection/Maintenance
Ellen Airgood 374-8487 Inspection/Maintenance
Joan Wirth 374-8322 Inspection/Maintenance
Regulatory Innovations Staff (E-mail 2156)
Barry El man 382-2727 Bubbles
Office of Standards and Regulations (E-mail 2151)
Vickie Reed 382-7204
Scott Furlong 382-7202
65
-------
E. ADDRESSES FOR HEADQUARTERS SIP REVIEWING AND PROCESSING OFFICES
ADMINISTRATOR
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (A-lOO)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (ANR-443)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
Air Quality Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (MD-15)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Stationary Source Compliance Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF MOBILE SOURCES
Emission Control Technology Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Field Operations and Support Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EN-397F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
A1r and Radiation 01v1s1on
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (LE-132A)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
66
-------
APPENDIX A
- Notice of Procedural Changes, January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214)
- SIP Completeness Review - Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, January 19, 1989
(54 FR 2138)
- SIP Completeness Review - Final Rulemaking, February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5824)
A-1
-------
214 '
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 12 / Thursday, lannury 1 itu-
extent they are approved, arr l«rgnl!y
rnliin^iililL' by EPA. A SIP must
demonstrate attainment und
maimenNnce of the apiilicjihli* NA AQS.
describe a control strategy. contain
li-j;;iliy enforceable rugululi
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. Nu. 12 / Thursday, lanuary ih, ia«9 / Notices
resources Tor the Stale lo implement the
SIP. In addition, then can bo many
other requirements specific to the
pollutant (wing considered. The
consequence* of State failure to get SIP
approval may be serious, including
Federol promulgation of control
regulations and sanctions.
Affirmative action is required by CPA
un essentially all aspects of every SIP
action. Since EPA's final decision comes
after a regulation already is adopted
and implemented at the State leveL
excessive delay in the review process
often is a major source of frinction in
CPA's relations with State and local
asenciefl.
There can also be differences of
opinion between EPA's Regional Offices
and Headquarters. Regions provide
guidance and support to States in
writing SIPs and then must review them
and recommend approval or
disapproval The need for flexibility in
dealing with each State and situation is
important to the Regions. On the other
hand. Headquarters' offices have a
major responsibility to ensure basic
national consistency on legsL policy,
and technical issues. Thus. SIP deicisons
are under constant pressure because
they are visible and quantitative tests of
the elusive balance sought between
State flexibility and the firmness and
consistency provided by national
directives.
More than 1600 SIP related actions
have been processed from 1983 to the
present avenging almost 350 per year.
Many of these involved multiple issues.
About 73 percent of the action* fell into
three categories: attainment
demonstrations, single source actions,
and (although technically not SIP
revisions) actions involving
redesignation of attainment status. Most
of the remainder involved new source
a-vic;v actions and emission trades.
A rough assessment has bean made of
the future SIP load. With tha
promulgation of a national ambient air
quality standard for PMw. and the
proposed post-1967 oxaos and 00
attainment policy, the number of SIP
submiitnls will lacrosse significantly
over the next few years. About 100
attainment SIPs and mam than 160
"committal" type actions for PM» will
hitve to be reviewed. Shortly thereafter,
attainment SIPs Tor ozone (00-70areas)
and for CO (another SO-60 areas) will be
sumitted. Potential revisions to CPA's
1985 stack height regulations resulting
from the court decision in NRDC v.
Thomas. 838 F. 2d 1224 (O.C Gr. 1988).
cuuld require review of SIP emission
limits for as many as 200 stationary
suurcft*. In addition, it is possible thai
itUiut VI Section 111(d) SIPs nn control
uf municipal waste combustors will !¦«
developed during this period. The
preceding are in addition to the uvt'Ripe
load of 350 submittals per year.
Tha Current Review Process at EPA
A comprehensive system has been set
up for processing SIPs at RPA. involving
full notice and comment rulemaking.
The maior steps are summarized below
(1J State prepares the SIP. gels
necessary approval understate law.
provides justification and
documentation, and submits it tu the
Regional Office for the Governor or his
designee. The SIP can range ia size from
a few to hundreds of pages.
(2) EPA Regions comprehensively
evaluate the submittal for policy, legal
and technical adequacy, prepare a
Technical Support Document (TSDJ. and
prepare a proposed final rule indicating
approval or disapproval of the action.
The rule is signed by the Regional
Administrator, if it is a proposal, and
sent on for review by EPA
Headquarters. The Headquarters' offices
thereupon undertake an evaluation of
the Regional Office package, regardless
of the significance of the SIP action.
(3) The Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS) in Durham.
North Carolina manages the
Headquarters' review, coordinating the
technical, policy and legal evaluation
with all relevant Headquarters offices.
These may include the Office of Ceneral
Counsel and the Office of Policy.
Planning and Evaluation, as well as
several groups within the Office of Air
and Radiation (OAR).
Each group, concurs with comment, or
nonconcurs. Negotiation with the
Regions over SIP issues or interpretation
frequently is a part of Headquarters'
review.
(4) Proposals are sent to the Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation for
concurrence. Disapprovals and partial
approvals of SIPs must undergo Office
of Management and Budget review
(under Executive Order 1291) before
being sent to the Office of the Federal
Register (OFR) for publication.
(5) After review by the Assistant
Administrator :or OAR. all final actions
go to the Administrator fur signuture
and theo axe sent to the OFR.
SIP processing at EPA has a
schedulod goal of 5/2-6/2 for final
action. That is. (Iw Region nominally
have 5 months to review submittals in
both the proposal and promulgation
phases: Headquarters nominally has 2
months in each phase. However. SIP
actions often Uke considerably longer
Ih.in the tol.tl 14 months allocnrtl
publish a final decision.'
The lengthy decision process h;ts
resulted in strong criticism from sourr.es
Imth inside and outside the F.PA. In
response, the Deputy Administrator
commissioned in July. 1987 a senior level
task group to assess the problems
inherent in the process and to
recommend solutions. The task group
conducted its assessment and prRser.tinl
recommendations to the Deputy
Administrator.* The recommend*linns
were approved fully and are described
herein. However, before discussing the
steps being taken by EPA to reform its
SIP processing procedures, it is useful to
examine the approach taken by the task
group, and the problems uncovered.
The Assessment
The project involved a three-level
approach. It included (1) formation of a
senior-level task group on SIP-
Processing which met throughout the
four-month project. (2) direct
discussions with staff intimately
involved In SIP processing, both ;
individually (or in small groups) ar^' *
day-long Headquarters/Regional*®
workshop, and (3) interviews witiQ
senior executives (Deputy Regional
Administrators. Office Directors) nov
EPA. and former policy makers with
EPA and Slate air agencies. In addition,
a few limited analytical assessments
(eg. historical SIP activity, number and
distribution of SIPs cunently at EPA)
were done to better characterize the
issue.
The task group consisted of senior
officials from EPA's Regional Offices.
Headquarters' groups associated with
SIP processing, and State air agencies.
The group met three times, first to
discuss the general problem to be
addressed, agree on a course of actum,
itnd assign special short-term proirrii.
The second meeting was primarily
concerned with process update and wuh
presentations by Regional Office and
State agency representatives to give
their unique prospective* on the issut*.
• N»>t« thai (action VMSaXJI of the Ocan Air Ai •
r«vuin-» Ite*! Tha AOaWMirator tAalL «nh»n Umr
alwr 1K1 data laqairad for Mbomuon u( a
dppnn*. or dikippm * mcH |SJP1 tor earti
purl mo Item*.' (Fatier tfar Ageacr * prearni
miilinil. iar± a imm limii ¦« Imi-mllv
¦i«cim»al4 moot (or all tart lb* moat innal
«.tium. ft*A mmuun (Oat ttaa <* SIP munon*. bw ratter wolf tw ihri
Sit*, mhnnni .Iw W.\ pwailn in» m »Al
Stonr mama have nqjyiand RTA'i <«>uiwnv ril»
narns hmtv hnU thai a I Waal* w»tern prmal
•inriw* a* m SIP itraa*.
' Tha on Ua protect • awitied TTnaJ
Ki«m at Ikr T*ah (iftmo oa SU* IYuer*a
-------
Z21ff
Ft it Rt-gisicr f Vol. 54. No. 12 / Thumlrty. January 19. i / Notices
Finally, at ihe third mi:y courts which have ruled that EPA
cannot enforce the current federally
approved SIP against .1 source for
viols* lions occurring more than four
months after a SIP revision affecting the
source has been submitted to EPA.
unless CPA hns finally acted on the
submittal.
As a result of ihe discussions and
projects described earlier, it was
possible to identify a number of
fundamental problems that appear to be
associated with SIP processing. Some of
these problems are concerned primarily
with the procedural aspects of SIP
review, while others relate more to the
underlying philosophy of the SIP review
process (i.e.. what is the process
supposed to accomplish), and the
attitudes of the SIP reviewers. For
example, there is within EPA a strong
concern for consistency in SIP decisions,
and a fear that each decision may have
important consequences in terms of
establishing national precedent
However, such concern may be
appropriate for only a small percentage
of actions reviewed. Moreover, it
appears that the SIP process has been
depended upon as a vehicle to identify,
resolve, and articulate national policy
issues, often at the expense of timely
decision making.
The issues identified fall into three
basic categories: inordinate concern for
the consequences of individual
decisions: excessive EPA review,
including full review for minor or dearly
deficient actions: and uncertainty
concerning the outcome of review.
These problem categories are discussed
briefly below.
A. Inordinate Concern for Individual
Action
As noted, the current prucess places a
premium on consistency, stemming in
Urge part from a fear that a decision
statement or explanation concerning a
specific State or source may force
similar decisions in other States for
similar sources. Although there is a need
for consistency at some level (e.g,
concerning the basic components of an
ozone attainment program or a new
PMm SIP). U may not be necessary for
the results of all decisions to be similar
State to State and source to source. U
must be remembered that SiPs are
intended to be tailored by the States to
their specific air quality problems, and
the mix of sources from which emissions
reductions can be obtained within the
constraints of the Clean Air Act (such as
the requirement for reasonably
available control technology in
nonattainmunt arras). Although it Is
important for policy and broad technical
requirements to be applied consistently,
it is not necessary that the result of their
application to localized problems turn
out the same.
Because of the emphasis on
consistency and the fear of setting
precedent with individual decisions. Sli'
reviewers have been reluctant to risk
making mistakes on any SIP change:
this, considering the number of actions
EPA must review, inhibits rapid review
and decision making. There needs to be
a greater willingness on the part of nil
concerned with the process to risk an
occasional noncritical mistake in return
for more rapid processing and earlier
identification of the outcome of the
review.
B. Excess; ve Review
Some SIP packages deserve the full
attention of EPA staff and management:
as noted, certainly the basic State
programs for post-1087 osone attainment
and programs to achieve the newly
promulgated PMja ambient air quality
standard will need such review.
Similarly. SIP revisions for new
programs that dictate consistent
nations] implementation, or that involve
complex and evolving policy issues,
such ss generic bubble regulations,
should receive review and sign-off by
EPA Headquarters. But the same cannot
be said for changes to an emission limit
oa a local printing plant composition of
State boards, or negative declarations
under section 111(d). Under EPA's
current approach to SIP review, all
changes receive Regional OfTice and
Headquarters' review prior to both
proposal and final approval (except for
those SIPs. aobut 20 percent of the total,
processed as direct final *). All final
actions, no matter how trivial, currently
are signed by the Administrator.
There ere several problems with this
multiple review for all actions: it
inherently takes longer than processing
only at the Regional Office level; it ties
up the scarce Headquarters' resources
available for SIP review (thus making n
long process even longer): and by
introducing more reviewers into the
process, it increases the chance of
rejection tor procedural or other reasons
which have no Impact on air quality.
There are other aspects to the
excessive review problem. If a State
* UntWr tiua pveewlwe. EPA pabfahaa 4 an**
F«4er«l tegisweeiiee wtoc* tadacalM ttwi \hm SIP
acme wUI be final ta 40 day* wlm an tniarwi
parry mnnnti Ofowtwuiy (• prrmi* MlMnc
tiwunmi. If a party doca wok to p»u»i
-------
Federal Register /
Voi. 54. No. 12 / Thursday, lanuurv
19. 15*89 / Notices
2217
submits « SIP change without property
stated emission limits, legal authority or
compliance schedules, or which
contains other obvious deficiencies, it
can enter the system and bcsubject to
complete EPA review and disapproval.
FPA s procedures did not provide in nay
comprehensive Way for Immediate
rejections for incompleteness.
Independently, however, some Regional
Offices have tried to deal with this
problem. For example. Region 1 has
developed a set of completeness criteria
their States must follow: Region VII
provides Slates with an extensive
checklist describing the information the
Region will look for in a wide range of
SIP actions. The purpose is to keep
incomplete packages out of the more
extensive review system.
On the other hand, evta if the
submittal is prepared correctly, some
actions seem unsuited for full review.
Examples include simple recodification
of regulations, address changes, or
changing modeling or stack test methods
to conform to revised EPA guidelines. In
such actions, the State is doing exactly
what is required and appropriate.
Although such changes can be
processed as direct finaL even that is
probably more resource intensive than
they are worth. However, there is
presently no better way to treat such
changes administratively, or keep them
out of the system entirely.
Finally, several members of the Task
Croup believed that in addition to being
concerned with SIP processing. EPA
should also examine the SIP process in a
more basic way. Specifically, there was
debate and interest expressed by some
in promoting direct acceptance of
operating permits or other State single
source emission limits. This would be
conditioned on EPA approval of the
State's overall framework and strategy
for achieving an ambient air quality
standard. EPA's continuing role would
be to track a State s overall ptogjess
and periodically audit tile Slate's
implementation of the permit process,
taking corrective action as necessary.
Some initial steps ore being taken in this
direction. For example, in response to
the "federal enforceability" issue
contained in the Chemical
Manufacturers Association (CMA)
consent agreement concerning
challenges to EPA's new source review
regulations. EPA is considering the
possibility of allowing State operating
permits to be deemed federally
enforceable in certain situations
provided that the State's operating
permits program has been incorporated
into the SIP and approved by EPA.
I tnwever. full implementation of a
system involving direct acceptance of
State permits or other limits requires
much conceptual discussion concerning
State/EPA regulations and fundamental
changes to other parts of the national air
program, and may require changes to
the Clean Air Act.
C. Uncertainty Concerning the Outcome
of the Process
It might be expected that processing a
revision to a SIP. given the EPA's years
of experience, would be a fairly routiue
process. However, that often is not the
case. The fate of a given SIP revision, in
terms of both the nature and timing of
the ultimate decision, can be uncertain
for a number of reasons. Important
information necessary for decision
making may be left out of a SIP package,
or the format and justification for the
change may be deficient. This can result
not only from inexperience and lade of
training at the State and local level, but
also from a lack of clear policy guidance
from EPA and timely issue resolution.
Policies important to SIP preparation
and approval may be unstated or poorly
documented. In some cases, there may
be no policy at all to address a specific
SIP issue, and the SIP process itself,
through the aggregation of a series of
similar actions, is used to evolve a
•policy. This situation, in part derives
from sporadic management involvement
in the SIP process. Constant attention is
needed to assure that packages are
moved through the system, that
problems are promptly identified, and
that policy issues are discussed and
resolved.
An overt manifestation of uncertainty
in the outcome of SIP review is the
moving target syndrome. Under current
practice, a SIP may be under review at
EPA for months and eventually be
deemed inappropriate because it doesn'l
conform to a newly evolved policy, even
though it conformed to the policy Hi
place when it was submitted. This not
only frustrates the State but results in
confusion for the source because until
the State actually changes its submittal,
it often continues to implement the
regulutions disapproved by ETA.
Another factor contributing to
uncertainty and delay is the reliance on
informal communication in processing
Sli**. The system traditionally has been
characterised by nurturing, not
judgmental. Interactions. I leadquartem
and Kegiooal Office personnel are
reluctant to formally reject packages,
but rather try to work with their
colleagues in the processing chain l*y
phone calls and often protracted
negotiation. This stems in part from
ruluctance to compromise othgrs that
mny have acted in good faith. Also. thr
documentation needed lo support a
more formal process on a large numh-»
of SIP actions can become an excr
burden. Unfortunately, in many c
the informal process prolongs the
linn; substantially and results in poor
documentation for use in similar
situations. In addition, the informal
process frequently is criticized by Stales
and sources because they can't
adequately track the progress of tin*
change once it gets into EPA review.
Solutions Devised
Based on the task group assessment
and the problems identified. EPA has
devised a number of changes to the SIP
processing system which it will begin
implementing today. The changes are
designed to tailor SIP review to the
significance of the action involved, and
to improve the certainty of the SIP
review process. The changes, including
the legal rationale supporting them, are
described briefly below and in depth in
the next section of this notice.
A. Tailor Review to Significance of
Action
EPA has devised a SIP review system
under which increasingly intenje review
procedures will be applied to
increasingly significant actions. Minor
actions will undergo relatively llttli
review while major actions will c6|
to receive full Regional Office and
Headquarters.review. By tailoring the
intensity of review to the significance
the action, this hierarchy of procedures
will generally decrease SIP processing
times by dramatically shortening revie-.v
periods for minor SIPt and freeing ETA
resources to enable major SIP
processing to proceed without existing
delays.
l. Completeness Criteria
EPA found that many SIP revision
submittals were processed through full
EPA review despite the fAct that they
were missing major components which
effectively prevented EPA apprmal. For
example, a State might submit uu
emission limitation without coinplumci:
testing procedures. To free EPA
resources that would otherwise be
consumed processing such deficient
SIPs. EPA has created a completeness
review process which is l>eiitg proposal
for public comment in an ncccimp;
-------
2218
Federal Register / VoL 54. No. 12 / Thursday. January 19, 1989 / Notices
revision. This will be a quick proeeu
that wilt look at the reviewability of aa
SIP submittal, not its upprovabillty. EPA
^11 (hen promptly inform the submitting
ite by letter whether EPA will
...oceed to process the SIP revision or
whether it must be returned to the State
because it is incomplete.
EPA is creating this completeness
review process under the authority of
Section 301 of the Clean Air Act which
authorizes the Administrator to
prescribe such regulations as are
necessary to carry out his functions
under the Act EPA is interpreting the
terms "plan" in section 110(a) (1) and (2)
and "revision" in section 110(a)(3) to be
only those plans and revisions that
contain all of the components necessary
to allow EPA to adequately review and
take action on such plan or revision.
ETA believes that Congress would not
have intended to require EPA to review
and take action on SIP submittals that
were simply not reviewable because
they were lacking important
components. Therefore. the
Administrator concludes that section
110(a) requires him to act only on
complete State submittals.
EPA recently issued a guidance
memorandum to the Regional Offices
establishing this completeness review
procedure, including a list of
mpleteness criteria, on an interim
'is pending notice and comment
jmaking. See Memorandum. Gerald
rw Emison. Director. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, to
Regional Office Air Division Directors.
March IS. 1988 (a copy is included in-the
docket as item O-B-4). Tbe Regional
Offices are currently using this guid^n^a
to conduct completeness reviews.
However, elsewhere in today's federal
Register. EPA is proposing to codify
these criteria in regulatory form to
provide clear benchmarks for Stales in
preparing complete SIP submittals.
Specifically. EPA proposes to add the
completeness criteria to 40 CFR Part 81
as Appendix V. EPA also ptuposus to
amend f M.l03(a) to spadfr that State
submissions will not be omMertd
official SIP submissions open which
ETA is required to act under section
noja| unless they amt the requirements
of Appendix V. The details of the
completeness criteria are described fuOy
in ihe accompanying noikn.
Z. LcMirr \'ut
-------
Federal Register / Vol 54. No. 12 / Thursday. January 19. 1969 / Notice*
-»i9
Administrators. Both proposed end final
Federal Register notices for these
actions will henceforth be signed by the
Regional Administrators.
Section 301(a)(1) of tbe Act authorises
the Administrator to delegate any of his
powers and duties under the Act to
other EPA employees except "the
making of regulations." In an early
interpretation of this statutory provision
EPA concluded that, while proposed SIP
rulemaking did not constitute "the
making of regulations'*, any final action
on a SIP would fall within this
prohibition. Upon further reflection. EPA
now concludes that the prohibition oa
delegation applies only to regulations
initially promulgated by EPA. not to
plans prepared by States that EPA
merely approves or disapproves.
Tbe natural reading 01 the statutory
phrase "the making of regulations'*
extends only to regulations that the
Administrator himself promulgates.
Although la approving s SIP revision the
Administrator does incorporate State
promulgated regulations into the
federally enforceable SIP. ha still cannot
properly be said to be "making"
regulations within the meaning of the
section 301(a) prohibition en delegation.
As a practical matter. EPA has.
acquiesced in judicial decisions
holding that EPA must follow the
rulemaking procedures of the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 8
U.S.C. 993. when It approves or
disapproves State implementation plans.
However, even if SIP review Is
"rulemaking" under the APA. ^A
believes these actions do not comitate
"the making of regulations * * Thus,
while section 301(a)(1) of the Clean Air
Act prohibits the Administrator from
delegating his authority to make fadsrol
regulations. It does not prohibit
delegation of his authority to act npoc
regulations made at the Slate leveL
The implementation rartoa of this
notice contains a rtatslbd Haling of
those categories of SP Mttons mat the
Administrator amenity bdshgattag to
the Regional AdnJntatHtm. those
categories the Ailmhihliatui Is
delegating but which should still receive
some input from Headquarters at this
time, and those categories that will
continue to receive full Headquarters
review for the time being. Then
categories may change over time as
Headquarters prepares additional
guidance and Regional Offices booms
more familiar with new jaauoa.
B. Improve Cmrtaintf afProcuM
The second ma for focus of EPA's
changes in the SIP processing system Is
to improve processing procedures so
that individual actions can be handled
with greater certainty. These changes
involve increased management control
and clarified processing guidelines.
1. Adherence to Formal Procedures
EPA has for some time had detailed
procedures for processing SIPs through
the existing SIP review system. These
procedures include time schedules,
default provisions, and issue resolution
mechanisms. However, for a number of
reasons these procedures have often not
been followed precisely in the past.
With the adoption of the processing
reforms described herein. EPA will be
revising its procedures to establish
guidelines for each type of SIP review
mechanism. When the new guidelines
are issued, senior management will
make dear that in the future they an to
be adhered to more rigorously. "Hiis will
ensure that Stale submittals move
quickly through EPA's review process,
with any major issues being raised
promptly for resolution.
2. Grandfathering Policy
la the past a number of States have
submitted SIP revisions that were
consistent with EPA requirements
(regulations, policies, legal
interprets dona, etc) in effect et the time
of Stale adoption of the revision.
However, in soma oases, because of
processing delays and policy evolution,
the applicable requirements would
change before the revisions received
EPA approval. The EPA's past
procedure was to retain the plan to the
State for revision or disapprove the
action. Not only did thia add more Ume
to aa already lengthy process, it also
strained EPA/Siate/local agency
relations. Moreover, there was the basic
question of fairness in»el«ed In such
cases, the State subedited the revision
in good faith snd in accordance with the
rales end policies in effect at the time of
submission, only to see months go by
and find out the chanfs was rejected
due to factors totally beyond its controL
EPA has determined that in general it
would better serve the States and the
Interests of the SIP processing system to
continue to process most State
submittals based on the requirements in
effect at the time the State adopted the
change to the SIP. To this end. EPA
recently issued guidance oe
grandfathering entitled ""Grandfathering
of Requirements for Pending SIP
Revisions", sent from Gerald Emison
Director. OAQPS. to EPA Regional
Office Air Division Directors, june V.
1968 (r copy is included in the docket ss
item U-IM).
The guidance provides a structure for
grandfathering pending SIP acti
the extent allowed by law. The law 1
this area indicates that whenever a new
requirement is created by Congress (via
statute) or by EPA (via regulation or
policy), it becomes generally applicable
unless the authority establishing the
requirement provides otherwise. When
Congress enacts a new statute, it applies
to all matters then pending before an
agency unless Congress specifically
provides otherwise in the statute. The
EPA has no authority to grandfather any
matter from the new statutory
requirements without explicit provisions
in the statute.
When EPA Issues new regulations,
they are also generally applicable unless
the regulations themselves include
grandfathering provisions. If
grandfathering provisions are not
explicit in the regulations, couru will
apply the new rales to matters pending
before EPA. Thorpe v. Homing
Authority of Durham. 393 US. 260
(1969). However, an agency does have
some flexibility to provide
grandfathering provisions in new.
regulations. Such provisions ere usually
appropriate when they meet a lb
test. "Flat dta new rale represent
abrupt departure from well-estab
practice. Second, affected parties hai
relied on the old rule. Third, the new
rales s large burden oa those
affected. Fourth, there is no strong
statutory interest in applying the new
rule generally. Sierra Club v. EPA. 719
FJd 436 (D.C Clr 1982). cert. den. 408
UA1204 (1964). In the past. EPA has
included explicit grandfathering
provisions in new regulations where
appropriate.
Aa agency has bread authority to
decide how and when to issue new
guidance, since as a purely legal matter
guidance is not absolutely binding on
subsequent proceedings. Pacific Com
and Eioctric Co. v. FPC. 506 F.2d 33 (D.C
Cir. 1974). Historically, however. EPA
hat provided only limited
grandfathering from significant guidance
primarily due to the importance of the
new guidance to EPA's control
programs.
EPA's expanded grandfathering
guidance states that complete pending
SIP actions generally should be subject
only to the requirements in effect at the
time the State submittal waa prepared.
However, the guidance includes a
number of exceptions to the genes
rule. The EPA would not grandfae
pending action where a court ruliu,..
changed a requirement, where a coun
has convinced EPA that a requirement is
no longer supportable, where the
Administrator determines that
1-7
-------
2220 Federal Register /
grandfathering is nul appropriate. whim-
an imminent and substantial adverse
•"¦vironmental impact would result,
re >yundf;ithering would foreclose
,'s ability to exercise its authority
under the Clean Air Act. or where the
Suite has not acted in good faith in
submitting a plan.
The guidance also states the EPA will
analyze the need for grandfathering
provisions in all new EPA requirements.
:ind will include such provisions in all
raxes to the extent appropriutc.
3. Improved Guidance and
Communication
In order to facilitate implementation
of the various SIP processing changes
EPA is instituting, existing guidance will
be upgraded and new guidance prepared
wherever needed. Headquarters offices
have committed to provide adequate
guidance to Regional Offices and to be
available for consultation to assist the
Regions in implementing the new
programs.
EPA will also be improving
communications between Headquarters
and Regional Offices, and among
different Regional Offices, to effectively
implement the decentralized SIP
processing system. Improved
"mmunication techniques, described in
implementation section. Include
ntifying regional SIP contacts, the
"regional staff expert" concept a SIP
clearinghouse, a computerized tracking
system, periodic conference calls, and
national meetings.
4. SIP Processing Management System
The final change EPA is instituting^!
the SIP processing system is a new SIP
processing management system. Under
this system EPA managers will maintain
dose supervision over the SIP
processing system to ensure that SIPs
move smoothly through the new
procedures. The new management
system, described in full in the final
section of today's notice. Indadu both
an internal and external raSt system,
an expanded computerised tracking
system. and a SIP processing deviation
review system.
Implementation of the Chanfes
The following discussion focuses on
the more significant aspects of the
implementation of the SIP processing
changes announced today; the final
toortion addresses improvements in iba
nngement system which are being
ituted to assure the announced
..••ingcs are pmpurly implvmralad.
Vul. 54. No. 12 / Thursday. jMnunry
.•I. Tailor Review to Sijtnifitxim t? of
Action
1. Completeness Crituria
Screening criteria have liwn
developed that define the essential
elements of an acceptable SIP package,
that will avoid obvious inadequacies,
and that can be applied uniformly with
limited subjective judgment and review.
The criteria were developed by EPA
Regional Offices ajraody using a list of
criteria to determine completeness of
SIP packages in an informal way. The
benefits of using completeness criteria
to reject deficient packages include
improved consistency and quality in the
State submittals received for processing,
fewer SIPs disapproved for fundamental
inadequacies, more effective use of
limited resources at both the Federal
and State level, and improved guidelines
for new Stat* personnel on how to
prepare adequate SIPv As noted earlier,
an interim policy for determining
completeness of SIP submittals was
issued to the EPA Regional Offices. The
policy includes basic criteria for
determining completeness, and sample
letters for accepting and rejecting SIP
submittals.
In a separate notice in today's Federal
Register, the Administrator is proposing
to add these criteria snd procedure for
determining the completeness of State
submittals to 40 CFR Part SI. EPA will
continue to use the interim policy to
assess SIP submittals until final
rulemaking action is taken on today's
accompanying proposal
The criteria for determining whether a
submittal by the State is complete have
been separated into two categories: (a)
Administrative information and (b)
technical support information.
Administrative information includes the
necessary to
demonstrate that the basic
administrative procedures have bairn
adhered to by the State during the
adoption process Technical support
information includes the documentation
that adequately Identifies the technical
components of the plan submission.
Z. Letter Notice
Using s letter notice for non-
substantial actions, which EPA will
begin doing after today, is s new
process whew EPA will merely inform a
State and directly afTec.ted parties by
kriter that EPA has approved s given SIP
revision. The objoctive of the Initnr
mil ten approach is to achieve pruinpl
action by EPA on noMiubaUnti.tl
actions where the public interval is nul
•urved by full notice and cummitnt
processing, fly twin# letter uoiios*.
EPA's limited resowrcm ran lw allocati*!
1». 1WJ9 I Notices
lo the expeditious processing of more
significant SIP actions.
Under letter notice, as soon us a
revision l«>s l>f*n deemed approvals.
<"•* P.exiutidl Administrator or his
desist* will send a letter to ihe St;iv
and affected parties, informing them of
the approval The EPA may not publish
» notice of proposal and provide an
opportunity for public comment beyond
that already provided for by the Stair.
In order to keep the public informed of
these actions. EPA will publish
periodically (annually at a minimum) in
the Federal Register a summary list of
all letter notice actions recently taken,
with information concerning the change
and the sources affected, as appropriate.
These actions will be effective from the
date of the letter notice, rather than the
eventual summary publication date. The
Regional Offices will make the decision
whether to process s SIP revision as a
letter notice. •
EPA intends to use discretion In the
application of letter notice processing to
insignificant SIP revisions. The
following are examples of such
revisions. Frequently. States/local
agencies will recodify existing
regulations into a new structure or to
improve the understanding of the
program. These changes are superficial
from the perspective of the air quality
management program and are of little
interest to the general public. Other
revisions to implementation plans
incorporate amended or revised national
guidance documents pursuant to EPA
directives ami are made merely to
conform to revised requirements. In
other cases, miny States have programs
using renewable operating permits for
the purpose of source regulation.
Usually, the permit is renewed without
change and the permit action is of little
public interest.
Technical amendments,
administrative actions, and minor
wording changes are further exampl*»of
SIP revisions that are suitable for
processing by letter notice. It is
expected that the list of SIP revisions
thul can be processed by letter notice
will Ite expanded as experience is
gained with the process. EPA
specifically requests comment on the
appropriateness of using letter notice
prociHsing for these ana other potenrinl
rjii«
-------
Federal Royaler / Vol. 54. No. 12 / Thursday. January m. IMS / Notice*
rrvicw time by about SO percent. Since
lit inception, many revisions have been
published aa direct final rules with very
few receiving notice from tbe public of
the desire to comment Tits following
are some types of SIP* that have been
processed successfully ss direct finals:
• Amendments to definitions to conform
'.s EPA requirements
• Chartges is monitoring/modeling
procedures to reference new EPA
guidelines
• Revisions to incorporate new test
methods by reference
• Single source SIP revisions that make
a State's requirements more
stringent
• Public availability of emissions data
• Permit fees
• Compliance schedules for section
111(D) plans
• Visibility plans
• Volatile organic compound (VOC)
consent orders
• Prevention of significant deterioration
(PSO) modeling regulations
• Minor changes to inspection and
maintenance (I/M) programs
• New opadty regulations
• Variances
• Operating permits for lead SIPs
Of 134 SIP revisions processed most
recently aa direct finals, only two
required republishing as proposed rales
because of public comment This history
of very little public comment on direct
final rules suggested that EPA could eat
this effective tool more often to speed up
the SIP process.
For this reason. EPA Issued a
memorandum dated December Z£ 1987
entitled "Expanded Use of Direct Final
SIP Processing." from Gerald A. Emison.
Director. OAQPS. to EPA's Regional
Offices (a copy is included in the docket
as item 0-8-2). For the masons stated
above, this memorandum remmmendod
that the direct final rulemaking
approach could be used more frequently
by tbe Regional Office*. II is possible
that EPA's plan to expand Km
appliestion of tbe direct San! ndemaklag
approach may resoH (a ta Increase in
the number of SIPs bring withdrawn
and subjected to full notice and
comment rulemaking because of tbe
desire by the public to comment
However, any increase in the number of
direct final actions withdraws and
converted to proposals should be mora
than offset by the overall improvement
in timely processing of totul SIP actions-
4. SIP Decision Authority
A cornerstone of the
recommendations of the SIP processing
tusk group is the tailoring of review to
ihe significance of the change. To this
end. the Administrator is today
delegating signature authority for those
SIP revisions that are not of national
significance to the EPA Regional
Administrators.
Eliminating the serial review by the
Regional and Headquarters offices for
selected categories of SIPs is potentially
the most effective recommendation
made by the task group. This
recommendation is designed to delegate
approval/disapproval authority for the
majority of SIPs to the Regional
Administrators. As noted earlier, all SIP
revisions have received both Regional
Office and Headquarters review in the
past The Regional Office would review
the State submittal and prepare a
recommendation to Headquarters either
approving or disapproving a rulemaking
action. The implementation plan
revision would then be forwarded to
EPA Headquarters for another round of
technical legaL and policy review.
Except for those SIPs processed as
direct final rules, all proposed and final
rules receive the full Regional Office
and Headquarters review. Historically,
the second level Headquarters ie»iew
rarely changed the final
recommendation of the Regional Office,
although It often contributed to the legal
and technical rationale for an action.
Certain plan revisions clearly can
have a significant impact on the
implementation of national programs,
such aa basic strategies for
demonstrating attainment with ambient
standards. In addition, there are
programs where a high level of national
consistency is important or which
involve emerging programs where major
issues on program implementation may
aa yet be unresolved. Such actions
should receive both a Regional Office
and a Heedquartars review; the latter
will ensure consistent policy application
for these nationally significant SIPs. SIP
which initially will continue to
be deddod by the Administrator are
listed in Table 1. This list and the other
lists described below are not intended
to be permanent—that is. SIP categories
may be shifted among then over time.
For examplsL it Is EPA's intention to
delegate some of the SIP categories on
Table 1 to the Regional Administrators
as experience with the new process is
gained and policies mature. Conversely.
If the Regional Offices have difficulty
with a delegated category, such SIP
actions may be withdrawn from
delegation and be subject to full
Headquarters review.
TABU 1
The CeUowing SiP acton* must wodetjo full
Regional Office and Headquarters rrrtc-
with tieoMon and sifnoff by the
Adsumsiralor |propa*«d and fiiwlt
• Qi mtaignulions and 0» iittummcfJ
(including UtM program*)
• CO nitfiinmrnt pluns dealing with
wide problem*
• CO redctignations except those n.-Umnw in
puinl-*ourc> only problems or hni m">>"
• Ooup I PMm plans (attainment
demonstrations) inlcuding thimc resubmit
frum coramital SI Pi
• fr'cw area-wide VOC regulation* prt
CTC requirements, or Post-ST
requirements)
• VOC revision* with long-term ¦verjginv
(i-e- greater than Zi-hour)
• SOi revision* involving (al unresolved
national issues |e-$- stack height
mnand. statistical attainment
demonstrations. expected exceed# nets
methods): (b| mart than one Regional
Office: (c) international issues.
• SIP revisions proposing or revising State-
developed air quality dispersion model
guideline*, end StP revisions bated on
the use of ooo-approved model* or
devis lions form EPA's modeling
JtUldftAQftt
• SIP revisions where EPA is under a court-
ordered echedule (*4- Indiana SOi StPt
• SOi Statewide plans (all elements)
• SIPs far aew generic State-wide prapams
(a*, bubbles. P5D/NSR)
• PSD/NSR SiPl submitted to comply with
Post-87 Oa/CO poller
• PSD/NSR SIPs Cor PM» group I ua
• PSD/NSR SIPs submitted to compi)
Alabama fewer decisions
• Bubbles which trade off growth allowant.
• Visibility plans that address ansiing
impairment
• Any PIP
• Any action proposing or imposing ¦
sanction
• Any StP revision, spprovsl/disapproval o(
wMdt would significantly deviate from
national policy
A second category of SIP revisions,
listed In Table Z. are actions where
some Headquarters review is deemed
appropriate prior to final actinn. This
category was developed to address
those SIPs where guidance is relatively
new and thus it it prudent for
Headquarters to monitor the decision
process at the Regtohal Office level.
This category serves aa a transition
between Headquarters review and
Regional Office review and will Providi-
an opportunity for Headquarters
oversight without adding a significant
review requirement. Although the
Regional Administrators will have
decision authority for these SIPs. the
Headquarters offices will have 30 days
from die date the SIP revision puck«g?
(including the draft Federal Regis*
notice and support materia!) is ret1
y| Headquarters, to prepare and * -
comments to the Regional Office. Th<
review la not intended to be a veto
authority by Headquarters but rnihrr tu
provide IItmdquartcr* reviewers an
». B
-------
2222
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 12 / Thursday. January 19. 1989 / Notice*
opportunity to provide comments to
Regional Office decisionmaker*.
TABLE2
« following SIP actions an delegated for
nal Administrator decision aad signofT
. puacti and final) but require a 304ay
opportunity for Headquarters' review before
siynnff.
• Particulate matter emissions relaxation*
• VOC revisions with extended compliance
schedules affecting nonattainment areas
• CO attainment plans dealing with hoUpota
• CO redesignations relaUng to point-sourca
only problems and hot spots
• SOi area-wide and source-specific SIP
revisions and redesignations. where the
sourceisl or background sources in the
aggregate have allowable emisaioas of
23.000 TPY or more (except primary
nonferrous smelters or emission trading)
• SOi revisions with (a) averaging times
greater than the short-term SOi NAAQS:
(b| reviaed emission baits due to
changes in stack height credits
• Visibility SIPs involving regional hasa
• Direct final rulemaking in categories
identified for Administrator ttgoof! (tee
Table 1)
• Any other action oot listed elsewhere
Decision authority for all remaining
SIPs Is being delegated to the Regional
Administrators, with no requirement for
consultation with Headquarters prior to
signoff. The primary criterion used to
judge which SIP* could be delegated to
¦the Regional Administrator for decision
* the significance of the action,
her criterion was the availability of
i-opriate policy memoranda/
guidance to the Regions for making
decisions on the approvability of a SIP.
The categories of SIPs initially to be
delegated to the Regional Administrator
for final approval authority an listed in
Table 3. Although these revisions arq
being delegated for the Regional
Administrator's signature, the
Headquarters SIP reviewer! will be
available for discussions with the
Regional Offices on any of the
categories of SIP revisions. The Regional
Offices also have the option of sending
SIP submissions which come under any
of these categories to llsettaiailsn far
the full review, especially warn the
Regional Office reviews that
national iasusts may ba of <
TABLES
The following SIP actions are 1
Regional Administrator decision aad 1
(proposed and final). Headquarters ustaw le
nut required bet may be requested by the
Regioaiil Office.
• «U1 other bubbles aad all other single-
source rag*.
• VOC extended compHanne 1
lexcept thoee aiTecti&g 1
« mas)
'm Croup II end ID SPs TCP
• l«od attainment plans and revistuns
• All other SOi SIPs. including
redesignations; ambient monitoring
plans: malfunction rules: Stats AAQS
• Sinte stack height regulations and negative
declarations
• All other PSO/NSR SIPs
• All other visibility plans
• 11 1(d) plans/negative declarations
• All other direct final rulemaking
• All letter notice actions
SIP issues (and revisions) in
categories of potential national
significance will continue to be
reviewed in Headquarters and signed by
the Administrator. The categories of
SIPs delegated to the Regional
Administrator for decision and sign-off
are inherently localized in scope and do
not have potential for national impact
(Obviously, an unusual SIP reviaion in a
delegated category could involve broad
leases: the changes in procedure
announced today provide for full
consultation between the Regional
Office and Headquarters, and even for
the forwarding of such an unusual
action for full Headquarters review.)
That, except for unusual cases,
decisions made by a Regional
Administrator will be based on local
factors, reflect local issues, and may
indeed yield varying results, although
Regional Offices will apply potides
consistently. Such decisions are.
therefore, intended to be non-
transferable. Le, do not set precedents
for other Regions. For example, an
emission limit for a particulate matter
source in a State may require e specific
value to conform to the State's
demonstration of attainment. The same
type of plant in another State, however,
might have a different limit Imposed
baaed on ita location and site-specific
factor*. In short it is expected that the
outcome of die decision process for
similar SIP actiona can vary from Region
to Region. Each such local action must
be fridged on its own merits. This is
acceptable, provided that national
policy and gtridanre applicable to each
actions an applied consistently by all
Mfltons lovolvid
To provide the Regional Office with
the necessary support A is
ooapietlng a comprehensive
compilation of policy statements.
jirHi-** and memoranda applicable to
thoee actiona where significant
Headquarters review is being
eliminated Moreover, to maintain
oversight of this decentralized process.
EPA will institute more intensive
miinagoment systems, designed to
ensure national consistency in policy
application (see discussion on
Management Systems later in this
notion).
8. Improve Certainty of the Proeast
1. Adherence of Formal Procedures
Detailed procedures exist for
processing and reviewing SIP revisions
Among other things, the procedures
provide for firm schedules, default
provisions, and mechanisms for issue
resolution. The procedures frequently
are not following for a variety of
reasons. In some cases, a Regional
Office may believe that infomally
working/negotiating with the State
would provide information or result in
changes to the submission that would
enable EPA to approve the plan
revisions. This can occur because there
is an inherent reluctance by reviewers
to disapprove a plan into which a State
or local agency has put considerable
effort The goal of this informal
approach was to enhance the
relationship with the State, although the
ultimate effect may have been the
opposite.
The current guidance and procedure*
•or SIP processing are being reviewed,
modified as naceaaary to stress the need
for more formal Implementation, and
will be republished with a dear senior
management directive on their
importance. Further, the management
system decribed below will help ensure
that the reviewing offices follow the
formal procedures. This, along with
Increased management attention to the
SIP process, should enable those
interested in the remits of the SIP
review process, internally and
externally to EPA. to follow more
effectively the progress of individual
actiona.
r Grandfathering Coidance
EPA Issued grandfathering guidance
to the Regional Offices as described
earlier. The guidance is to be considered
in each rulemaking action on a SIP
revision and in all new or reviaed
requirements for SIPs issued by EPA.
EPA belhrves that H deals with the.
faimesa Issue, will not have noticeable
environmental impact and will
strengthen EPA's working relationships
with the States and local agencies.
Under the guidance, a SIP revision may
remain subject to the requirements in
effect generally on the date of Stete
adoption of the change. The decision to
grandfather will bo made by either the
Administrator or the appropriate
Regional Administrator where decision
authority has been delegated.
AU SIP revisions potentially sub feet to
grandfathering will be reviewed to
determine to what extent the submission
complies with the new and reviaed
requirements. For such reviaiona. EPA
A* 10
-------
Federal Register / VoL S4. No. 12 / Thursday, January 19. 1989 / Notices
2223
will address the impact of the
grandfathering decision (positive or
negative) in the SIP rulemaking action.
In addition, the basis for grandfathering
future submittals will bo described ia all
new requirements issued by EPA.
addressing the impact on previously
approved, pending, and newly submitted
SIPs. Such grandfathering provisions
generally will have effective dates
which are 60 days from the date of
signature to allow states to have a
reasonable time to complete processing
and submit revisions to EPA that may
be subject to grandfathering.
Although grandfathering will be
considered whenever possible, blancing
equity considerations and short-term
environmental impacts, it is not
automatic and may not be appropriate
in all circumstance* These tncfade
situations when:
1. The State has not acted tn good faith
in submitting a plan;
2. A court ruling has changed a federal
requirement or has convinced EPA
that a previous requirement is bo
longer supportable
3. Tha Administrator determines that H
is not appropriate to grandfather
under a new EPA policy;
4. A decision to grandfather would have
an imminent and substantial
advene environmental impact or
foreclose the ability of EPA to
exercise Its authority under the
Gean Air Act (e.g~ apply sanctions
under Part 0).
This guidance builds on existing
grandfathering guidance (04. air quality
dispersion modeling) to establish the
general concept of grandfathering ^roere
equity dictates sack action.
Where grandfathering would render
the SIP as a whole substantially
inadequate to protect the NAAQS or
otherwise to comply with the Act
grandfathering may be allowed only if
justified by as individual analysis under
the four-part Sierra Gob teat asecrtbed
eutier. Wind the f action
would have only a ftmtted IBs (generally
two years}. Within that ttaa. the
grandfathered revision ami terminate
(eg* expiration of a temporary
variance), or the State most submit a
complete, approvable isslsiuu to the 8P
to bring U into full compliance with all
statutory requirements.
X Improved Guidance and
Communication
Improved guidance and
communication la basic to improved
certainty in SIP decisionmaking. Many
of the recommendations of the tot
pntup on SIP processing required new
>:tii(lNiuj from EPA Headqauartera
before they could be implemented.
These include: the completeness criteria:
increased use of direct final: letter
notice for nonsubstantial actions: and
signature authority for the Regional
Administrators. Ail of these items are
discussed elsewhere in this notice.
Logically, when the final" sigjwtff
authority is delegated to the Regional
Adminstrator. up-to-date policy and
guidance pertinent to the specific
categories of SIPs should be assembled
and made available to Regional Office
reviewers (see section on "SIP Aproval
Authority" for categoris of SIPs). The
necessary guidance is being assembled
for those categories of SIPs for use by
the Regional Offices in the absence of
Headquartanyreview. In addition,
alternatives far mote timely and
systematic update of such guidance are
being explored.
Complete and up-to-date guidance is a
traditional form of communication
between EPA Headquarters and the
Regional Offices. EPA recognises that
effective communication will become
more important with the implementation
of the SEP processing reforms announced
today, not only between Headquarters
and the Regional Offices, but also
between the Regional Offices
themselves. It is essential that
Information on SIP review activities,
problems and problem resolution be
shared promptly by Headquarters and
the Regions so thai consistent
application of policy and guidance can
be assured. Several actions are
underway in this regard. _
The existing SIP tracking system. "SIP
TRAX." which presently only follows
SIP submittals bom their receipt at
Headqaafiaw. is being expanded to
track a SIP submittal from receipt by the
Region tl Office to ultimate disposition
(see further discussion under the
"Management System" below). Data
contained Is the system will be refined
and adtosted as experience is gained
under the new procedures. In parallel
with this tracking system change,
greater emphasis wtU be placed on the
"key SIP contact" persons ia tha
Regional Offices. Already in place, these
persons wiQ have expanded
responsibility as the Regional Offices do
more of the decislonms king on SIP
submittals. It Is expected that more
frequent use of conference calls,
between some or all Regions, will he
made, and a workshop on SIP
processing Issues will be instituted in
con (unction with the Headquarters/
Regional Office air program staff
confeience held eimuelly in North
Carolina.
To assure that effective dialogue takes
plane periodically. EPA is euiminirqt the
establishment of a Regional Office !
Council. Such a Council would be
composed of Regional Office SIP re.
start, chaired on a rotating basis by on*
of the offices. The chair would establish
a meeting frequency (by teleconference)
which could be monthly or at some
similar regular period. The purpose of
the meetings would be for each Region
to discuss SIP processing activities for
the period, to highlight unusual issue?
that arose, and to identify/resolve
points of contention between Regions.
Headquarters staff would participate in
these Council meetings ss advisors and
to provide policy/technical expertise.
Significant results of such meetings
would be pasted on aa electronic
bulletin board for future reference and
guidance.
Other initiatives are being considered.
These include crestioa of "policy
hotlines" establishing Headquarters
experts in various program areas to
provide quick response to Regional
Office inquiries. As ea extension of this
concept Regional Office "experts" are
expected to emerge over time who
would ferve the same function for their
colleagues. Although the full scope of
improved communications technique*
has not been fully defined at this tin*
(indeed, shobld never be finalized si 4
communications flow Inherently, shot..-
be dynamic). EPA Is aware of the
Importance of this function and is giving
h high priority.
4. SIP Processing Management System
Effective management of the SIP
review process within EPA. including
review by both the Regional Offices and
Headquarter*, is vital to ensure that
Implementation plans submitted by
States are processed expeditiously. As
part of this action to Improve SIP
processing within EPA. the management
system is being revised to monitor the
processing of implementation plan
revisions under the changes described
today. A basic goal of this revised
management system Is to ensure an
appropriate degree of consistency
between all reviewers in interpreting
and implementing the SIP processing
guidance and air quality management
program policy. The management
system will also evaluate the reviewer*
conformance to established review
procedures. In addition, an outgrowth ur
the munagement system will be the
identifies tim of Issues and problems in
implementation plan guidance, pulicic
snd procedures at both Headquarter
and Regional Offices. With such
information. EPA can ensure the timcw
update of policy and processing
guidance.
A-ll.
-------
2224
Federal Register / Vol 54. No. 12 / Thursday. January 19. 1889 / Notices
The management program i* designed
to ensure the adequacy of the pwMr*f« ing
->codures and to bdlitato the review
mplemcn tattoo plans, identification
program deficiencies is not intended
to result in recriminations bat to
improve the process. The effect of the
improved management program should
be increased public confidence in the air
quality management program, and more
certainty on the part of States and
industry regarding the operation of the
SIP review process.
Audits
A key feature of the management
system is the development of an audit
program. The audit program Is designed
to review actions, generally after
processing is complete and final action
is taken, to determine whether
processing procedures and program
policy have been adhered to during the
review of the implementation plan. It is
not the intent of the management
program to review, or second-guess,
every SIP action that is processed within
EPA.
The frequency of program audits will
be based upon several factors. On*
factor is the total number of
implementation plan revisions
processed by a particular office. This is
Important because significant processing
" viations are more likely to result
en the number of actons is high. A
second factor to be considered in
determining the frequency of the audit
cycle is the type of actions processed
newly implemented programs with a
significant level of complexity should
receive greater attention than progress
which are well established. Another*
element in determining the frequency of
audits will be the prior performance o
the reviewing office. Those that have
demonstrated problems should receive
greater attention and thus more frequent
audit than areas with demonstrated
capabilities. As a corollary, is addition
10 examining performance of specific
organizations, the audit program will
identify program areas wtan several
indenizations are ft en wn stinting a lack
of understanding, indicating the possible
need for improved guidance
The audit program most be designed
such that the interval between audits is
not too lengthy. With reasonable
frequency, the management systnm must
Uh able to obtain sn overview of tho
luttfie program and the personnel
p;*|kjnsible for implementing the
program. Such a review is necessary to
sure that the skills snd knowledge to
[cctively process ail types of plan
miuns are maintained: this is
,:cssary even where few and/or
muiim* plan revisions arc reotivd.
The audit program will employ two
basic sources of information: (1) Records
and documents submitted or prepared
as part of the formal submittal and
review process: and (2) discussions with
the individuals in Headquarters and/or
Regional Offices involved with
processing of plans in general and
associated with specific SIP actions.
Through review of the processing
documentation and the implementation
plan submittal the auditor can
determine independently the procedures
followed, bow specific policies were
applied, conformance to national policy
and guidance, etc Discussions with the
individual responsible for the processing
and review of SIP actions will provide
information related to deficiencies that
exist in the processing guidance,
difficulties in conforming to program
policy for specific actions, and elements
missing from EPA guidance that should
receive attention et the national level
The Regional Offices will need to
maintain the full documentation and
history of each SIP action processed. la
the majority pf cases this will not result
in any extra work load since most of
this information is contained in the files
already maintained by the appropriate
Regional Office. In addition to the
currently maintained manual records,
EPA intends to expand an operational
microcomputer-based system for
maintaining the status of currently
ective Implementation plans. The
current system tracks SIP revisions for
maintaining the status of SIP actions
upon receipt of the package by
Headquarters and contains no
Information on plan revisions at the
Regional Offioe; the system will be
expanded to maintain information on
the status of SIP actions under review
by any EPA organizational element. This
will permit the rapid transfer of
information between Regional Offices
and Headquarters on the status of all
actions which are active within EPA.
There are two types of sudit functions
anticipated by this program—internal
and externaL An internal program audit
involves theroutinc sudit of the SIP
review process by those individuals
within the reviewing organization who
are directly responsible for the review of
the SIP. This internal audit will occur at
both Headquarters and the Regional
Offices on sn ongoing basis. Rather than
mandate the procedures to bo used by
each Regional Office and jpprupiiate
1 Uwdquartcrs office fur ttto internal
uu«lit each office will establish audit
procedures that are appropriate tMsod
upon resources, capabilities, and the
nature of SIP revisions prtM usaed. For
rxnmplo. it may a insist nf •minr staff
familiar with the program requirements
reviewing a selected portion of the
revisions processed by tha SIP review
staff. The Regional Offices will focua
their internal audit efforts on those
actions to bo signed by the Rcgionnl
Administrators.
The external audit is designed to
obtain an independent overview of the
program. This audit will be conducted
by Headquarters individuals with
experience In SIP review but who do not
take an active role In the process. The
external audit will address all facets of
the program including adherence to
processing procedures, interpretation of
EPA policy, the impact of air quality
management and the effectiveness of
tha revised procedures In expediting the
processing of State submissions. In
addition. Headquarters offices will be
audited on how well new policy la
distributed and explained to the
Regional Offices. Audit guidelines will
be developed and distributed to all
offices responsible for SOP review.
Identifying in advance the major points
of emphasis in the audit program. The
external audit will not only
program deficiencies but also the
positive aspects of Implementation of
the program, providing a report both on
how program deficiencies can be
improved and on how Innovative
solutions have increased the efficiency
of the SIP review process. An Important
output of the audit program is the
identification of training needs for those
individuals responsible for SIP review.
Recordkeeping System
As previously mentioned. EPA has
implemented a microcomputer-based
data system for tracking the progress of
SIPs during Heedqusrters review. This
system. "SIP TRAX." currently tracks
specific milestones of the Headquarters
review process. These include:
(1) When the revision was received in
Headquarters:
(2) Date of staff concurrence:
(3) Date of epproval by tha Assistant
Administrator/Administrator
(41 Date published In the Federal
Register.
The system is accessible by the
Regional Offices through a
microcomputer-based bulletin board
system and is updutod on s weekly
basis. Sll* TRAX will be expanded to
inoirporate the initial phasos of SIP
review thai occur In the Regional
Offirjis before the implementation pkm
is furwnnted to Headquarters for
ruvicw. This is important since the
prou.*sa of tmnsfer of SIP decision
rRsp*Hi»iliiliti«>* will result in nuiny SIP
# „ 1 *»
-------
Register / Vol 54. No. 12 / Thursday. January 19. 1989 / Notices
2225
actions not coining to Headquarters and
thus would not be entered in i system
tracking only Htidquuun review.
There are several reasons far
maintaining audi a system. In order liar
the various Headquarters offices
responsible for program development to
maintain a sense of the major SIP Issue*
being addressed a method of
summarizing SIP actions processed is
necessary. The development of a data
base system that can provide such
information will reduce the resource
burden of soliciting input from Regional
Offices. In addition. EPA is frequently
asked about the specific status of
implementation plan revisions in
process by the public, industries, and
members of Congress. Since the system
will be regularly updated to contain
information oo all SIP actions, the data
base will be more complete and
accurate than one solely relying oa
Regional Offices' responses to periodic
inquiries. Overall, an integrated system
will allow EPA to determine more
accurately the status of. and time and
resource commitments allocated to. SIP
review wherever it occurs.
Processing Deviations
In addition to the basic program
oversight, an-important function of the
audit will be to identify those
circumstances where deviations from
processing guidance have occurred.
These processing deviations will be
examined from the perspective of the
potential impact of the action. Hm
identification of processing deviations
could result in varying responses,
ranging from simple improvements In
the review process to those few cases
expected where the State may be
required to submit s corrective
action to resolve a deficiency. The
specific corrective action to be taken
will be determined oa e case-by-casa
h««
-------
213a Federal Resistor / Vol. 54. No. Til I Thursday, lununry IB. ltms / Proposed Rules
^ulhonty: Shcs. 1-1* « Stat 31.
iiMndini: 7 I! S C. OOJ-«74.
^Section m (a added i
ad u
H
SxAaes of S37BJ7S byJfe South
Teuianioa Coounittee w authorized
and anBuesament rate^^X055p«r 30-
pound cAtainer or equnlent quantity
of regulaW onions is Aablished for the
fiscal perml ending fw 31.1889.
Unexpen 1MB.
The 1990 dean Air Ad (CAA)
MteblUuBd tbs irir ipi*P*y ttusfsinsift'
process as a basic philosophy far air
poQotion oootrol in tfabaowtiy. Under
this ayaten. EPA eetahHshes air qaeBty
goals (National Ambient AJr Quafity
Standards—NAAQS) lor oooasoe
pollutants. There ere now slandaraa for
8 pollutants: aaone. eeriton monoxide,
raimrmonw. aivQgvn muuuii
particulate matter |M» and lead.
States then develop'ooutiol programs to
ittain and maintain these NAAQS.
rheae programs are defined by State
implementation Pleas {SIPs) which are
approved formally by EPA and art
legally enforces ale by the Agency.
Under section 110(a)(2). a SIP must
demonstrate attainment, desoihe a
control strategy, contain legally
enforceable regulations. Indude sn
emission inventory and procedures for
new source review, outline a program
for monitoring, end-show adequate
resources. Ia addition, there can be
many other requirements specific to the
pollutant being considered. Under
section 110(aK3|. i a visions to a SIP must
net interfere with the SIP* ability to
meet these requirements. The
consequences of State failure to get SIP
approval may be serious: they indude
Federal promulgation of control
regulations aad 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 regulation
already is adopted and Implemented at
I he Stale level excessive delay ia the
review process often is e ma tor source
of fiietion in EPA's relatione with State
A-H.
-------
Federal Regular / VoL 54. No. 12 / Thursday. January 19. 1989 / Proposed Role*
2139
and local agencies. SIP processing at
EPA has a schedule goal of 5/2-8/2 far
Tina! actios. That is. tha Raglans
nominally have 5 months to review
submittals in both the propoaal and
promulgation phases: Headquarters
nominally has 2 months ia each phase.
However. SIP actions often taka
considerably longer than the total 14
months allocated to publish a final
decision.1
The lengthy decision process has
resulted in strong aritiasm from sources
both inside and outside the EPA. In
response, tha Deputy Administrator
commissioned in July 1887 a senior level
task group to assess the problems
inherent in theprooess and to
recommend Mhdteos. The task group
conducted its<
i a procedure and criteria far
identifying • "cample is" SIP package,
thereby providing States with guidance
EPA with a dearly defined mrrhanlsrr
to kaep essmtiaDy unreviewable SIP
revisions ost of the review prooess.
This is important because If a State
submits a SD> change without propcly
stated rnnhakHi Ihnits. legal authority or
stains other obvious deficiencies. It
can enter the full EPA review system.
Such a SIP either wQI be eventually
disapproved, or languish while the State
is required (perhaps months-later) to
supply essential data. Heretofore) EPA's
procedures did not provide is fi^f
comprehensive way prompt rejection for
incompleteness. Independently,
however, some Regional Offices have
tried to deal with mis problem, aad have
developed procedures wherein SB*
submittal are lodged attest a est of
extensive review i
both EPA and the)
and i
to institute an EPA wide procedure far~
•NMseMssotaatMMPIsri
** Tie A***wsw i
¦>onth» «ftar Sm 4bM faqMrad Jar I
ISITJ- •mvm.mitla.wpiiii. Mdi|8ff1isr«
completeness review of all SIP
submittals.
Completeness Review
In order to free EPA resources that
would otherwise be consumed in
processing incomplete and inherently
unapprovable SIPs. EPA has created a
completeness review process. Under this
process. EPA will review a SIP for
completeness when it is initially
submitted to determine if all the
necessary components have been
included to allow the agency to properly
mlew and act on the substance of tha
SIP revision. This will be a quick screen
that will assess the reviewability of a
SIP submittal, not its ultimata
approvabdity. EPA will than promptly
i the submitting State whether the
Administrator. Thai
were approved hDy aad are described,
in a companion notice ia today's Federal
' will nroeeed to ptoceaa the SIP
Stati because it is iacampletn.
There ere several benefits to eneariv
determination of completeness. Fbs4 the
State Is informed promptly as tb the
reviewability of the submittal.' a. current
souroeof uncertainty in the SIP. proceaa.
Secood. SIP submittals that are
to the State to be coaoctod. rather than
going thnmgh the review process only to
be dinpproved because of a lack of
iafanaatioa. Third. unreviewable SXPs
_ so
that Msouices at tha Federal level are
allocated to promising only SIPs that
are adequate tor review. Finally, the
completeness criteria! provide the States
with guidelines on how to prepare
reviewable SIP*. tt to expected that once
the agandai Involved (State and local
EPA) become eocastoned to the
the
i suboaittab will
, that
Screening criteria I
oSTBOpM Ol! OUUI QM I
until today's proposed regulation la
HPlftt BmI
As part of this action, the I
Administrator is proposing to
criteria for determining the
completeness of State submittal* to 40
GFR Part 51 as Appendix V. In addition.
EPA proposes to modify 151.103(a) such
that State submissions that do not meet
the criteria are not considered official
plan submissions for purposes of
meeting the requirements of. Part 51. In
order to be considered as a complete SIP
submission or an official submission for
Pert 51. each plan must meet the criteria
described below and in Appendix V.
The beak criteria ere adaptable for uee
in parallel processing of State
regulations by EPA.*
EPA is creating this completeness
review proooesender the authority of
Sectional of1h»Qeea Air Act, which
authorises the Administrator to
nsoeiitry to cany oat Ms functions
ander the Ad EPA is interpreting the
tens "plan" in section 110(a)(1) aad (2)
and "rrrtskm" in Section 110(a)(3) to be
only thooo plans aad levislona that
ftwitalw |Q i
to allow EPA to a adequately review
aad take action on soai plan or revision
under aecttaa 110 (sad. where
applicable, tot D). EPA believe
require EPA to review aad take actfa.
on SIP submittals that were simply not
^viewable because they were laddng
mportant components. Therefore, the
Administrator concludes that Section
110(a) requires him to act only on
complete State submittals.
oo«ru hava tMtd feat a
•fetea I* a SV iwtaai
will avoid obvious
that can be appOed uniformly with
UBUIIU VOvftCQvf fQfl^VOBu IBB
lestew. The criteria were developed by
EPA Raglonal Offices already using a
list of criteria to determine completeness
of Sff packages ia aa internal way. On
March IB. 1968 a pobcy for determining
completeness of SIP submittals was
'ssoed tar Ceroid A. Emtson. Director.
Offloa of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPSl to tha Regional
Offices (a copy has been placed ia tha
docket as item 0-4M). The policy
includes basic criteria for determining
completeness, and sampie letters for
accepting and rejecting SIP submittals.
This policy will be followed by EPA
The criteria far determining wbether a
submittal by the State Is complete have
been separated into two categories: (a)
Administrative information and (b)
Administrative information includes the
documentation necessary to
demonstrate that the basic
administrative procedures have been
adhered toby the State during the
adoption process. Technical support
tnfbnuttoo tb# docuiMfltitiofl
that adequately identifies all of the
required technical components of the
pbtt mtoiuioiL
The administrative informs don
required by the criteria are those basic
A-1 5,
-------
2140
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 12 / Thursday, lanuaiy 19. 1989 / Proposed Rules
documents that demonstrate that the
'ate has property followed lha
jnioistrative requirements called Cor
jy the Clean Air Ad for the adoption of
State implementation plans, lime
include a letter from the Governor or his
designee requesting that EPA approve
the SIP revision, and evidence that the
revision has been adopted by the State
in final form, either es part of the State
code if the revision is a regulation, or as
appropriate source specific
documentation in the form of a permit,
order, or a consent agreement. The State
also must provide documentation that
the necessary legal authority exists
within the State to adopt and implement
the plan revision, most include the
requisite copies of the actual revision
(regulation, permit ordac, etc.). and must
the State's
T<
to
comment*.
information to to identity the State's
view of the impact of the revision on the
far attainment and maintenance of
ambient standards* increment
consumption, and control technology,
are in conformance with basic statutory
and EPA requirements. In order far SPA
to iriHt a rnasonsbh decision
concerning the adequacy of a propoeed
SIP revision, certain information at a
minimum mast be iocfadad in each
submittal. Therefore, for purposes of
determining the completeness of a SZP
submission the implementation plan
nvitiflfl must include an i
description of the
(a) Pollutants T
(b)T
status of the i
(ell
(d) 1
increments are protected
(e) Information used far any aodsBng
demonstretiao:
(f) Evidence of continuous emissions
controls
(g) Evidence of smlisinns limitations
and other restrictions necessary to
the revision for inclusion of the
sdministrative and technical support
information. When the revision is
determined complete, the formal review
of the adequacy of the information and
the approve bill ty of the revision will
proceed In those situations where the
submission does not meet the basic
criteria as discussed above aad set forth
in Part SI. Appendix V. the submission
will be returned to the State with a letter
the found. In
accordance with the change proposed in
40 CFTt SUCS(a), any submission that
does not meet the criteria of Appendix V
will not be considered so official
snbmisstcm triggering the Acfs
requirements far EPA review and action.
The basic requirements are similar far
by the 8tata. Finally, the State i
submit Information indicating that the
i administrative procedures have
*" ; evidence ot
ensurei
(b| Complisnoe strategies: and
(i) Technological and economic
itiQcatioo for the change where
applicable.
Upon receipt of the plan revision, the
Regional Ofltee will objectively examine
when the Administrator determines such
revisions to be substantial- The changes
described 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, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements have been determined to
be insubstantial. Because the expected
economic effect of the changes is not
substantial, no detailed
impact Assessment has beat prepared.
The Information collection
requirements of these changes are
considered to be no different than u>ose
currently required by the Clean Air Act
end EPA ntoueduiea. Thna. the public
Iburden resulting from today's
..In order to be
i determination oL
i be made
expeditiously. The Regional Office
generally wfll make a detodnetion of
onmpleteness within 49 days of
receiving s SIP revision, suing the
criteria to make an <'
After the decision has I
the Regional Offices will
i the SIP revision tf fee
r'lVfilfTltni is complete. or retnre ths SIP
revision to ths State If B is I
A letter wfll bo sent to As I
informing the State of l
sutus of the SZP rwtstoa. V s I
submittal Is incomplete. As deficiencies
wfll be detailed tn the toasr lo the State.
If a SIP submittal Is complete. the
Regional Office wffl inrluds OA's
expected processing edwdulo In the
letter to the State.
tsiavttedto
the docket aod the following: Chief,
US.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401M
Street SW. Washington. DC »tMt aad
to the Offios of Intonation and
Regulatory Affairs. Offioe of
Management and Budget. Washington.
DC 20609, marked-Attention: Des1-
Tbe docket is an w
complete file of afl the
considered by EPA la t_
of those Sff processing t
dockat to a aynamkflk
material is added
preparation and
docketing system is intend
members of the pubUc and
Involved to identify and in
documents so that they can eflectively
participate in the proceea. Along with
the statement of blasts and pespooe of
the SIP processing changss and EPA
contento of the docket except far
interagency review materials, wfll serve
as the record in caae of judicial review
(see Clean Air Act section WJdKTXA).
42 U.S.C. 7007(d)(7)(A).
Section 317ta) of the dean Air Act 42
VS.CL 7817(a). states that economic
impact assessments ere required for
revisions to slandurds or regulations
,fiPAto
required to lodge' whether en action is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a regulatory Impact
analysis (RIA). The Agency has
determined that the SIP processing
changes announced today would result
in none of the significant advene
economic effects sat forth In section 1(b)
of the Order as pounds for a finding of
"major." The Agency baa, therefore,
conri tided that this action to not s
"major" action under Executive Order
This rule was submitted to OMB for
review consistent with section 307(d) of
the Clean Air Act A copy of the draft
rule as submitted to OMB. any
documents accompanying the draft, sny
written comment received from other
sgsndss (tadoding OMB). and any
written responses to those comments
have been Included fat the docket
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980.
9 USJC. 601-612. requires the
identification of potentially adverse
impacts of Federal actions upon small
business entitles. The Act requires the
completion of e regulatory flexibility
analysis far every action unless ths
Administrator certifies that the action
wiU not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
A-1 6 -
-------
Federal Register / Vol 54. No. 12 / Thursday, lanuary 19. 1989 / Proposed Rule*
entities. For reasons described above. I
hereby certify that the final rule will not
have a aignificant impact on a
¦ubstantial number of small entities.
0«l« lanuary & "*•
lee M. Thomas.
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preemble.40 CFR Pail 51 is proposed to
be amended as fellows:
PART St—{AMENDED]
l: The authority citation for Part 51
continues to read as follows:
a.a.ijii.1 TUs rnkmakisa is i
under authority of SectionalU(bKl)»llflk
lao-aa. 171-178. and 901(a) of the Oeen Air
Act 42 UJ&C 740(b)(1). 7410,
7801-naa. and 7tm(aV
2. Section SUOS b proposed ts be
mended by nviilni ptnpiph (a)
in. m
mtnrot
(a) The State makes as official
(b) Evidence that the Stale Km adopt ad the
pUn is the State coda or body of reguUitoos:
or iasucd tha permit order, consent
agreement (hereafter document) in final form.
That evidence (hall include tha data of
adoption or final iaaeance as well as tha
affective data of the plan tf different from the
•doptlon/iswis nee data.
(c) Evidence that the State has the
necessary legal autherivy under Stele law to
adopt and implement the plan.
(d) A copy of the actual regulation, or
document submitted for approval and
Incorporation by reference into the plan.
Imitating indication ef the changes made to
the aodstfas approved plan, where applicable.
The auhmittal (hail ba a copy of the official
Stale iagulation7ilnnimsnt signed r~*
dated by tba appropriate State official
twHnating that it is fuDy enforceable by the
State. The oflecdee date of the leguletten/
deoamantshafl.whaneverpoeaihie.be
toSceted in the docmnent iteeit
(a) Mdenoa that the State follow ad all of
ft I CempUance/emorcament itrategiv
Including bow compliance will be determined
in practice.
(>) Special economic and technological
ju*tificationi required by any applicable EPA
poiiciea.
IX. Fjtmptffmt
2J.I. The EPA. far the peipoaaa of
expediting the review of the r»*» baa
adopted a procedure referred to as "parallel
processing." Pareilal proceaaing allowt a
State to submit the plan prior to actual
ado prion by the State and provides an
opportunity far the State to consider EPA
conumwita prior to submission of a final plan
far Baal review and action. Under these
Uii uimiencas the plan eehmittad will not be
able to meet aD of the requfaumenia of
paiagiaph fcl (aB loquliiuauts of paragraph
U win apply). As a result the fallowing
(a) The latter required by peru^ephLKe)
approeelof
U(b) the State
Appaadfe V to this pact and tha State
Whren flea copies of the plan to tha.
ippropriata Regional office. wttb a latter
(hrtag notice of each action Tba State
moat adopt the plas and the Coventor or
Ids daajgawe mast submit it to EPA aa
follows:
X Put Si Is proposed to ba
by adding Appendix V to read/s
foOows:
AppenrfHc V Criteria fat Detennlains
the State's
XX Technical
(a)
(b) Idaadficedoa at ita toeadena of
¦ EPA
I dastpudon of tba
i ef >e attainment
plan far the i
(d Qnenrtflcattoa < nees In plan
1XL Ibe ee^daea Rented In pere*
SJL1 chafl apply oaly to CPA's determinattuw
sad aB requirements of
he mat prior to
publirettnn of EPA'a final deteminadoe of
dIob iiyuuviLAttVe
(PR Doc »-ldn Red v-l>-aft MS am]
consideration by BPA ta en <
rabiTrittfrwi tot i
I aia.
U. The BPA ahafl fattm ID I
official eayptaa art
faila to i
Appendix V.ort
or hBafflcient to
aebmltted plan.
IX The BPA shall Inform I
official when a plan i
loqowuinsuu of this Appends V. each
detenninnUon resulting in the plan being aa
official sebmMoe far perpoeas of I SLIM.
MANAQOSEMT AfQEMCY
federal toeuranca Adwihilstiation
44 CFR Part <7
[Docket Mo. PVMA-W4C]
the plan is appro »ed and
(e| Modeling taferomttoam*a*adta
Mppovt Mm pnpond iidodifli tfljhri
data, oatpet data, models need testification
¦mL motaereinetaei dele aid. iHttiAcation
far eae of offsHe date (where eeedL modea of
* Padafal Emergency
Proonaed rule.
UO. Crutria
The fallowing AeO be iadeded in plea
submissions far review by CPA:
It. Administrative Materials
(s| A forme! letter of auhoutUl from the
Governor or his designee, repealling BPA
epproval of the pUa or revision thuienf
(homufter "the pian~V
information reieveni w tt
adeqeary of the ewiloilag analysis.
(H Bsldenca. where eeceeaery. that
emission limitations are baaed aa luntiwews
emieaion redectine tecbaaingy.
(g) Evidence that the plaa oowtaina
eedssinn limitaiiuna. work pracnce standards
end recnrdkreprng/ieponinf reqairemenia.
ary. io ensure fiaiaaiue levels.
r. Technical fafbnnatioo or
its art soDdted on the proposed
base (100-year) flood eJevstions and
proposed base flood elevation
modifications Ustad below for, d
locations in the nation. These I
year) flood elevations are the ban?
the floodplain management meaaun.
that tha community is required to either
adopt or show evidence of being already
In effect in order to qualify or rmruain
qualified for participation in the
-------
rmij
Febfwry It, 1M0
Part IX
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part St
Slate Implementation Plan Completeness
Review, Final Rulemaking
A-13.
-------
Federal Register / Vol 53. No. 33 / Friday, February 16. 1880 / Rules UmpJmttom.
tubmit reviewable SlP-revisions and to
allow EPA to reject unreviewable
submittal*. The SPA hettevee that
implementation of ft* SP piiii osilnj
reform iiioeourea —flpniiiiiiltfsUuii of
regulatory complatgasas criteria will
esaara that the JHFl «e processed ia a
mora timely fsshfrw aad that the level of
uncertainty regarding the status of SIP
•ubmittali ahould decrease. among other
benefits.
SIP Rafacm bitiattvee
L Procedural Reform*
A key slement ta improving tha
review of SIP revisions submitted by tha
Statea ia improving EPA's intanal
review pocatluiaa. A mafor component
of tha cnanges ia delagation of the final
approval authority for certain actions to
tha Regional Offices. Tba proceduies
established (no M PS 2214 for a
detailed explanation) either eliminated
or significantly reduced tha amount of
Headquarters review on generally
routine or Inconsequential SIP actions.
Aa a remit of implementing the reform
measures. tba publication of EPA
«itiiiw ihHi the eigbMaonth period
from fanoary 18. 1888 to September 18,
I960 was substantially increased over
tha same period daring tha previous two
i (see Table 1 below).
or SP ACTIONS
TMU1
£Ss
it
Toot
^/^V9T-%/^VtT-
t/is/as-e/t#/«t_
i/is/es-a/is/as_
m
m
180
&
4 A
too
1SS
M8
To
Identified with actions either aot
reviewed or minimally reviewed by
Under the <
wifl review a Sffi
it ia initially i
ail the ooo
iadodad to aOoirl
review aad act oo the i
submittal. Thia «dS be a quick i
da taeniae the iertowhtilty>i
the approvabtilty. of the SV eahuilMel
Ob March 18.1008. a pottcy Car
by Ceroid A. Bmieoo. Director. Oflke of
Air Quality Flaaniag aad Staadarda. to
the Regional Ofioee. A copy of tfata
QOaSDBn Oo DM pilfifl B Bl ODBP
gtil-B^e^Atocades lettw
pahllahed today, replaces that policy rubral lUilf iiiiHi ss Cc,
" were received boa private!
State aad local air pollution i
agencies, the Utility Air Regulator,
Croup, and a Chamber of Commerce.
Siaoa numerous comments were
received from tha commentars. a
complete response to all significant
comments, entitled "Summary of
Comments and Raaponses on the
laanary 18. I960 SIP Reform Federal
Register Notices.4' has been placed in
the Docket #A-88»1&. However, teve
mafor comments that were submitted
EPA are discussed below.
L Authority to Delegate
Comment: On! commwnter argued
that EPA lacks authority to delegate
final responsibility for action on SIP
submittals to the Regional
Administrators because such action
constitutes nilwnelring.
,ff espouse. The Administrator haa
delegated responsibility for final actio
on categories of SIP revisions t
the Rtghmal Admlaiatratora under the
aotharity of section 301(a). Mich
pwsldaa that the Ariminietfrtar may
rtplagate any of hto respooanllttae
uader the Act "except the mr-f
ngdirtoas " Aatha ootamec
X Completeness Criteria
The criteria for determining whether a
submittal la complete have ben
separated into two categories: (i)
Administrative informatiaa aad (2)
technical information. Tha
administrative information required are
those documents that demonstrate that
the State haa followed the
administrative requirements set oat by
the Act lor adoption of State rales for
incorporation into the SIP. The technical
informatics required by the criteria ia
intended to identify the environmental
impact of the revision.
When e sulwittal la determined to be
complete. £3>A will inform the 8teta by
letter of its determination and the
proposed processing schedule. The EPA
will than begin the formal review far
approvability. If a submittal la
determined to be incomplete, the
submittal will be returned to the Stats
with a latter listing the deficiencies. Tba
Regional Office will notify the State of
the completeneas determine Won,
generally within 48 days of receipt of the
submittal. Tha EPA wUl not
further rulemaking oo lmcomplete
submittals until the State provides any
missing material needed to Cadllbb
EPA review.
On January 18.1888. EPA published
the completeness review proposed
rulemaking (54 FR 2138) aad also a
notice of internal procedural change* (94
FR2214). The purpose of the proposed
rulemaking was to deeaibe the
completeness review criteria aad to
solicit public comments on the criteria.
The notice of procedural changes
described the chengee that were being
implemented in the way SIP revision
requests were processed at EPA. The
oottoe of Internal procedural changes
waa effective Immediately, howew
EPA invited the public to onnnnsnt on
the changes. The public time given 48
.days to comment oo both the proposed
rale end sotica of procedural changes
(until March 8.1888). Two aunnwmtars
requested that EPA extend the oommeitt
period on both actions by 80 days.
Although EPA did not officially extend
the comment period, bothi
additional commenta they submitted to
EPA by April 8.1888 would be
oonaidertd when the final rale 1
published. Both i
i and they <
at A total of 88 <
I In the early I87ffs mat
t on SP submittals constitute.
maldnt of regabtians within the
——1¦'"g ofsectioa 301(a). However, s:
—in the nodes of proposed
rulemaking (NPR), the Agency
suboequendy concluded, after further
ie»bw in the context of this rulamakin
that K^f did aot constitute the
"making of regulations" within tha
—of section 301(a), and thus wa
not subject ta that section's bar on
delegation. The cemmenter argues that
the final action on a SIP is rulemaking
withia the ¦—¦'¦g of the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
aad tt ia thus necessarily the making o{
is|iilsllnns withia tba meaning of
section 801(e). The EPA now conclude*
however. that those two categories are
not idanticaL As noted ia the NPR. EPA
haa acquiesced la the line of (udicitl
^"*1 action on
mo submlttala la rulemaking within the
meaning of the APA. and ia subject to a
of theAPA's procedure! requirements.
11m bet that the Administrator may be
conducting proceediags that may be
characterised procedurally u
rulemaking does not imply the I
caaae he b "maldnt reguletiol I*
EPA belle>ea that the Arfmtnti
making rsgiilsrtons within the mea
of seetiea 801(a) only when he
promulgates Federal regulations. Thu-.
-------
f U Reglatar / Vol 55. No. 33 / Friday. February 16. I860
"3/2-8/2" system nodar which, at both
tha proposed sad final stages of SIP
rulemaking, tha EPA Rational Office
would take up to 8 untaa to review and
process State subaffgiens and public
comments andprepgna draft Federal
Ragiatar notice lor ¦Smitta! to EPA
Headquarter*, and WTcartqaartars would
then tiki op to 2 moatfaa to review,
comment on. and revise tba Regional
Office submittal. Aa explained in tba
January tfi. 1988 notice. for relatively
noncontroversial SIP submittals, EPA
used only a single "direct-final"
rulemaking stage. which generally
eliminated the proposal phaae of the
process. thereby reducing the 14-month
Dtriod by Bfli hilt
Daring tbe-mid-1980's. EPA
experienced a severe auah of SIP
revision submittals. Notwithstanding
thie crush. tha Agency was able to
procese more than lOOOSTP-nlated
actiona from 1983 until the end of 1988.
an average of eknost 380 per year. Bat
the heavy buidau of revie wing so many
submittal* took its toO by lengthening
the time for SIP reviews is many eases
to well'beyond the 14-mooth timetable.
This in tarn convinced EPA to Institute
the reforms initiated January 19.1988k
and discussed In today's rale.
One effect of thoaa reforms is to
revise the Agency's views (and hence its
pre-existing guidance) on what
presumptively constitutes a "reasonable
time" for EPA action on SZP-revlska
submittals. WhQe the reforms affect how
much time for EPA action would be
"reasonable", however, they do not
reduce the quality of eubatantive review
that is necessary before the often
detailed, technically comples^ubnittuls
nay be approved into tha applicable
plan. This substantive review is
necessarily eiuenaiva. pnrttcalnriy since
tha paaaaga of the 1977 Amendments
added a host of new plan requirements
applicable ta SIP revisions for areas that
era designated "nonattahanenT far •
particular pollutant
When a StateariMtBi i larlslbn. on
Regional Office fetfawt make certain
that the plan ooaitfflB «B the naoaeaery
to simply disapprove It or; where the
deficiencies are lata problematic and to
State ie cooperative. ask the State to
make the aoceeeary oocrecttons and
submit it again.
EPA then must judge whether the
revision may be approved Theee
judgments are often highly in
nature, Involving questions such aa
whether ineressed air pollution resulting
from the revision will prevent or
interfere with an area's effort to attain
tha NAAQS or achieve raaaonabie
further progress (RFP) towards
attainment see 42 U&C sections
7410(a)(1) and TSBfbKtt whether the
revision ensures that the affected source
or sources will employ reasonably
available control technology (RACTV
see 42 US.C section 7908(b) (2) and (3):
and whether tha myriad of provisions
relating to permits for new and modified
major stationary sources have been
followed, see 42 U&C. sections
7902(b)(0) and 7903. In determining
whether these requirements have been
met the Agencyoften must determine
whether complex air quality modeling
guidelines have been completely
followed, end tha results of that
modeling applied correctly. EPA'a
technical support document analyzing
questions such u theee may necessarily
be scores of pages long. This technical
support la necessary because EPA's
action on SIP revisions is often
challenged by affected partiaa. The
Regional Office must alao formulate a
public docket of of all materials relating
to the SIP revision, and must draft a
Federal Register notice proposing to
approve or-disapprove tha revision.
After public comments are submitted,
the Agency must respond to eO
significant comments and provide a
dear statement of baeis end purpose for
its action In the preamble to the final
rules. S USC section 983(c).
For matters of national importance,
the Regional Office must consult with
other Regions and Headquarters to try
to aasnre national consistency. In
addition, staff in tha air program's
oompllance office determine whether the
nrioearo enforceable as written, and
Agency lawyers determine whether the
requirements of the Admiaistative
Procedures Act and the dean Air At*
Aa eiplalnod below, tha period of
thne EPA would new consider
"ruesonable" for acting on SIP revisions
variee according to the internal and
public prooass EPA will follow under the
reforms far each type of revision Under
tha reforms. EPA has dhrtdsd 8P
1 —f ^ t|, * — » - a ^^ S« —9 ^
luonunm bud # fiuupit mwci ¦ ni
January 19.1889 notice aa Table L Table
1 and Table m submittals. Table m
subotttnla are thoee that though of
potentially peat Importance for
Individual pollution smnrea. wlB not
hive a punt Import on the
Mlales and Regulations 58
Implementation of the national air
quality management program. Under t!
delegation of authority from tba
Administrator to the Regional
Administrators, the Regional
Administrators may take final action c
Table in subndttala without further
action by EPA Headquarters. Includin;
tha Administrator. As a result, the *
months of Headquarters review
previously applicable to those
submittals is eliminated. The Regional
Offices can perfoiiu the tasks describe
above and complete action on those
submittals in 5 months at each of the 2
phaaea of rulemaking proposal and
final—for a total of 10 months. The
portion of the submittals under Table L'
that are entirely wmcontroversiaL and
hence can be processed as "direct*
finals", will generally require only one-
half that time, or 3 months Beyond that
some Table in submittala will be w
inconsequential that public notica of
EPA's action en them would serve no
useful purpose. The EPA will invoke th<
APA aeetian 393fc>"good cause"
exemption for those submittals. and
under the delegation diacuagid in tha
January 19,1988 notice, act dn them
through a letter notice" procedure it
the Regional OfBee level alone. Since
sncb actions phnuld require little review
or other work, they ahould presumably
take approximately 3 months.
The types of submittals listed tn Tabli
n of the January 19.1989 notice
generally need only cursory
Headquarters review because they have
only a marginally greater Impact on the
Implementation of the national air
quality management program than do
Table ID SIP revisions, in some cases,
the guLf—— epplicable to these
submittals la relatively new and. thus, it
is prudent for Headquarters at least to
ww«hm the Regional Office decision
process. Although the Regional
Administrators nave authority to act
alone on these SIP'S. Heedquerters
gr——»y takes 90 days bom tha data a
Table a SIP revision package is received
from the Regional Office to send
*—**¦>« to the Regional Office. The
processing for soch actions generally
ahould occur aa foQowa:
(1) Regional Office review of actiona
and preparation of Pedaral Ragtstar
(2) Headquarters opportunity for
(3) Completion of Regional Office
review and action 1 month.
This process totala 9 months at each
stage of the rulemaking, or a total of 12
montha. For thone Table I actiona that
art noDoontroversial and. hence, eligible
for "dlrect-Anal" rulemaking, the
A-20.
-------
Fidiid Ba»1«tea I Vat SX bkt. 93 / Friday. Fafcwry ». a» / Brfea wdi^niad—
plea
EPA'e
respond to
nafaw oa i nl»«t
hearing*.
Slate reap Ifce
mpOBM*
with the p ,r t ...
If as action generate* iabitantUi pohlie
regulattak VOMaaanmmts er»
iisnHfeant Stetea mat adeqnatefy
respondta 6am to mid aiWtmy
ralemaktat
ae aubmittala. not the
Rmpoott: The Mi <
an i
ta dear tat fca naftond ambient dr
quality atudndi wiBbe pfotpotad and
ihmi -lll.il> wiik xih.WiMM
improve, or at laast addenda, afta&
pointt
-------
Fadaral lUgtotw / VoL 53, No. 33 / Friday. Febniary 16. 1990 / Rule* and Regulation*
locations ud tha statae d tha attainment
plan far tba affected areaafe).
^(c^Qtiaimftn**'— of^dMagae^pUn
where apptfrtm qwBeniM of cfcaagea
i" ««•*"' inilnliw frw ¦ffianeit iiuiia*
through calculations of the difference*
between certain baseline Irrals aad
allowabla emiaaioa* anticipated aa a nault of
tha revision.
(d) The Stata'a damonstratioa that the
national ambient air quality itawlirta.
prevention of significant deterioration
lacnmeata. reasonable farther prograa*
demonstration. aad visibility. aa applicable,
an protactad If tba plaa la approved and
jpipi—piiiift.
(a) Modeling lafonnatioa required to
support the propoaad revUlon. Including Input
data, output data, model* uaod. justification
of mfflil iilicttoBi uUnt monitorial diti
oaad. meteorological data aaad. Justification
for use of ofUta data (where oaad), isodas of
oiodala used. assumption. and other
Information tdmat to tba determination of
adequacy of the modeling analysis.
(f) Evidence. where necessary. that
•mission limitation aro baaad on coattauoua
emiaaioa reduction technology.
(X) Evidence that tha plan contain*
anrtariwi lialtattoaa. work practice itaadaida
aad recordkaeplag/rapartlag requirementa.
what* oeceteery. to eneure emiaaioa levala.
(h) Compliance/enforcement strategies.
ifwi^i»| how compliance <*111 ba datannlaed
la practice.
(1) Spocial economic aad technological
jujtifi cations required by any appUcabla EPA
polidea.
L3. Exception*
2.3.1. tba EPA. for the purposes of
expediting tha review of tha plaa. haa
adopted a procedure nftrrad to aa "parallel
processing." Parallel proceasing allow* a
Stata to submit tha plaa prior to actual
adoption by tha Stata and provide* aa
opportunity for tha Stata to conaidar EPA
comment* prior to aubmiaaioa of a final plaa
for final review and action. Under theee
circumstance*. the plan submitted will not bo
able to meat all of tba requirement* of
parapeph 2.1 (all requirement* oi paragraph
U will apply). As a result tha following
exceptions apply to plana submitted
explicitly for parallel proceeding
(a) The letter required by paragraph il(a|
shall request that CPA prupoee appioval o(
tha propoaad plaa by parallel processing.
(b) la lieu of parapaph 2.1(b) the
shall submit a schedule for final adoption or
isausnca of tha plaa.
(c| la lieu of paragraph 2.1(d) the that
infinite a copy of the propoaed/drafl
regulation or documeat including indication
of the piopoaad changes to be made to the
exiatlag approved plaa. whan applicable.
(d) The requirement* of paragraph* 2.1(e)-
2.1(h) shall oot apply to plans submitted for
parallel procesatag.
lU The exceptions granted is paragraph
2J.1 shall apply only to EPA'i determination
of propoaad actioa aad all requirement* of
paragraph 2.1 shall ba net prior to
publication of EPA'i Baal determination of
plan approvabillty.
(PR Ooe. flO-sm FUad X-lS-OOi K12
A-22.
-------
appendix b
- Policy for Determining Completeness of SIP Submittals, 3/18/88 Memorandum
from Gerald Emison to Regional A1r Division Directors
- Expanded Use of Direct Final SIP Processing, 12/23/87 Memorandum from
Gerald Emison to Regional Air Division Directors
- Procedures for Letter Notice Approval of Minor SIP Actions, 1/30/89
Memorandum from Gerald Emison to Regional Air Division Directors
- Letter Notice Approval Procedures, 9/12/89 Memorandum from Johnnie Pearson
to Regional A1r Branch Chiefs
- Letter Notice Example (54 FR 47077) 11/9/89 and Sample Letter
- "Grandfathering" of Requirements for Pending SIP Revisions, 6/27/88
Memorandum from Gerald Emison to Regional Air Division Directors
3-1.
-------
.'.-fc \ >' S"''«TES ENVJRQNMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
f fWl Jf Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 Denfse Gerth
18 MAR
** ¦ ¦ *-v
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Policy for Determining Cogpleteness-of SIP Submittals
FROM: Gerald A. Ealson, D1
Office of A1r Qual Ity^TWfTiStandards (MD-10)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I. II. HI. IX
Director, Air and Haste Management Division
Region II
Director, A1r, Pesticides and Toxics Division
Region IV, VI
Director, A1r and Radiation Division
Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Region VII, VIII, X
Today I aa forwarding to you a policy (attached) concerning the
screening of incoalng SIP packages to determine whether their contents
justify EPA review and action or warrant 1 mediate return to the state.
It provides objective criteria for the Regional Offices to use 1n deter-
mining completeness for review. It also will assist State and local
agencies in the preparation of SIP packages. Regional Offices should
discuss these requirements with their States and Implement the policy as
soon as possible.
During the bourse of the Agency's assessaent of the SIP processing
systea, the problem of processing packages that were deficient (e.g., no
clearly specified ealsslon Halts, test procedures, averaging tlaes,
legal authority) was Identified early on. Soae Regions believed that
there was no legal option and put such deficient packages Into the usual
review cycle, del vying response to the State and needlessly consuming
valuable resources. Our current judgment 1s that with appropriate cri-
teria defined, 1t Is legal for EPA to return deficient SIPs because they
are Incomplete and Inadequate to trigger the requlreaent for EPA review.
Certain Regional Offices have adopted their own procedures to screen
out of the review loop patently deficient submittals and have operated
without problems for many years; perhaps the aost successful of these
n
-------
2
procedures was developed 1n Region I. The attached policy, based on the
Region I approach. Is being adopted at this time as national procedure
for use by all Regional Offices.
Although this policy i* immediately effective, EPA intends to publish
regulations formally setting out these completeness criteria to further
assist States in preparing SIP revisions. This will be done as part of the
general Federal Register notice we will be publishing this spring on the
complete SIP processing reform effort. This policy will provide guidance
to Regional offices and States until the criteria are formalized 1n final
regulations*
Note that this policy deals only with the adequacy of a SIP sub-
mlttal for purposes of review. Completeness review 1s Intended to
be done promptly, based on objective criteria. It 1s not Intended to
focus on the approvablHty of the proposed change (which often may Involve
extensive technical review and subjective professional judgment). As a
general rule, the reviewer should err on the side of processing a SIP
submittal of questionable completeness rather than injecting the Issue of
approvab111ty versus completeness Into discussions with the State. On
the other hand, If a submittal 1s clearly Incomplete end there are also
deficiencies with regard to approvablHty, all such Information should be
transmitted to the State. As an alternative, of course, EPA can always
process a disapproval of the submittal.
This policy 1s Intended to provide a quick screen of Incoming packages
so that unreviewable SIPs are promptly returned to the State for incorpora-
tion of missing items. Used properly by the Regional Offices, scarce
review resources will be conserved and needless delays will be avoided;
used properly by your State and local agencies as a guide 1n SIP preparation,
we should see a decline 1n unreviewable packages accompanied by an Improve-
ment In the overall quality of SIP submittals.
cc: Air Branch Chiefs. Region I-X
Regional Counsel (Alr Branch Chiefs), Regions I-X
Craig Potttr
Don Clay
Robert CaMIl
Alan Ceknrt
John Calcagnl
John Stiti
Bob ttyland
8-3.
-------
3
bcc: Work Group Members
B111 Laxton
Jade Farmer
Rich Osslas
Peter Wyckoff
Bern Ste1ger«ald
Hike Ai«ish1n
8-4.
-------
OAR:03-04-88
COMPLETENESS DETERMINATIONS OF SIP REVISION SUBMITTALS
Introduction
EPA 1s Instituting the following policy for determining whether SIP
revision submittals are.admlnlstratively and technically complete for
processing via federal rulemaking. The objective is to return promptly
fundamentally unreviewable SIP submittals to the State for corrective
action. This policy 1s expected to provide the following benefits:
1. Improved quality of the State submittals received for processing.
2. Fewer SIPs being disapproved for Inadequacies related to Issues that
are simply not addressed.
3. More efficient use of EPA's resources 1n SIP reviews, and 1n the
preparation of Federal Register actions directed to those State
submittals requiring EPA approval or disapproval based upon relevant,
substantive Issues.
4. More efficient use of State resources 1n SIP preparation with the
delineation of criteria by which to prepare adequate submittals*
The following poll or contains the criteria to be used by States In
preparing submittal packages and by EPA to evaluate such submittals
In order to make completeness determinations. It also provides sample
letters for communlcaitlng those determinations to State Agencies. The
Information 1s presented In two parts: submittals, for Sequential Processing
and submittals for Parallel-Processing.
1. SIP REVISIONS SUBMITTED FOR SEQUENTIAL PROCESSING
Determining Completeness
SIP revisions that are submitted for EPA approval via the sequential
rulemaking process Involve revisions that have been through all of the
necessary State procedures, and have been finally adopted (e.g. regula-
tions, regulatory amendments) or finally issued (e.g. operating permits,
consent agreements. State orders). These revisions are formally submitted
to EPA for approval and Incorporation Into the SIP. Under sequential
processing, CM may conduct traditional rulemaking (publishing both
proposed and final action*) or direct final rulemaking (publishing a
final action vltltout a prior proposed action). r Basically, these submittals
mutt Include
B-S
-------
2
• a letter from the appropriate State official requesting that EPA
approve the enclosed revision;
• evidence that the necessary public notice was given and a public
hearing Mas held;
0 a document (regulation, permit, State order) fully adopted/1ssued
and enforceable by the requesting agency for Incorporation by refer-
ence with Its effective date clearly Indicated, and
4 the technical support necessary to demonstrate that approval of the
revision will not violate ambient air quality standards or PSD
Increments, will not Interfere with RFP, and 1s consistent with
requirements for maintenance of ambient standards (note: different/
additional technical support may be appropriate depending upon the
nature of the revision).
Upon receipt of a SIP revision request for approval via sequential processing.
Regional Offices are to use the checklist found at Attachment 1 to determine
completeness. Once these criteria have been established 1n regulatory
form. Regional Offices should follow the relevant regulations.
Regions are to institute procedures whereby each SIP revision request 1s
determined to be complete or incomplete within 45 days of receipt. When
a submittal has been determined to be complete, the Region should send a
letter to the requesting official confirming receipt of a complete submittal
and Informing that official of EPA's general processing schedule. Please
see the sample letter found at Attachment 2.
When a submittal 1ytftleterm1ned Incomplete, a letter should be sent to the
requesting official returning the submittal and detailing Its deficiencies,
both administrative and technical. Please see the sample letter found at
Attachment 3. The letter may also state that 1f the revision 1s resubmitted
1n its current fan, EPA will publish a notice proposing to disapprove
the request.
Care must be taken to Insure that SIP submittals that are determined
Incomplete are, 1n feet, returned oi those grounds. This requires that
the reviewer safes the co^leteness hetervlnation based on the lack of
necessary components of the submittal rather than on whether the contents
of the submittal are approvable.
This determination can be difficult and Judgment will be needed. For
example, a SIP revision-may request that EPA approve a permit/order/
B- 6.
-------
consent agreement Issued to a single source to reduce Its emissions.
Examination of the docunent may reveal that It contains no emission rate.
If the action clearly warrants the Incorporation of an emission rate
(e.g.* modeling support assumed an emission rate), then the submittal 1s
Incomplete.
Alternatively, the submittal may contain an emission rate not expressed
1n accordance with our enforcement policy memoranda for acceptable forms
of emission rates. In this case the Issue 1s not completeness, but
whether the emission rate as submitted 1s approvable. As another example,
take the case where a submittal's emission rate{s) Involves a bubble
and/or long term averaging. The emission rate(s) as expressed may be
acceptable. However, the Emission Trading Policy requires technological
and economic justification beyond the usual technical support necessary
for a single source SIP revision. If the justifications are missing from
the submittal, 1t should be determined Incomplete and returned to the
State on those grounds.
II. SIP REVISIONS SUBMITTED FOR PARALLEL-PROCESSIKS
SIP revisions that are submitted for EPA approval via the parallel rule-
making process Involve revisions that are concurrently undergoing the
necessary State procedures for adoption or final Issuance. These revisions
are submitted to EPA by the State Agency 1n the form of proposed regula-
tlons or proposed permits/orders/consent agreements. EPA Initiates the
federal rulemaking process by preparing a notice of proposed rulemaking
on the submittal. CPA subsequently takes final action on the States'
foneal submittal of the SIP revision once It 1s finally adopted at the
State level.
Determining CompHawass
Making completeness determinations for States' requests to parallel-
process SIP revisions requires evaluations of proposed State actions.
(A second, separate co^leteness determination must later be made on the
formal submittal.)
Basically* a SIP revision request for parallel-processing must Include:
* a letter from the appropriate State official requesting parallel-
processing of the enclosed revision,
* a schedule for completing the adoption/Issuance process at the
State level,
-------
4
• a proposed or draft document (regulation, permit, state order, consent
agreement) that will eventually be adopted/Issued by the State and
formally submitted as a SIP revision, and
* sufficient technical support to evaluate the proposed revision's
impact on air quality and conformance with federal statutes, regulations
and policies.
Regions are to use the checklist found at Attachment 1 for determining 1f
a parallel-processing request 1s adequate to Initiate the federal rulemaking
process. (Again, once the criteria are adopted as regulations, Regional
Offices should look to the relevant regulations.) The Region should
determine whether the draft/proposed revision 1s adequate within 45 days
of receipt of the request to parallel process and advise the State promptly.
When a submittal 1s determined adequate to Initiate the federal approval
process, the Region should so Inform the requesting State official. That
letter should remind the State of the necessity of a complete formal
submittal 1n order for EPA to take final rulemaking action (please set
the sample letter found at Attachment 2).
Similarly, when the conpleteness review Indicates that the submittal In for
parallel-processing is not adequate to Initiate federal rulemaking, a
letter should be sent explaining the deficiencies, and returning the
draft submittal (please see the sample letter found at Attachment 3)
After the State completes the final adoption/Issuance process, the SIP
revision request 1s formally submitted to EPA exactly as required under
sequential rulemaking. The Regions are to use the checklist found at
Attachment 1 (and eventually the regulatory checklist) to determine 1f
the foraal submittal is complete. EPA can only take final rulemaking
actions on formal submittals of adopted regulations and final permits,
orders, consent agreements, etc.
As before, the Regions are to send a letter to the requesting State official
within 45 days of receipt of the formal submittal stating that it is
complete or, alternatively, that the submittal is incomplete, outlining
the deflciendM, and returning the submittal.
B-8.
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
Determination of Completeness Checklist
The following checklist 1s to be used to determine If a formal SIP revision
submittal 1s complete, or 1f a State's request for parallel processing 1s
adequate to Initiate the federal rulemaking process. The entire checklist
should be used to determine whether a formal SIP revision submittal 1s
complete. Including a formal submittal of a revision for which a notice
of proposed rulemaking was published via parallel processing on a proposed/
draft version of the revision. An asterisk * Indicates the portions of
the checklist that are to be used to determine If a State's request for
parallel processing 1s adequate to Initiate federal rulemaking.
The checklist serves as a guide to State/local agencies in preparing
reviewable SIP packages* and for the EPA reviewers 1n determining whether
to Initiate the federal rulemaking process or return the submittal to the
St ate/local agency. Common sense judgment must be used In assessing the
completeness of a package. In doing so the reviewer must keep 1n mind
the objectives of the completeness policy: (l) prompt return of SIP
submittals that art inherently Inadequate for review; (2) objective and
consistent application of objective, understandable screening criteria;
(3) reduction of the overall time and resources expended by both State/
local agencies and EPA In the preparation and review of SIP submittals.
Administrative Materials
1) A formal letter of submittal from the Governor or designee requesting
EPA approval of the revision.
* A formal letter from the Governor or designee requesting that EPA
propose approval of a proposed revision by parallel processing.
2) Evidence that tftfii State has adopted the revision 1n the State code or
body of regulations; or Issued the permit, order, consent agreement
(hereafter document) In final form. That evidence should Include the
date of adoption or final Issuance as well as the effective date of
the revision 1f different from the adoption/Issuance date.
* Schedule for final adoption or Issuance should be Included In a State's
request for parallel processing.
3) Evidence tfcat the State has the hecessar-y legal authority under State
law/to adopt and 1apl«ent the revision.
* Same evidence should accompany a request for parallel processing of a
»roposed State revision.
B-9.
-------
z
4) A copy of the actual regulation, or document submitted for approval
and Incorporation by reference Into the SIP, including indication of
the changes made to the existing approved SIP, where applicable. The
submittal should be a copy of the official state regulat 1 on/document
signed, stamped, dated by the appropriate State official Indicating
that it is fully enforceable by the State. The effective date of the
regulat1 on/document should, whenever possible, be indicated in the
document Itself.
* A copy of the proposed/draft regulation or docunent must be Included
1n a State's request for parallel processing.
5) Evidence that the State followed all of the requlrements of Its Admin-
istrative Procedures Act (or equivalent) 1n conducting and completing
the adoption/Issuance of the revision.
6) Evidence that Public Notice was given of the proposed change consistent
with procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of
such notice.
7) Certification that public hearlng(s) were held 1n accordance with the
Information provided 1n the public notice and the State's Administrative
Procedures Act (or equivalent), 1f applicable.
8) Compilation of public comments and the State's response thereto.
NOTE: Items 5 - 8 are not required for a request to parallel process
a proposed/draft revision.
Technical Support
* Requests for parallel processing should Include all of the Technical
Support required for formal submittals as follows:
1) Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the
revision..
2) Identification of the locations of affected sources Including
the EPA «ttiinmnt/nonatta1nment designation of the locations
and tht status of tht attainment plan for the affected area(s).
3) Quantification of tht changes 1n SIP allowable emissions from
the affected sources. Estimates of changes in current actual
B-10,
-------
3
emissions from affected sources* or, where appropriate* quan-
tification of changes 1n actual emissions from affected sources
through calculations of the differences between certain baseline
levels and allowable emissions anticipated post revision.
4) Demonstration that the NAAQS/PSD 1ncrements/RFP demonstration/
visibility are protected if revision 1s approved and Implemented.
5) Modeling information required to support the proposed revision.
Including Input data, output data, models used, justification of model
selections, ambient monitoring data used, meteorological data used,
justification for use of offsite data {where used), modes of models
used, assumptions, etc.
6) Evidence, where necessary, that emission limitations are based on
continuous emission reduction technology, e.g., add-on controls.
Industrial/process equipment designs, reformulated materials, etc*
7) Evidence that a revision contains emission limitations, work practice
standards and recordkeeplng/reportlng requirements, where necessary*
to ensure mission levels.
8) Compliance/enforcement strategies Including how compliance will be
determined In practice, and at what frequency.
9) As appropriate, special economic and technological justifications
per applicable EPA policies. For example, economic and technologi-
cal justification for alternative RACT, for long-term averaging
of VOC emission limits, or to support bubble proposals.
B-11.
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPLETENESS LETTERS
A. Sample letter for < formal submittal. To be used for a submittal
being processed via sequential rulemaking (traditional or direct
final) and for the formal submittal of a revision for which EPA pub-
lished a notice of proposed rulemaking by parallel processing.
OATE
ADDRESS OF STATE OFFICIAL
Dear Mr./Ms/ Title (NAME OF STATE OFFICIAL):
On (DATE), we received your request to amend the (NAME OF STATE)
State Implementation Plan (SIP). We have determined that the submittal
1s administratively and technically complete, and are reviewing it to
prepare a (NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAkIN6/N0TICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING). He
expect to forward that notice to (THE OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL RE6ISTER BY
APPROXIMATELY [date] FOR PUBLICATION. /EPA HEADQUARTERS BY APPROXIMATELY
[date] FOR REVIEW.)
(NAME OF RE610HAL STAFF PERSON ASSI6NE0 TO SIP REVISION) 1s the prin-
cipal contact for this ruleaaklng. If you have any questions please
contact (HIM/HER) at (TELEPHONE NUMBER).
Sincerely yours,
(NAME), Director
Air Management Division
Note: If to NPft has tw«n prepared via parallel processing, 1t 1s advisable
to provide its Federal Register date and citation or to explain that
preparation of the final rulemaking notice must wait until the NP* 1s
published and the public comment period has closed.
B-l 2.
-------
2
8. Sample letter for a request for parallel processing. To be used
for a submittal adequate to Initiate the federal rulemaking approval
process for • draft/proposed State revision by preparing an HPR.
(DATE)
(ADORESS OF STATE OFFICIAL)
Dear Nr./Ms/ Title (NAME OF STATE OFFICIAL).:
On (DATE), Me received your request that we parallel process approval
of draft/proposed (REVISED/NEW REGULATION, STATE OROER, PERMIT) as a
revision to the (NAME OF STATE) State Implementation Plan (SIP). He have
determined that your request Included the Information necessary for us to
Initiate the federal rulemaking process to take action on the revision*
We are reviewing the submission to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPR) which we expect to forward to (THE OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER
BY APPROXIMATELY [date] for publication. /EPA HEADQUARTERS BY APPROXIMATELY
Cdate] FOR REVIEW.)
Please be advised that If the revision as finally (ADOPTED/ISSUED)
1s substantially different from the draft/proposal you have submitted for
parallel processing (OTHER THAN AS SPECIFIED/REQUESTED IN EPA's NPR*), we
shall have to withdraw the NPR and publish a second NPR. To avoid this
series of events* please Inform us Immediately If 1n the course of your
(ADOPTION/ISSUANCE) process the proposed revision Is changed;
8-13.
-------
3
After the revision 1$ formally (ADOPTED/ISSUED) 1n accordance with
all applicable (NAME OF STATE) procedures, your agency must submit 1t as
a formal SIP revision. That formal submittal must be administratively
and technically complete in order for EPA to complete the federal rule-
making process on the SIP revision.
The principal contact on this revision 1s (NAME OF REGIONAL STAFF
PERSON). If you have any questions, please contact (HIM/HER) at (TELE-
PHONE NUMBER).
Sincerely yours,
(NAME), 01 rector
A1r Management Division
* Note: If a request for parallel processing 1s submitted* and EPA
has comments requiring additions/minor changes to the submittal In
order to approve 1tt those changes can be stated In the NPR. This
1s advisable only when the State has agreed to make those additions/
changes in the fonfel submittal.
8-14.
-------
ATTACHMENT 3
LETTERS FOR INCOMPLETE SUBMITTALS.
A. Sample letter for a formal submittal. To be used for all formally
submitted SIP revision requests Including those for which an NPR has been
published via parallel processing.
(DATE)
(AODRESS OF STATE OFFICIAL)
Dear Mr./Ms/ Title (NAME OF STATE OFFICIAL):
On (DATE), we received revisions to the (NAME OF STATE) State Imple-
mentation Plan (SIP) from your agency. That revision Involves (BRIEF
CHARACTERIZATION/IDENTIFICATION OF THE REVISION).
He have found that the submittal 1s Incomplete and consequently we
cannot process 1t as a revision to your SIP. The Information we need 1n
order to determine the submittal complete and Initiate our rulemaking
process 1s/are:
(STATE WHAT IS NEEBW ACCORDING TO EPA's CHECKLIST)
Because the (DATE) submittal Is Incomplete, we are returning It to your
agency. If you have any questions, please contact (NAME OF REGIONAL
STAFF PERSON) «t (TELEPHONE NUMBER).
Sincerely yours,
(NAME), Director
A1r Management Division
B-15.
-------
2
B. Sample letter for an Incomplete request for parallel processing.
(DATE)
(ADDRESS OF STATE OFFICIAL)
Dear Mr./ Ms./ Title (NAME OF STATE OFFICIAL):
On (DATE), Me received your request that we parallel process approval
of draft/proposed (REVISED/NEW REGULATION, STATE ORDER, PERMIT) as a
revision to the (NAME OF STATE) State Implementation Plan (SIP). We have
found that the request does not contain sufficient Information for us to
determine whether 1t would be appropriate for us to Initiate the federal
rulemaking process. EPA requires the following additional.information 1n
order to determine If we should parallel process your draft/proposed
revision:
(LIST THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE
IF THE STATE'S REQUEST FOR PARALLEL PROCESSING SHOULD BE GRANTED.)
CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
Therefore, we are returning the material submitted by your agency
on (DATE OF INCOMPLETE REQUEST). If you have any questions regarding the
additional Information specified atfcve, please contact (NAME OF REGIONAL
STAFF PERSON) at (TELEPHONE NUMBER)
B-U
-------
3
Because your staff has Indicated that the additional Information
needed can be readily prepared to supplement your (DATE OF REQUEST)
request for parallel processing, we are not returning the Information
received to date. Please submit the additional information specified
above by (DATE). Upon receipt of all of the necessary Information, we
will consider your submittal complete and therefore sufficient to Initiate
the Federal rulemaking process. We will then review the completed submittal
and Inform your agency whether we can grant your request to parallel
process the draft/proposed revision.
Sincerely yours,
(NAME), 01 rector
A1r Management Division
Note:
This letter does not say that 1f the additional information is received,
EPA wlirInitiate the federal rulemaking process. The additional informa-
tion/material received may not be approvable. Parallel processing 1s
used to propose aporoval of a State's proposed revision.
3-17.
-------
zy
\
i
UNITEC STfi ¦>. iNVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENOr
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
OEC 2 3 B87
hehorahom
SUBJECT: Expanded Use of Direct Final SIP Processing
FROM: Gerald A. Emlson, 01 rector
Office of A1r Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: 01 rector. A1r Management Division
Regions I, III, IX
Director, A1r and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division
Regions IV, VI
Director, Air and Radiation 01 vision
Region V
Director, A1r and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, X
As you Knew, recoanendatlons for proving SIP processing aft EPA
have been presented to the Deputy Administrator and were approved 1n
full. Moreover, 1t Is the Intention of Agency management that-the
recoanendatlons be Implemented promptly. An Intra-aoency work group,
led by OAQPS with representation from each Regional Office, 1s taking the
necessary action to put these wide-ranging recoanendatlons Into place. The
work group goal 1s to have ell transition activities completed by early
summer* One recoonendatlon Involves the expanded use of direct final rule-
making procedures. The recommendation concerned not only more frequent use
of direct final where appropriate but also more aggressive application of the
concept. Consentient 1y, 1t 1s Air Programs' polity to achieve increased use
of direct final processing consistent with previously published criteria.
Proposed 1n 1981 and finalized In 1982 (46 FR *4477, September 4, 1981
and 47 FR 27073, June 23, 1982), direct final has been used to great advantage
by several Regional Offices 1n the Intervening years. Under-our current
direct final procedures, SIP actions that are noneontroverslal 1n nature and
where no adverse public comment 1s expected can be processed as direct final
rules* IMs type of processing has been demonstrated to cut the review V
In half* Slmce Its Inception, hundreds of changes have gone direct final
with very few engendering any adverse public comment (which under existing
procedures would require withdrawal of the change, foliated by full review
and comment processing)*
B-18.
-------
2
This history of very little public Intervention suggests that we are not
using at mil as we night an effective tool for speeding review and decision
•eking on SIPs. In addition, 1t appears that the use of the direct final
approach has not been consistent across all Regional Offices. Some have been
reluctant* for various reasons, to take full advantage of the aechanlsm.
Table 1 shows usage by Region for the last three years. Although direct
final was used for 17% of total SIP actions, the variation 1n use by Region
1s substantial—ranging fro* a low of 5% to a high of 311. Significantly,
during these three years, only 2 of 134 packages were withdrawn because of
adverse coaaent. Each Region should evaluate, 1n conjunction with the Reglona
Counsel, Its use of the direct final procedure. Table 2 lists soae examples
of SIPs successfully processed as direct final. Please review the categories
on this 11st, and any other appropriate categories, and Identify additional
opportunities for direct final processing by your Region. By January 29,
1988, please send to John Calcagnl a aeaorandua outlining the Region's effort
to Increase direct final actions.
A wide variety of SIP actions can be candidates for direct final, the
prlaary criteria being that the action be noncontroverslal and that no adverse
public coaaent 1s anticipated. These actions do not have to be Halted
trivial ada1n1strat1ve changes. While we clearly do not want to abuse a d
thing and dlainUh public confidence 1n our review procedures, 1t 1s 1nt
that we aake full use of this valuable tool. Although the risk of aggressi
action 1s a possible increase 1n the nueber o? SIPs drawing coaaent, this
risk should b« aore than offset by the expected laproveaent In tlaely processin
and 1n nuabers processed, without jeopardizing air quality.
Until final approval authority Is delegated to the Regional Administrators
all direct flrttyl actions will have to coae to Headquarters for processing.
Headquarters will continue to track the use of direct final, not only 1n terns
of nuabers by Region, but also the kinds of SIP changes Involved. However,
to keep in the spirit of the SIP refora recoaaendatlons. Headquarters will
not challenge • Regional Office decision to go direct final that is consistent
with existing guidance. Moreover, «gr office and OGC will gladly consult with
you on an/ specific cases you wish. At OAQPS, the focal point for questions
concerning direct final actions Is Johnnie Pearson (FTS 629-5691).
AttechnU
cc: A1r Iraach Chiefs, Reg. X-X
Regional Counsel, Reg. NX
Oon Clay
Craig Potter
Joe Lees
Alan Eckert
John Calcagnl
-------
3
bee: Hork Group Members
Bill Lixton
Jack Farmer
Rich Osslas
Bern Stelgervald
Peter Wyckoff
John Seltz
Hike Alushln
Ton Helms
B-20.
-------
Is
30
IS
10
31
5
24
17
19
16
IS
17
TABLE 1. DIRECT FINAL USAGE
Total Actions
3 Years
79
38
72
134
241
46
58
26
61
48
803
Number or
OF's
24
7
7
42
11
11
10
5
10
7
134
B-21.
-------
TABLE 2
EXAMPLES OF OIRECT FINAL ACTIONS TAKEN BY REGIONS
Amendments to definitions to conform to EPA requirements
Changes 1n monitoring/modeling procedures to reference new EPA guidelines
To incorporate new test Methods by reference
Single source SIP revision that makes a State's requirement more stringent
Public availability of emissions data
Permit fees
Compliance schedules for 111(d) plans
Visibility plans
111(d) plans
Site specific alternate RACT
Stack height regs
VOC consent order
PSD modeling regs
Minor changes to I/M program
New opacity regs
Variances
Operating permit for Pb SIP
CO redes1 gnat1 on
B-22.
-------
yrtO tr4> ^T£> I
/ jO \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY -n-
I 9 P™0® <* Air Quality Planning and Standard. - H
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
*< msf&
JAN 3 0 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Procedures for Letter Notice Approval of Minor SIP
Actions * *
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Di1
Office of Air Qualit^pl^nnrnSgand Standards (MD-10)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, IX
Director, Air and Haste Manageaent Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides « Toxics Division
Regions IV, VI
Director, Air and Radiation Division
Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Region VII, VIII, x
The Agency is currently reforming the entire system for
processing State implementation plans (SIPs) pursuant to
reconunendations of the Deputy Administrator' s Task Group on SIP
Processing. One, such recommendation creates an entirely new form
of SIP processing referred to as "letter notice." This memo-
randum describes the new letter notice procedure and provides
examples of letter notice approvals and a model Federal Register
notice.
Under the letter notice procedure, EPA will use letters to
affected States and parties rather than notice-and-comment
rulemaking to approve truly insignificant SIP actions. The
Agency will net publish notices of proposed rulemaking in the
Federal Rmaieter prior to sending final letter notice approvals
to tho States and affected parties. The letter to the State
will be tho Agency's final action approving such minor SIP
revisions. Tho Agency will periodically publish a summary list
of all letter notice actions in the Federal Rwiatar to keep the
general public informed of SIP matters. The effective date of
letter notice approvals will be the date of the letter to the
State, not the date of the subsequent summary ftdtrfll Reglater
8-23,
-------
2
notice. Letter notice approvals will, however, remain subject to
potential judicial review until 60 days after the date of the
summary Federal Roister notice.1
Regional offices are encouraged to use the letter notice
procedure for all minor SIP approvals that are sufficiently
insignificant such that no member of the general public would
have an interest in consenting on then. Categories of SIPs
appropriate for processing through letter notice differ from
those previously processed under the "direct-final" procedure in
that direct-final has been used for SZPs on which EPA did not
expect to receive any adverse comment but which may have held
some interest for the general public. Letter notice should be
used only for those SZPs on which the public will have no
interest in commenting. The Agency is justifying dispensing with
notice and comment rulemaking by relying on the exemption in the
Administrative Procedure Act for situations where it is
"unnecessary or contrary to the public interest" to provide
opportunity for public comment. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Por a full
analysis of the legal issues associated with the letter notice
procedure, see memorandum, Sara Schneeberg to Jim Wei go Id, "Legal
Analysis of Letter Notice Option for Processing Minor sip
Actions," dated May 25, 1988 (attached)
Categories of SZP actions appropriate for letter notice
processing would include recodification involving no substantive
changes, minor technical amendments, typographical corrections,
address changes and similar non-substantive matters. Regional
Offices are encouraged to consult in advance with the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards if questions arise concerning
the appropriateness of using letter notice processing for any
particular SIP action.
Where insignificant SZP actions are generally applicable,
Regional Offices should send a letter similar to that in
Attachment A froa the Regional Administrator to the State
indicating that EPA is approving the SZP action. Mhere
insignificant SZP actions are source-specific* a letter similar
to that in Afctachaent B should be sent to the affected source in
addition to the approval letter sent to the state.
* Clean Air Act Section"307(b)(1) provides that •C*]ny
petition for review under this subsection shall be filed
within sixty days from the date notice of such promulgation,
approval or action appears in the gfldaral BMlfitT . . . ."
42 U.S.C. 7607(b)!).
B-24.
-------
3
Periodically as the Regional Office determines appropriate,
but generally not less often than once every six months, Regional
Offices should publish in the Federal Register a summary listing
of all letter notice approvals made by the Regional Administrator
since the last summary publication. A model summary Federal
Register notice is included as Attachment C to this memorandum.
I believe that use of the letter notice procedure will
greatly expedite your processing of minor SIP revisions. Should
you or your staff have any questions on these procedures please
contact Johnnie Pearson of my staff at FTS 629-5691 or Sara
Schneeberg of the Office of General Counsel at FTS 382-7606.
Attachments
cc: Regional Counsel, Reg. I-X
Regional Counsel (Air Contact)/ Reg. Z-X
Air Branch Chiefs, Reg. I-X
John Calcagni
Johnnie Pearson
Sara schneeberg
Jin Weigold
0-25.
-------
ATTACHMENT A
MODEL APPROVAL LETTER TO STATE
Governor
State of [Wane of State]
Dear Governor:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received your
request for approval of a revision to the [name of state] State
implementation plan (SIP) for [pollutant] relating to [subject
natter of SIP revision] submitted to us on [date of submission].
I have determined that this minor SIP revision complies with
all applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA
policy and regulations concerning such SIP revisions. [Insert
more detailed rationale for approval as appropriate.] I aa
therefore approving this submission under section 110(a) of the
CAA as a revision to the [name of state] SIP for [pollutant].
This approval is effective as of today's date.
Due to the minor nature of this SIP revision, EPA has
concluded that conducting hotice-and-comment rulemaking prior to
approving this SIP revision would be "unnecessary and contrary to
the public interestand hence not required by the Administra-
tive Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b). I am approving this
revision consistent with the procedures outlined in EPA's Notice
of Procedural Changes on SIP processing published on January 19,
1989 at 54 PR 2214. This is a final action of the Agency subject
to judicial review as appropriate.
[Insert the following if appropriate]
I have infdrmed [name of company] of this action.
Sincerely,
Regional Administrator
B-26.
-------
ATTACHMENT B
MODEL INFORMATION LETTER TO SOURCE
President
[Name of Company]
Dear [Name of Coapany President]:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received a
request from the state of [name of state] for approval of a
revision to the [nana of state] State implementation plan (SIP)
for [pollutant] relating to [subject matter of SIP revision]
involving your company. I have determined that this minor SIP
revision complies with all applicable requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) and EPA policy and regulations concerning such SIP
revisions. [Insert more detailed rationale for approval as
appropriate.] I have therefore approved this submission under
section 110(a) of the CAA as a revision to the [name of state]
SIP for [pollutant] by letter dated today. The approval is
effective as of this date.
Due to the minor nature of this SIP revision, EPA has
concluded that conducting notice-and-comment rulemaking prior to
approving this SIP revision would be "unnecessary and contrary to
the public interestand hence, not required by the Administra-
tive Procedure Act, S U.S.C. 553 (b). I have approved the
revision consistent with the procedures outlined in EPA's Notice
of Procedural Changes on SIP Processing published on January 19,
1989 at 54 FR 2214. This approval is a final Agency action
subject to judicial review as appropriate.
Sincerely,
Regional Administrator
B-27.
-------
attachment c
MODEL SUMMARY FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
ACTIOH: Notice of Approvals
SUMMARY: Pursuant to procedures described at 54 FR 2214
(January 19, 1989), EPA has recently approved a number of minor
State implementation plan (SIP) revisions. This notice lists the
revisions EPA has approved and incorporates the relevant material
into the Code of Federal Regulations.
DATES: The incorporation by reference will be effective
[insert date of publication in Federal Register].
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State SIP revision requests and
EPA's letter notices of approval are available for public
inspection during normal business hours at the following
locations:
Environmental Protection Agency
Region
[Address of Regional OfficeJ
State of [Name of State]
[Address of State Environmental Office]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [name and address
of Regional contact person]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA Region has approved the
following minor SIP revision requests under section 110(a) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA):
J J SUBJECT J ! DATE OP ! DATE OF
STVTg ! POT.TJTTXMT ! MATTER i SOURCE ! SUBKTSSTON ! APPROVAL
[Prepare table with headings similar to those shown.]
EPA has determined that each of these SZP revisions complies
with all applicable requirements of the JAA and EPA policy and
regulations concerning such revisions. Due to the minor nature
of these revisions, EPA concluded that conducting notice-and-
comment rulemaking prior to approving the revisions would have
been "unnecessary and contrary to the public interest," and
0-28.
-------
2
bene# was not required by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5
U.S.C. Section 553(b). Bach of these SIP approvals became final
and effective on the date of EPA approval as listed in the chart
above.
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted all SXP
approvals from the requirements of Section 3 of Executive Order
12291.
Under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I certify that these SZP revisions
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities. See 46 FR 8709.
Under Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, as amended, judicial
reviev of this action is available only by filing a petition for
review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit within 60 days of today. These actions may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce their requirements.
See Section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52: [List relevant
subjects]
Date Regional Administrator
B-29,
-------
40 CFR Part 52, Subpart , is amended as
follows:
Subpart - [Name of State]
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues
to read as follows: AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642.
2. Section is amended as follows:
[insert relevant CFR language]
B-30.
-------
UNITED iIATES environmental protection agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
September 12, 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: I
letter Notice App
Johnnie Pearson,
Regional Act1v1t1
Chief, Air Branch
FROM:
TO:
The January 30, 1989, memorandum from Gerald Emlson to the Regional A1r
Olvlsion Olrectors entitled "Procedures for Letter Notice Approval of Minor
SIP Actions," describes the letter notice procedures and provides examples of
letters and a model Federal Register (FR) notice. The purpose of this
memorandum is (1) to notify you that the time frame to publish a summary
listing of letter notice approvals in the FR has changed to every three
months, and (2) to clarify the incorporation by reference requirements for
letter notice actions.
The above referenced memorandum states that the Regional Offices should
publish a summary listing of all letter notice approvals at least every six
months. However, the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) contacted the
Office of General Counsel (OGC) and expressed concern over the suggested
publication schedule in part due to requirements of the Administrative
Procedures Act (ARA). The APA states that a rule which is not published in
the FR 1s not enforceable against any party that does not have actual and
timely notice of the rule. Under the current procedures, the date that a
letter notice Is Issued to the affected States and parties is the date it is
enforceable against those parties. However, the OFR was concerned that timely
notice to the general public would not occur and that, in their view, six
months was not considered timely. As a compromise, OGC agreed that summary
notices would be published 1n the FR every three months. This change was
announced daring etch of the State Implementation plan (SIP) reform workshops
earlier this year. Letter notices will become effective as to the general
public on tlM^date of the summary publication.
Attachment C of the January 30, 1989 memorandum Is a sample FR notice.
The regulatory text page states "Insert relevant CFR language" after the
authority citation. Please note that the appropriate section of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) should be amended followed by the Incorporation by
Reference section. Whenever the Agency is approving a rule under the Part 52
Identification of Plan section, the rule must ^e Incorporated by reference.
The procedures for incorporation by reference which are in the document
B-31.
-------
2
"Guidelines for the Review of SIP Revisions and 111(d) Plans" are applicable
to letter notice approvals. Also, the address for the Public Information
Reference Unit should be Included under addressees in the general preanile as
a location to view the Material that Is being incorporated by reference. A
separate CFR entry should be Included for each State 1n which the Regional
Office takes a letter notice action.
After the Regional Administrator signs the FR notice, please subalt an
original and 4 copies, a FR typesetting request, 2 exact copies of all
Incorporation by reference eater1als, and 1 copy of the Office of the Federal
Register cover aeao to Vickie Reed, Regulation Manageaent Staff, U.S.
Envlronaental Protection Agency (PM-223), 401 N Street, S.W., Washington, O.C.
20460.
If you have any questions, call Denise Gerth at (FTS) €29-5550 or ne at
(FTS) 629-5691.
cc: Denise Gerth
Racquellne Shelton
Steve H1tte
Sara Schneeberg
SIP Contacts
Vickie Reed
B-32.
-------
No- aB / Thnrsday, November a. 1889 / Rnlaa >04 Regulations 47077
ENVtnOMUENTAL PHOTEt I uW
AQEMCY
40 CFH PART sa
[FRU3M4-SKT<«71
r; Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
Acnote Ftsal rala.
SUMauun: Pursuant to procedure*
described at 54 FR 2214 (January 18,
1988), EPA recently approved a minor
Stat* Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision. Thia ootid identifies the
revision EPA approved and incorporates
tha rel event material Into the Coda of
Federal Regulations. Kentucky amended
401KAR suit to incorporate by
reference Supplement A to the
Guidelines on Air Quality Mode la.
. *n>etM modeling procedures an oaed in
processing prevent! 00 oi significant
deterioration permits.
BATE This action will be effective
November®, 1988.
AOMCSSU: Copies of the material
submitted by tha Stata may bo
examined during normal business hours
at the following locations:
Public Information Reference Unit,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M street SW„ Washington. DC 20480.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region IV. Air Programs Branch. MS
Conrtland Street. NEL. Atlanta.
Georgia 0308S.
Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection Cabinet Division for Air
Quality. 18 ReiDy Road. Frankfort
Office Park. Frankfort. Kentucky
40801.
po« muTMBi MnmunoN contact:
Richard Schutt of the EPA Region IV Air
Programa Branch at the above address,
telephone (404) 347-2884 or FTS 237-
2804.
sumxMorrAjrv mfomatmn: EPA
Region IV has approved tha following
minor SIP revision request under section
110(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA):
8MB
Man
Sam
CMKttwkn
Oewaliewwrt
rir . ^
-
Fwrmyl
M**a.i«se.
MrQueayUaeMa
EPA has determined that this SIP
revision ami piles with all applicable
requirements of the CAA sad EPA
policy sad regulations manralng such
revisions. Doe to the minor nature of this
revision. EPA concluded that conducting
notirs snrt wmmsiil rulemaking prior to
approving the revision would have been
"unaocseiary and contrary totba public
interest" sad hence was sot required by
th« Administrative Procedure Act 8
U.S.C. section 383(b). This SIP approval
became final and effective an tha data
of EP\ approval as listed in tha chart
above.
Tha Office of Management ana Budget
has attempted aD SIP approvals boa tha
requirements of sactioa 1 of Executive
Ordar 12271.
Under 9 US.C. 805(b). I certify thai
thia SIP revision will sot have a
significant 00 a substantial
number of small soOtta*. Saa 4ft FR 0Wi
Under sectian 907(bXl} of tha CAA. as
amended, {udicial review of this action
is available only be fiBag a petition far
review in the United Stalaa Coot of
Appeals lor tha appropriate draft
within 60 dajrt of today. Tlria aettoa aay
not be chalLrngsd latar is pnimsiflnp to
enforce thair requiraaanta. Saa sactfoa
Uet sf Sabfecta fas 48 CPS Part B
Notei bMorporattee by reteeaes of fte SIP
fat the Ciiiuuiuu wealth of Ksntadty was
approved by die Otrector of the Menl
SagMaroBfalytim
Dated August A tML
U» A. OalHim HI.
Acting Regiaaq] A liminntrotor.
Part S2 of chapter L title 40, Cods of
Federal Regulations, Is amended as
follows:
PART UNAMENDED)
Subpart 8 mutually
1. Tha authority dtatioa for part 82
continues to read as fallows
Authority. 42 U&C 7401-7*41.
1Bectten 81820 is aasnded by
adding paragraph (c)(6Z) to ittd as
follows:
W • • •
(62] Revision to Kentucky Regulation
«n KAR 90018. Docuaents
laoorpoiatad by reference submitted on
February Ik 1988. by the Kentacky
Natural Resources sad Eavtronaental
Protection Cabinet Section SflKa) was
a—dad to tneorporsts by rsfeiencs
Supplsuisut A to the Cafatettna on Air
QaaBty Models (Revised), July 198?.
Supplement A becama effective
February 11988. Section 12(4) was
sanded to ivflsct tha currant phone
umber far the Florence Regional Oflke.
The revisions to SlkfllS Warns state
effective Octobar 28.198®.
(i) taoofpormttoa by Reference.
(A) Kentucky Regulation 400 KAR
SObOU, Qocuments incorporated by
reference. Section 12(4) was amended
OB Octobar 211988.
(B> Supplement A to the ColdeUne 00
Air Quality Models EPA-450/3-7B-027R
that became effective February 8, 1908.
(U) Other aatariaL
(A) Latter of February 119801 from
the Kentucky Natural Resources sad
Environmental Protection Cabinet
(FR Dec a»-«017 Plied U-0-4K 8s4S as)
B-33.
-------
4APT/APB-aes
Carl H. Bradley, Secretary
Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection Cabinet
Frankfort Office Park
18 Reilly Road
Frankfort# Kentucky 40601
Dear Mr. Bradley:
The Envirormental Protection Agency (EPA) has received your request for
approval of a revision to the Kentucky State Implementation plan (SIP).
The revision amended 401 KAR 50:015 to incorporate by reference
Supplement A to the "Guideline on Air Quality Models." This revision was
submitted on February 9, 1989.
I have determined that this minor SIP revision complies with all
applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and CPA policy and
regulations concerning SIP revisions. I am therefore approving this
submission under Section 110(a) of the CAA as a revision to the SIP. This
approval is effective as of today's date.
Due to the minor nature of this SIP revision, EPA has concluded that
conducting notice-and-coranent rulemaking prior to approving this SIP
revision would be "unnecessary and contrary to the public interest," and
hence, not required by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
I am approving this revision consistent with the procedures outlines in
EPA1s Notice of Procedural Changes on SIP processing published on
January 19, 1989, at 54 PR 2214. This is a final action of the Agency,
subject to judicial review as appropriate.
Sincerely yours,
Greer C. Tidwell
Regional Administrator
B-34
-------
- V UNITED aTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY f'S
' *^9*7 J Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ^
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 -r\ v _ i
vAJW 27 f9c? -t\. . R _ —
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: "Grandfathering" of Requlrmep\s ior Pending SIP Revisions
FROM: Gerald A. Emlson, D1 rectj^f^dl^*
Office of A1r Quality yranning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: Director, A1r Management Division
Regions 1, III, IX
Director, A1r and Haste Management Division
Region II
Director, A1r, Pesticides and Toxics Division
Region IV, VI
Director, A1r and Radiation Division
Region V
Director, A1r and Toxics Division
Region VII, VIII, X
Recommendations for improving SIP processing generally at EPA Mere
presented to the Deputy Adalnlstrator and approved fully. It is the
Intention of the Agency's management that the recoeroendatlons be Inple-
mented promptly. This 1s being-done by an Intra-Agency Mork Group
composed of Headquarters and Regional Office persons. This memorandtan
provides guidance on applying previously applicable standards to pending
SIP revisions tfhere the relevant requirements have changed since the
state prepared the SIP submittal (I.e., "grandfathering").
In a niaBber-of cases, States have submitted SIP packages that were
consistent with the EPA "requirements" (I.e., standards, regulations,
policies, le^al Interpretations, guidances, and clarifications) in effect
at the time. As • result of processing delays and pollqr evolution, the
applicable requirements were revised before the proposed SIP change
received EPA approval. When the revised requirements did not contain an
appropriate grandfathering provision (e.g., a provision allowing SIP
packages to be acted upon based on the requirements, In effect at the time
of State adoption), SIP reviewers assuaed that the appropriate action was
to disapprove the SIP revision and/or return It to the State for changes.
Not only can this delay rulemaking, but 1t also may be Inequitable
and serve as an Irritant to effective EPA/State/local agenqr cooperation.
Moreover, such action usually results 1n an ineffective use of resources
by the State and EPA. Consequently, we are today extending the concept
B-35.
-------
2
of grandfathering contained 1n existing guidance (e.g., for modeling), as
described 1n the enclosure. It 1s the Intent of EPA Management that
grandfathering be applied where It Is warranted and appropriate. Today's
guidance was developed 1n conjunction with the Regional Offices and the
Office of General Counsel. Ue believe that 1t deals with the equity
Issue, will not have a noticeable envlronnental Impact overall, will
strengthen the Agency's working relationship with Its State and local
partners, and does not conflict with either the Clean A1r Act or the
Administrative Procedures Act.
Attachment
cc: A1r Branch Chiefs, Regions NX
Regional Counsel (A1r Branch Chiefs), Regions I-X
Oon Clay
Alan Eckert
Hike Alush'ln
John Seltz
Robert CahHI
John Calcagnl
Bob Uayland
Dick Wilson
B111 Laxton
Charles Gray
B-3fi
-------
3
bcc: Work Group Members
Jack Farmer
Rich Osslas
Peter Wyckoff
Bern Stelgerwald
B-37.
-------
GUIDANCE ON GRANDFATHERING OF
REQUIREMENTS FOR PENDING SIP REVISIONS
June 1988
Introduction
EPA Is expanding its guidance on how to apply previously
applicable requirements 1n two general situations where the Issue nay
arise: (1) when new or newly revised 'requirements" (I.e., standards,
regulations, policies, legal Interpretations, guidances, or clarifications)
for SIPs are Issued by the Agency and (2) when rulemaking action 1s taken on
a "SIP revision" (I.e., a State-specific EPA rulemaking under
the Clean A1r Act). This guidance will be 1n effect for complete SIP
revisions submitted to EPA and for requirements Issued and/or revised by
EPA after today. In general, all SIP revisions submitted before today
will continue to be reviewed based on EPA's current policy, which Is to
decide each SIP revision based on the requirements 1n existence at the
time of EPA's rulemaking.
Grandfathering Is not to be considered mandatory or automatic.
In determining whether grandfathering should apply, and whit the appropriate
date should be, the decision maker should keep in mind the thrust of this
guidance, i.e., to honor good faith effort on the part of the State/local
agency submitting the revision, balancing equity with other considerations.
This guidance expressly 1s not Intended as a vehicle to allow circumvention
of tighter requirements or to facilitate the avoidance of difficult
decisions.
Legal Background
Whenever a net*'requirement 1s established by Congress (via statute)
or by EPA (via regulation or policy), 1t becomes generally applicable
unless the authority establishing the requirement provides otherwise.
When Congress enacts a new statute, 1t applies to all matters then pending
before an agency unless Congress specifically provides otherwise 1n the
statute. The Agtncy has no authority to grandfather any matter from the
new statutory requirements without explicit provisions 1n the statute.
When EPA Issues new regulations, they are also generally applicable
unless the regulations themselves Include grandfathering provisions. If
grandfathering provisions are not explicit 1n the regulations and absent
a contrary Interpretation by the Agency, courts trill apply the new rules
to matters pending before the Agency. Thorpe v. Housing Authority of
B-38.
-------
2
Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969). However, in agency does have tone
flexibility to provide grandfathering provisions 1n new regulations.
Generally* such provisions art appropriate where they Meet a four-part
test. First, the new rule represents an abrupt departure from well-
established practice. Second, affected parties have relied on the
old rule. Third, the new rule Imposes a large burden on those affected.
Fourth, there 1s no strong statutory Interest 1n applying the new rule
generally. Sierra Club v. EPA. 719 F.2d 436 (D.C. C1r. 1982), cert. den.
468 U.S. 1204 (1984). In the past, EPA has generally Included explicit
grandfathering provisions In new regulations where appropriate. Under
this guidance, EPA will affirmatively consider the need for grandfathering
provisions In all new regulations.
An agency has very broad authority to decide how and when to Issue
new guidance, since as a purely legal natter guidance 1s not absolutely
binding on subsequent proceedings. Pacific 6as and Electric Co. v. FPC,
506 F.2d 33 (D.C. C1r. 1974). Historically, EPA has provided only limited
grandfathering from revised guidance. This document establishes a detailed
framework for grandfatherlng pending SIP revisions from all future EPA
requirements.
The Guidance
The following will be considered 1n deciding whether to apply grand-
fathering to an Individual SIP revision and 1n developing appropriate
grandfathering provisions for each EPA SIP requirement:
A. General Guidance: A SIP revision generally will remain subject to th_
requirements in effect either (a) on the date that the State adopts the
SIP revision (provided a complete, fully adopted revision Is submitted
promptly, generally within 60 days of the adoption), or (b) on the date
that the USEPA proposes the SIP revision under the parallel processing
procedure. However, in specific cases, EPA will apply different dates as
appropriate (e.g^* see memorandum, J. Tlkvart to Regional Modeling
Contacts, January 2, 1985, concerning grandfathering modeling requirements).
A discussion of what constitutes a complete, fully adopted SIP revision Is
found In the memorandum, 6. Emlson to Regional Air Directors, March 18,
1988.
8, There art certain exceptions to the general grandfathering guidance:
1. Grandfathering should not be considered If the State has not acted
1n good fait* 1n preparing and submitting a SIP revision. For example,
an Incomplete revision hurriedly submitted to avoid coverage under a new or
revised EPA requirement should not be grandfathered. Similarly, grand-
fathering should not be considered when a SIP revision 1s submitted
B-39.
-------
3
substantially 1n excess of 60 days after State adoption as specified 1n
paragraph A.
2. Grandfathering of SIP revisions may not be appropriate or possible
when a court ruling has explicitly changed a current federal requirement
or has convinced EPA that a previous requirement 1s no longer supportable.
Under these c1rcumstances, the Office of General Counsel IOGC), In consul*
tat1on with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (OECM)
and the Office of A1r and Radiation (OAR), trill define the limits of
the court's decision and how It nay affect EPA's requirements and SIP
revisions* including previously approved SIP revisions, pending SIP
revisions, and SIP revisions which are to be submitted 1n the future.
OGC will make Its best effort to Issue such an opinion within 60 days
from the date of the court's decision.
Based on this analysis, OAR will Issue a decision on the appropri-
ateness of grandfathering and the continued use of the pre-court ruling
requirement on pending and future SIP revisions. This decision will
generally be Issued within 90 days from the date of the court's decision.
OAR will also Issue a decision on the appropriate action to take, e.g.,
notice of SIP deficiency or "no action" needed at this tlafe, on previously
approved SIP revisions.
3. The Administrator may determine that grandfathering is not
appropriate under a certain new policy. He could conclude that the old
policy was Ill-founded, or simply not wish to grandfather due to the Importance
of the new policy to EPA's programs. Where a new policy Issued by
the Administrator specifically states that grandfathering is not appro-
priate or establishes a particular grandfathering provision that differs
from this guidance,.such provisions would of course supersede this guidance.
4. Grandfathering of a particular SIP revision or requirement 1s
not appropriate if a decision to grandfather 1t would have an Imminent
and substantial adverse environmental Impact or could permanently foreclose
the continued use of the provisions end/or sanctions of Part D of the
Clean A1r Act, e.g.. changes in Section 107 designations or the full
approval of Pert 0 plans, both of which may foreclose the future use of
sanctions to assure tlx correction of any deficiency arising from the
change in EPA requirements.
5. Action on a SIP revision which comports with the revised require-
ments but net the original requirements may be based on the revised
requlrements.
8-40.
-------
4
6. If a SIP revision complies with the original but not the
revised requirements, and such lack of compliance renders the SIP as a
whole substantially Inadequate to assure the attainment and maintenance
of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the revised
requlrements, an Individual analysis of the appropriateness of grand-
fathering under the four-part test established 1n the Sierra Club case
discussed above under Legal Background must be conducted. If the analysis
concludes that grandfathering of the particular SIP revision 1s appropriate,
action may be based on the original requirements. In such an event,
however, additional actions may be necessary depending upon the nature of
the SIP revision being considered.
a. For SIP revisions (e.g., variances and Interim emission
limits) which would have an effective lifetime of 2 years or less from
the date of EPA final rulemaking, no additional action will generally be
taken, because of the length of time it would take for the State and CPA
to change the action to comport with the revised requirements. Any
subsequent requests for the continuation of grandfathering (I.e., beyond
the effective lifetime of the original SIP revision) should be rejected.
b. For SIP revisions which would otherwise have an effective
lifetime of greater than 2 years, other rulemaking actions will be necessary
to assure that the SIP ultimately comports with the revised requirements.
(I) Elements in plans that have been "conditionally*
approved will be (^proved subject to the further condition that the
plan as a whole be corrected as necessary to assure full compliance with
all requirements of the Clean Air Act. For a discussion of EPA's original
policy on conditional approval, see 44 FR 20372 (April 4, 1979), 44 FR
38583 (July 2, 1979) and 44 FR 67182 (November 23, 1979).
(II) Elements in fully approved plans will be approved with
the slwltaneous issuance of • CAA Section 110(a)(2)(H) notice of deficiency.
Under of these eiresistances, the approval of the particular*SIP
revision shorn!d contain a sunset provision that tanainates the effectiveness
of the approval within a predetermined period, generally 2 years. In addi-
tion, the Region should sake an affirmative effort to assure that the
timeframe (generally 2 years) for complete, fully adopted State rulemaking
action involved with either the notice of SIP deficiency or conditional
approval Is strictly adhered to. If a State does not adhere to this
schedule, the Region will initiate appropriate steps to ensure ultimate
compliance, e.g., performance-based grant actions, sanctions, and EM
promulgations*
-------
5
7. Certain classes of changes are only Indirectly related to
attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality standards.
Such changes My Involve PSD/NSR rules, stack height provisions, permit
fees and similar generic requirements which are clearly not Intended to
be permanently grandfathered. Changes of this type are to be handled as
described 1n paragraph 6 above.
C. All new requirements Issued by OAR or OGC trill address their Impact
on SIP revisions previously approved or pending, and SIP revisions to be
submitted 1n the future. New requirements will contain provisions incor-
poratlng the general grandfathering guidance (paragraph A above) whenever
appropriate and possible. Generally, changes in EPA's requirements will
have effective dates which are 60 days from the date of signature to allow
States to adjust their pending rulemaking actions before they are finally
adopted and submitted. Longer effective dates should be used when the
changed requirements affect fundamental, long-term air quality strategy
development tools and the requirements of the change are resource inten-
sive.
0. SIP revisions framed to meet major requirements currently being recon-
sidered by EPA or currently under litigation should proceed and will not
be held back from rulemaking until the issues are decided. ' SIP revisions
approved under these circumstances will be addressed. If necessary, as
described In paragraph B(6)(b) aboye for revised EPA SIP requirements and
by paragraph B(2) for requirements;being changed because of court decisions.
E. Staff personnel making grandfathering decisions should coordinate with
Offices of Regional Counsel or OGC on application of this guidance as appro-
priate, especially 1n connection with the analysis required under paragraph
B{6) above.
F. Each Federal Kealster notice for action on a SIP revision will state
the rationale for which requirements were applied.
B-42.
-------
APPENDIX C
- Direct Final Rulemaking 01scuss1on
C-1.
-------
APPENDIX C
DIRECT FINAL RULEMAKING
Previously established procedures required that all SIP revisions be
proposed for public comment before going to final rulemaking. The comment
period could be 30 or 60 days depending on the anticipated public interest in
the revision. Because of the straightforward nature of some actions, or their
limited scope, many SIP revisions get few, 1f any, comments from the public
during the comment period. Therefore, any SIP package which is judged to be
noncontroverslal and straightforward, where no adverse public comment is
anticipated, 1s narrow 1n scope and does not represent programs that are
entirely new in the State, can be processed as "Direct Final" (See 47 FR
27073). Processing a SIP revision as a direct final can significantly reduce
rulemaking time. To justify a decision to process as a direct final, language
in the action memorandum of a direct final might read as follows:
We expect no adverse public or congressional reaction resulting from approval
of this SIP revision. The fState) is aware that EPA plans to approve this
revision and process it under the "Direct Final" procedures.- The (State)
concurs with this decision.
In the direct-final action, 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 action will become
final in 60 days. If critical comments are received, the final rulemaking
notice will be withdrawn and a proposed rulemaking notice will be published.
The proposed rulemaking notice will establish a comment period. The
boilerplate below should be used 1n all Direct Final Notices:
DATES: This action will be effective (60 days from the date of
publication) unless,notice Is received within 30 days of publication that
adverse or critical comments will be submitted. If the effective date 1s
delayed timely notice will be published in the FR.
Just prior to FINAL ACTION, Insert the following language:
The EPA Its publishing this action without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroverslal amendment and anticipates no adverse
comments. Tlvjs action will be effective (60 days from the date of
publication) unless, within 30 days of Its publication, notice Is received
that adverse or critical comments will be submitted.
If such notice 1s received, this action will be withdrawn before the
effective date by publishing two subsequent notices. One notice will withdraw
the final action and another will begin a new rulemaking by announcing a
proposal of the action and establishing a comment period. If no such comments
are received, the public 1s advised that this action will be effective (60
days froa the date of publication^.
-------
APPENDIX D
- Parallel Processing Rulemaking Discussion
D-l.
-------
APPENDIX 0
PARALLEL PROCESSING RULEMAKING
Under the parallel processing procedure, the RO works closely with the
State as 1t develops a major regulation and proceeds through the State
rulemaking process (See 47 FR 27073). Ideally, the State and EPA propose the
regulation at the same time, announce concurrent comment periods, and jointly
review the comments. The RO will consult with all other appropriate EPA
offices as the regulation 1s being developed and also during the State and
Federal rulemaking process to ensure that all issues are identified before the
State adopts the regulation.
If the State or EPA receive no comments that would necessitate
significant changes to the regulation, It 1s adopted by the State and
submitted to EPA. The State-adopted regulation is then processed by EPA as a
final rulemaking. If significant changes must be made to the proposed
regulation due to comments made during the public comment period, a change in
EPA's policy position, or revision made by the State, EPA will have to
repropose the regulation.
Parallel processing may proceed under a variety of circumstances. The
EPA proposal may condition Federal approval/disapproval of the State action.
For example, EPA may recommend approval of a parallel State action pending
State submittal of a particular document.
If 1t 1s not possible for EPA and the State to propose the regulation
simultaneously, 1t may still be possible to process the regulation at about
the same time to expedite promulgation. For exatqrie, the Federal proposal
might explain that the State proposal Is expected soon, and if It meets
certain tine and/or other conditions, the parallel processing will be carried
forward. Boilerplate language for parallel processed proposal actions
follows:
EFFECTIVE QATE: Comments must be received on or before (30 days from
date of publication). Public consents on this document are requested and will
be considered before taking final action on these SIP revisions.
Just prior to PROPOSED ACTION, use the following language:
The EPA Is soliciting publit comments on this notice and on issues
relevant to EPA's proposed action. Comments will be considered before taking
final action. Interested parties may participate 1n the Federal rulemaking
procedure by subalttlng written comments to the address above.
The revisions are being proposed under a procedure called "parallel
processing" (*7 FR 27073). If the proposed revisions are substantially
changed 1n areas other than those Identified 1n this notice, EPA will evaluate
those changes and may publish a revised NPR. If no substantial changes are
made other than those areas cited 1n this notice, EPA will publish a Final
Rulemaking Notice on the revision. The final rulemaking action by EPA will
occur only after the SIP revisions have been adopted by (Statel and
D-2.
-------
submitted to EPA for Incorporation Into the SIP, Parallel processing will
reduce the tlae necessary for final approval of these SIP revisions by 3 to 4
months.
-------
APPENDIX E
FR Examples:
• Abbreviated Format - 49 FR 43546, October 30, 1984
• Extension of Comment Period - 55 FR 21207, May 23, 1990
. Withdrawal Notice - 55 FR 18131, Hay 1, 1990
. Correction Notice - 55 FR 18725, Hay 4, 1990
E-l.
-------
43546 Federal Register / Vol 49. No. 211 / Tuesday. October 30. 1984 / Rule* and Regulation!
upon by the
these
Notwilhslondii
is. the application w ,
!y the mortgegee.
B2St«L its (12U.S.C1
Department of Hotuin
iopment Act 42 U&C I|)
ited: October 19.1984.
Mauncs L Bartfrisle.
Auittant Secretary far J i/nj, FHA
Cammiuioner.
mil
or Home
. Loans
Correction
In FR Doc IMni beginning on ]
42570 in the is^er Tuesday. Octob
23.1984. maMRe following t
In the seeo^^ine of the I
bate, th^Bte should read "N|
23. IS
_ OMENTAL PROTECTION
ACm~«CY
40 CfR Part S2
iA-i-ret.-7704-ai
Approval and Promulgation of
implementation Plans; tiaaaochuMtta
ioner Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
>cno*c Final rule.
luwiMr EPA Is approving a State
implementation Plan revision submitted
oy the Commonwealth of
'vfassachuseits. This revision eetibBshes
i lead attainment and i
or Mssssdrosetts as required an
lection 110 of tha Clean Air Ad
¦menvt mtk November tk 1
lOOMHtt: Copies of tha submittal an
ivaflable lor public Inspection at Room
313. JFK Federal Building, Boat on. MA
12203: Public Information Reference
Jnit EPA Library. 401M Street. SW.
¦Vashlngton. 0.C 10480: Office of tha
'oderal Register, 1100 L Street. NW.
loom 8401. Washington. D.C. 20408: and
IsJon of Air Quality Control
ml of Environmental Quality
_ jig, One Winter Street. Boa ton,
•fA.M.ioa.
ran FwrrH** information contact.
Cynthia L Greene. (617] 223-6133.
summuMrAJiY nvomiATioNe On Kuy
31.1984 (49 FR 22670) EPA published a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR)
for the draft Massachusetts State
Implementation Plan for attainment and
maintenance of tha National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead.
In the NPR we requested an
Interpretation of Massachusetts new
source review permitting authority. Tha
final SIP revision for the attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQs for lead was
submitted oa July 13. and August 17.
1984. The August 17.1984 letter, the July
13.1984 cover letter and the State's
Decision Memorandum submitted with
the final SIP revision state that under
310 CMR 7.02(2) (a), (b) and (13). any
new major sources of lead, with the
potential to emit Bve tons or more per
year, win be required to meet New
Source Performance Standards and
implement Best Available Control
Technology. The revisions and the
rationale for EPA's proposed approval
were explained In the NPR. It will not be
restated here since (his final SIP
revision does not differ from the draft
submitted on March 23.1984. No public
comments were received on the NPR.
Final action: EPA Is approving
Massachusetts SIP revision for tha
attainment and maintenance of tha
NAAQS for lead.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this role from the
equipments of section 3 of Executive
Mar 1891.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act.
petitions for Judicial review of this
sdtion must be filed In the United Slates
Court of Appeala Ear the appropriate
circuit by December 31.1084. TTiis action
may not be challenged later tn
proceedings to enforce Its requirements.
(See 307(b)(2).)
list ef Subjects In 48 CFK Part 82
Air pollution control Oxone. Sulfur
oxides. Nitrogen dioxide. Leed.
Particulate matter. Carbon monoxide.
Ilydroearbona. Intergovernmental
ndetlona. aad Incorporation by
(See. 1 «•( end 301(e) of the does Air AcL
I (48 U AC 7410(o| and 7001(a)))
Wale. InciapetaHno by eefanees of the
State heptoijeioWne PUo far dw
I of Massedwietta wea
i Dtivctor of ilw fadiol
reaMyttm.
Dated: October n. ISM.
WUUmi D. Rucfc*lsh*Wb
Administrator.
PART 52—(AMENDED ]
Part 52 of Chapter L Title 40 of the
Cade of Federal Regulation is amended
as follows:
Subpart W—Massachusetts
Section 32.1120 is amended by adding
paragraph (c}(68) as follows:
I (2.1120 Montmcaflon of plan
(c) • • *
(88) Attainment and maintenance
plana for lead, submitted on July 13 and
August 17,1984 by the Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering.
7* 0«.l
40 CPR Part 81
,-2704-7)
'XXM lllQiVyiIIUUIWi
[Environmental I
'(EPA).
: Final tola.
summary: TIm purpoee oC^i Notice is
to redesignate Bangor ^fluwiaton.
Maine fron non-sttaln^fft to
attainment (or carb^noooxida. Ob
May X1984. the SM of Maine
eubmitted requMrfor these
redesignatlojfHiis action is being
taken andg^RUoa Vff of the Clean Air
AcL
Tdatc This action will be
effo^K December 31.19811
its received within 30 <
i or critical i
lilted.
to Hariey P. Laing,
Menagement
Federal
02203. Copies
available ~
normal busi
mailed
'Air
12313. JFK
Massachusetts
i's requests era
i Inspection during
i at the
RaglenJ
[ Protectioo Agency.
12313. [FK Building.
'ACT!
(817);
Thomas WhoQey. I
sups nmwrawT Oa May
3.1984. Mains subsnd requesU to
redesignate Bivind Lswislon from
non*atialnme^o attainment for carbon
E-2.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 100 / Wednesday. May 23, 1990 / Proposed Rules 21207
This pi
with respei
Department
provisions
greby certify
1 have no
imp Kt on a subs
enti
L Fl^£jects in 33 OK Put 334
£aviga%p (water), Tra^portatian.
ln%nsidei^ ion of the abo^tbe
CorpsW Engin in proposes l
part 33Mf title mpf the Code <
Regulati As to follows:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AOENCY
40CFR P«rtS2
Approval and Promulgation of
implementation Plans; Wisconsin State
Implementation Plan: Extension a*
UOHHwtni wno
: United States Environmental
Protection Agency fUSEPA).
action: Notice of extension of the
public comment period.
K USEPA is giving notice that
the public comment period for a notice
of proposed rulemaking published
March 8.1990. (55 FR 8489) has been
extended 30 days. The March 8.1990,
notice proposed to disapprove revisions
to the Wisconsin Stste Implementation
Plan, regarding compliance methodology
miss developed by Wisconsin for non-
fugitive particulate emissions, sulfur
dioxide, volatile organic compounds.
-irk-" monoxide, lead, total reduced
sulfur, and non-criteria pollutants. It
also proposed to disapprove revisions to
Wtoeaoaia's opacity rules. USEPA is
•"-""l the comment period based on
an extension request by the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources.
MCTU: Comments an now due on or
batee fune 7.199a
Pierhead
vassals under sail.
KTtON contact:
Uyiaine B. McHahan. Air and Radiation
Branch (5AR~2fl). US. Environmental
Protection Agency. Region V, 230 South
Dearborn Stmt Chicago, Qliaoia 60804.
(112)888-0031.
DstsA May UL1980
VsMss V.i
(PR Dee. n-USM Piled S-S-aOe MS am)
E-3,
-------
Federal Regiater / Vol. 55. No. 84 / Tuesday. May 1. 1990 / Proposed Rulea
rRIQHT itQY^TY TTO8UHAL
37XFR Pats 3011
ROYALTY
OP PROCEDURE
lion for put 301
lows:
Detl
itionof I
AaBNCKl
AcnoteN^i
rfght Royalty
of proposed ml<
laril
summary: The^
amend certain of
them to the action1
when it suspended I
compulsory license I
31.1999.
1 is proposing to
»to conform1
iby theTrit
i December
ires: Aa original and flv Apples of aO
its shall be Bled by fus^. 1.1880.
USU: Comments should 1
18121
§301.1
The Copyright
tribunal) is an i
i Legislative]
iM-533off
TrigbaTs statutory i
(aj^aake det
[ copyright roy
i of 9jWe television i
U-SXllll.
(b)v» BakVetenninattena^
| tos j
Tribunal, mi 20th Street.]
Washington. DC 20036.
KTMH CONTACTS1
Robert (Sfcs&LCenerel Counsel
Copyright IwaHy Tribunal. 112120th
Street. NW. ttgrtfO. Washington. DC
20038(202)1
sumnmiTAmr S^gStMaTioic Toe
Bene Convention muainentatlim Ae».
oT 1888 provided a pmnln by which
the iukebox compulsaryqj|aue could be
suspended if die owners anMSers of
\usic on Jukeboxes wen to their
i voluntary license t
kMarch28.1980.the'
puburad in the Federal Register 1
Qndingmat ani _
three penning rights sodeOtt.
ASCAP. BK^and SESAGand the trade1
association MHesenting Jukebox j
operators, AMQ^had been resrial
and that oonseqi%dy. die Jukebox
compulsory lice
lie tens of the 1
December 31. rffe SB FK 11428.
idie wcttffli ***"" I
on MQukA 1990. certain i
rates i
IlllVf ¦Ullttfl j
the Tribunal i
itributtan i
thbn rules only afterl
disttttNdan has been i
the i
(e) To i
onesnli_
k coin-open ted j
*es)-
-ofvohm
i Jukebox
t royalty rail
touting of
C115).
tons
t i%a)ty rates foi
" players
asORdent
and!
itlan of an adfutanettlto the
i carrier royelty\ete«nd/or to
1 review the arttJtraB® of aa
LtothesateOlt
l(17U&&119>
ROYALTY RAtfcS FOR COM
I It* authority <
List i
ilnS7CFRI
procedure. Pr
Sunshine Act1
Rates.
I"
For the reesons set I
reembte. the Tribunal j
lend 37 CFR parts 801 and!
lows:
¦tod |
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
(40 CFR Part &2)
(FRL-S740-41
Approve! aid Proiwulgstlow sf
Implementation Ptena; OMo State
tort
t owner* of mimical
Jukeboxes are\ot in ^ct (17
116A).
blish and later take
concerning royalty re
fd&he use by noncomperdel
adealt (taboos i
I woks {17 UJ
: Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA).
acnote Notice of propoeed rulemaking:
withdrawaL
certain
118).
(e) To dtetrftutAable televtetau.
jukebox, and sa\aU»L carrier royaltiee
v under 17 U.&C l\l. and 110.
ith the Register
r: In a Jannaiy 3.1888. (54 FS
41) aottoe of proposed rulemaktnfr
USEPA propoeed to approve a eite-
revision to the Ohio State
Implementation Flan (SIP) for volatile
organic compounds (VOQ. This SZP
revision would have ghrea Ford Motor
Caopeny en alternative amission
control plan {bubble) with monthly
averaging, for its two air deaner iprsy
KmMm ml g dip ^ in Erie Caul*.'
Sandusky, OUa
Todey. USEPA te withdrawing its
proposed rulemaking. because the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency
withdrew its underlying SIP revision
request for Ford Motor Company on
March 27.1880. Una. USEPA's proposal
is i
|ttonforpart300ia
I to read ee
1(b)(1) and
, a new paragnA (e)is
ibeeddedaal
l BATS May 1.1900.
: Copies of fee Sff revision
.on the notice
of propoeed rulemaking, and other
materials relating to this rulemaking are
available tor inspection at the following
address: (It is recommended that you
tslsphons UylalneE. McMahan at (312)
888-8031. before visiting the Region V
Office.) UA Environmental Protection
Agency. Region V. Air and Radiation
Drench. 230 South Dearborn Street.
Uyietae K. McMahen. Air and Radiation
Branch (SAR-28V US. Bovtoeonentel
Piutectloo Agency. Region V. 230 South
Deal born Straet Oiire|o. Illinois 80004.
(312)888-8091.
-------
18132
Federal Register / Vol S5. No. 84 / Tuesday. May 1. 1A90 / Proposed Rule*
List of Subjects ia 40 CFR Put 32
Environmental protection. Air
pollution control. Ozone. Hydrocarbon*.
Intergovernmental relationships.
Dated: April it. 1980L
Robert Sprtogtc.
Acting Regional Adminittxotoe,
|FR Doe. 8CM00S8 FUcd WMOt MS aa)
[J
LW9RI nnagvmvra
System; Irtfrjfflcttion and Uaflnfl ot
^roposad DanW
atal Protection
Agency.
actio* Proposed n^pnd request for
OOBBMSt.
evalnatfo
r Tin riiuluiiiiilM^al rmlmtlnn
Agency (&A or Agency) tAnria
proposing to deny a petition* abhmlttgd
by Acme FID Corporation (AcqfcFOI) of
Martinez. California, for a
exclusion af certain solid wasted
generated at its facility from tfaa I
haxardout wastes contained in 401
28131 and 26U2. TU» action i
to a petition mxtw
40 CFR 380M, which allow* any person
to petition the Administrator to atodfy
or revoke any provision of parts 280
through 288,124.270, and 271 of tttia 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations, and
r 40 CFR 280J2. whlcn cpedfically
ides generators the opportunity \
, the Administrator to i
i a "seneratowpedflcT 1
from\fit hazardous wssta lists. To
i, decision it Hfwl on—
[ wasto-tpedflc I
provided byt{ha petitioner.
Tha Agenesia also proposing thaw
of a fa ta awftrsnsport modal jnd lt»
application in evaluating i
specific information [
petlttoner. Thla modal 1
evaluating the petition I
concentration of]
tafansed from the petit
II fa i"
OATtt: EPA it i
onmmentt on i
and on the applicability at tffrfata and
I to evaloa&.tfao
petition. Comments will be aceattttd
until )une l&jltoOL Comments A
' the doee of the
Iwfllbei
Any I . .
this propped dodtta and/or tha i
i petition evalaation by filing
a request with Joacptfa Cam. wfaoaa
•ddnA appears below, by May 18,1990.
The request must contain the
i formation prescribed in 40 CFR
tdj.
: Sena inree copies of your
its to EPA. Two copies should be
sent tShe Docket Clerk. Office of Solid
Waste mS-305), US. Environmental
Pntectl AAgency. 401 M Street SW„
WatMngtO&pc 204801 A third copy
should be tl&to Jim Kent Variances/
Section. AasiJ^aooe Branch. PSPD/C
(OS-343). U.S. nvimnmental Protection
Agency. 401M Saget SW, Weahiagton.
DC 20460L Identtframr oommeou at tha
top with this reguialny docket
"F-flO-AFDF ~
Requests for'a hearinjggholilp i
addressed to-Joaeph C~
Pennits and State r
OfBee of Solid WaateloSSia
Environmental ftotectjnl Agogy> 401M
Street SW. Washington. DC:
Tha RCRA regulatory docket Itothit
pippoted rale ia loated at tha Ui
Environmental Pngtectian-Agency. )Jh, M
street SW (rood*M2427): Ws
DC 20400. and ia available for vta
boa 9 aA' tM pjn. Monday through
Friday, etrhwtog Federal holidays. CaQy
(202) 47S-B&27 for appointments, lite
public may copymaterial from any
regulator doourt at a coat of S0.18 oai
i MremuTMN eONTMR
I information, contact tha
k hotline, toll free at (800)<
t (202)382-3000. For technical
itiOQ lywffffiitnj rtrfgpflttCT,
I Linda Cessar. Offifce of f "
Vfut&tQSSi3\, UA Environmeqfkl
l Agency, 401M Street I
Washin&fe. DC 2048ft (202) -
A * »*-
A nBXDQmj
bm!
ta40CFR 28L31
Aay typically
rpart of Its final
l Of RCRA.
lUstof
thas^
i It published
Cof parti
frequent!
characteristics i
itaa Idantlfled in i
(tau ignttabillty.
r(EP) toxicity) or mast tfao^
i tlstfn( oontair"' tn40(
2BUlW(S)or(aKS). .
1 waste streams may vvr
r. depending p6 raw matertala,
, white a watta that ta described In
regulations generally it hazardous.
watte from an Individual
ing the listing description
l For this reason. 40 CFR'
I an^ttGL22 provide an exdusion
iui«. Rowing persons to
iemonstrate ^|t a specific waite from a
'particular geneMting facility spould not
be regulated as a ^zardou*^
To have their woutt exd
petitioners must showthat Wastes
generated at their fac9(fi?yao not meet
any of the criteria for whtth the wastes
were listed. See 40 CFR aik22(a) and
the background dodmMnta«af the listed
wastes, in addition, the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments (H3WA)
1984 require tha Agucy to consider any
factors (I nclbding Additional V
constltaents) otnv than thoae tor
the watts was luted, if there it • i'iK
reasonable btu to believe that such
edditiensl faaors could cause the Wast#
to befaxaqwn* A£cordisgiy.
petitioner alao most demonstrate that
the watydoee not exhibitascyof the
j waste characteristics (/a.
ity. reactivity. uBiusivlty. and
Ity). snd most present sufficient
tion tat tfaa Agency to dotennine.
tiba waste-tan tains any other
at hasardoos levels. See 40
a)»42 UAC esn(f). and die
docomenta for tas listed
Althoo^i wattes which are
(It. excluded) have been
to determine whether or not.
any of tha characteristic? of
itsta, generators remain'
obligated u5i iart h*3gAoaa wastes.
Soch wattes ira also
|^fll|»lwi ««<< I—"In
until exdaded. Sea 40
' (dN^na substantive
"deUsting" a treatment
abctsre are the sanie aa i
iescribad for Uttad wastes.
9L ApprooeA thtd to Bnhata Thl
AtftiOn
TUa'patfttm reqoestt a detisting fd
Ktlsil haatardoos watta. U makint
today* t proposed delisting
detaminatioa. the Agency fint
evaluated the petitioned waste against
i listing oittria and factors dtad in 40
2BUKaX3) and (a)(3). EPA also
] the waste with respect to
¦ factors or criteria to assets
whathar than is a reasonable basis to
-------
h VbL 5&. No. 89 fi Fiidkji. May t. OV / Stiles amfl Bkrgulisttinxs
18725
Bulordiva
•fhctad bn
penooally conU
officer and offovd
-vguUlioa. Siaea th«
1. Tb ntSorihr dtatfan fir part U
HM 10 UN W RMJOWK
E-6.
-------
18728
Federal Register / VoL 53. No. 87 / Friday. May 4. 1990 / Rulea and Regulation*
Antfaocitp 43 UAC 7401-7M2.
15X2230 (Amended]
2. In | 772ft paragraph (cK®i)pii) is
redesignated u (c)(91I(lii
f SZ2Z23 (Amndari]
3. In f 512222 paragraph {CJ to
redesignated aa (c).
[FR Dot 00-10333 Filed J-3-flOt BM am)
listtf shown in i
stulu to be toxic, carcinogenic,^
muUwiic or teratogenic. Tba!
out in^b rula drawn for the i
from •ecQ&na 1004(5) and 3001(a) of1
¦at
Rl
eonstituenl
constituent*'1
potential of
mobility and.
from a waste.'
i the oatare of the toxi
1 concentration of toxi
ttha waste, the
itituents and their
^stance after migrating
-factor* are the
migratoryNB^affect
i Waete MiMfimint
SystoffcltontfflcaOon and Listing of
twraate
AOmer. EaTOnmentai protecttotf
Agency.
Acnoic Tedufll amendment
n On Ma
Its final and tail
pigmenting
'Conserve
ICRA),EPA
oft
proa
i far listing wasl
¦The- .
[ the language of 1
ito reflect the /
: Interpretation.
:May4.'lfl9ft
198ft fcs pan of
" regulations
of the
Recovery
tedaaeiiaL
plausible ways thwaste coald be
mismanaged, the qnotity of waata
generated, damage tikadenta canaed by
past management of uBseasta. and
action by other regulata^agend**
regarding the waste or i
constituents.
in practice, the Agency 1
evaluated the waste factors (SRthcM
factors that are relevant) hri
listing actions at leave, and the^pada
Judgments as to whether wastes -.
j an Appendix VIII eonsfiaent
t capable of causing substantial hi» If
. (See listing F
its of: May IB. 198ft 45 FR
; Novasnber 12,199ft 45 FRN
; November 23,1980145 PR
; January IS. 196L 46 FR
I
481
2748ft
January 1
.May 29.1981.48FR 27475-
|M| MAffi
I Hotline at (5
.For
, contact Mr.
i of SolbUorraA^
ronwKTMJtl
TheRCRA/S
424-9348 or at (2
loffMMtj
William A. Cofliasd
Wastes (OS-332), U-Sfenrtroninenta]
Protection Agency. 401MStreet SW.
Washington. DC 2048ft (Be) !
rAirr MHuiit Oa 1
lftVeft EPA promulgated flul cad
inta^final rsgulattana fanpn
; of tha Reeooce
ton and Recover
(RCRA). 9m 3001(a). ante
provisions, Imiras the Agan^jr tofl
promulgate amrlalor listing wa
haxardooa. ThasMBcy's i
Implement this seqen of the Actto
codified at 40 CFR.
ipLSKOntba
awU for littia* toads
p^wsn statas that tha A&car wiD ttrt
a was&atoxic if the
any tonebQstitaent Ustsd in'
vmofpaF
a aeries of sFtoqiatail factora.
Administratar^raimiaes that the
Is not capable dfegshg a snhatsntlsl
basard to hsaaan bMb and the
environment even
improperly. AppeadixvD canftns •
October 23,1
December 31^
hazardous if they one or mora
appendix VB constttwrna and after
considering flkenumerainl (actors, tlu
Administratoraatermines that the watu
is capable of poms substantial harm if
managed improp&y. This change in
language ia nottatjued to anoNviQ not
existisg Agenoyijiting practice*
ed upon the AgenMi consistent..
rotation of the mg)gegulatory V
Thus. Q>A huand will \
ue to provide mor~ ^—
consideration o^thajartors. as
to consider i
ta.
un thia action la a 1
pflqp of an existing i
UuttnoQce and <
not apply to aa^are
today's ngta. j
was achieved by 1
fcerpmtatfanofUM
ti^A beSeyes that
fac^pda^i'diasgcs
of the
Act because
(or at
mnecesai
regulatory
1980 rule
providing EPA
rule. In any
good causa
radar itt'fJnn
Administrative
, this Is a technical
t an Interpretive
ft 1984,49 FR 19922-19923:
50 FR 1978-2008C
50 FR 42936-42943;
50 FR 53315-63320;
February 13, ltts, 51 FR 5327-4331.
February 28, 19sksi FR 6637-654% May
28,1986, SI FRlAp-19322; September
111988,83 FR 3M%35421; October ft
84 FR«40a-O«8; andCecembet
1989.54 FR 50MB 1^g79 (explaining
In 40 CFR
28L32. and 2813$|aeed upon the
fa Hating In I 281j^sK3)0. Aa
ihowms. tfaa rule <
' ba read to imply tyt wastes
, t If they contain r
appendix
In any (
.
von i
Aa stated above, the Agency baa
r app&ad Aa rule ta thia way,
iiiwifV iuiihiwiu n nuv w
i oooaidarattaD of the appropriate
\ ta duamdslnt whether to us*
: By appropriate lectors, the
t that each factor
¦tad la 128LAUX3) anatbe
I In a pnrttcuic^cese. The
_ ttha
wonfingof tharalaahould
to reflect the proper stsndaid
established by the rak. Aoeotdingly. the
Agency to amancBng f 2BL11(»K3) to
state tut waataa will be listed aa
tofSebJeeSslaaCFRtartZBl
iwasta.Renrr,t1m
: April Ataaa
Actio?}
Soiid\
PARTtti
USTINOI
1. Tha i
continaestoi
r.Ofpaof
2. In 128LS1. ]
introductory taxkia H
follows; \
ITTF1CATI0N AND
I WASTE
/ dtatten for part 281
, as follows:
.0Bl2(a^aBB.ai
i(aM3)
[ to read aa
¦ tain any of the I
id in Append^ Vm and.
\ tha fo0awins%ctoca.
mcfadaannthe
[ of poafetf a substantial
1 hazard to hsman
E-7.
-------
APPENDIX F
- Standardized Sections - Example Language
F-1.
-------
APPENDIX F
Standardized Sections - Sample lanauano
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
ACTION: Proposed Rulemaking
EFFECTIVE DATE: Comments must be received on or before (30 days from the date
of publication).
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to (name! . (EPA RQ address) . Copies of
the documents relevant to this proposed action are available for public
Inspection during normal business hours at (EPA RO address). (State
address:), Hoca! aoencv address).
Direct Final Rulemaking
ACTION: Final Rulemaking
DATES: This action will be effective on (60 days from date of publication
unless notice 1s received within 30 days of publication that someone wishes to-
submit adverse or critical comments. Such notice may be submitted to (name)
at the EPA Regional Office address listed b«low. If the effective date 1s
delayed, timely notice will be published in the FR.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State submittal for this action are available for
public Inspection during normal business hours at (EPA RO address); (State
address): flocal aoencv address): and the Public Information Reference Unit,*
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Regular Final Action
ACTION: Final Rulemaking
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become effective on (30 days from the date of
publication).
AOORESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for
public inspection during nonul business wrt at fPPA RQ address): liLalfi.
address): (local ayewcv address): and the Public Information Reference Unit,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M. Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
* The PIKU It-listed only where a final rule is being approved deed material
1s being Incorporated by reference.
F-2.
-------
APPENDIX 6
- SIP Packages Taking "No Action" on State Submittals, 12/14/84 Memorandum
from Gerald Ealson and William Pederson to Regional Air Division Directors
6-1.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20480
DEC 14 934
O'
memorandum
SUBJECT:
TO:
FROM:
SIP Packages Taking "No Action" On state Submittals
Directors, Air and Waste Management Divisions,
Regions II-IV, VI-VIII, X;
Directors, Air Management Divisions,
Regions X, V, IX
i,
Gerald A. Emison, ^
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
William P. Pedersen, Associate General Counsel
Air and Radiation Division
OGC and OAQPS have reviewed a number of Federal Register
notices from tne Regions that would take, or propose to take,
"no* action" as a final disposition of portions of SIP submittals.
Generally, "no action" is not an acceptable final disposition
£or any SIP measure that controls a criteria pollutant. The
only acceptable final dispositions are approval, conditional
approval, or disapproval. The only acceptable alternatives
to final disposition are state withdrawal of its submittal or
temporary deferral of action pending further consideration.
See, e.g., 49 PR 30300 (July 30, 1984) (deferring action on
attainment demonstrations for several California plans). If,
however, SPA announces in the Pederal Register that it is
deferring action, it must provide a satisfactory explanation
in the record.
Taking "no action* is unacceptable because the Clean Air
Act does not authorise EPA to dispose of state plans in this
manner. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit recently reversed EPA's decision not to act on a 30-day
averaging provision that the State of Indiana had submitted as
part of an emission limitation for SO2 sources. Indiana ft
Michigan Electric Co. v. EPA, 733 P.2d 489 (1984). The court
held that the Act does not authorize EPA to make a final
6-2.
-------
decision to keep a control'measure out of the SIP without
evaluating its merits and determining that it violates the
Act's requirements. Accordingly, when EPA decides to act
on a measure, it must approve or disapprove*
Because the "no action" approach appears unsound, we
do not expect to concur on'any SIP packages recommending
"no action" on all or part of a State's submittal for the
control of criteria pollutants, y If we receive such
packages, we will ask our staffs to work with you to find
an acceptable alternative.
cc: Air Branch Chiefs, Region I-X
Regional Counsels, Region I-X
Darryl Tyler
*J Section 110(a) appears to limit SlPa to the control of
criteria pollutants and thair precusort. Accordingly,
EPA need not conaidar controls for noncritaria pollutants and
may decline to act on the*. See 45 FR 32424 (May 16, 1980).
It may alao be possible to take "no action* on Saction 107
redesignations fro® unclaaaified to attainment that have no
regulatory conaequencaa.
-------
APPENDIX H
- Executive Order 12612
- Executive Order 12291
-------
¥•1 U
rTWmmft
-------
4168> Federal / Vol a No. BO / Friday. October 30. 19S7 / ft—u—h
(g) Acta of the national government whellNii legislative. executive. or judicial
in nature—that owmil tha wiiminlid powers ot that government th-
Constitution violate tha prlndpla of federalism established by tha Fraaat
(h) Potldea of tha national government should recognize tha responsioillty
nf >nrf ahonld encourage opportunitiaa for^-individuala. neighbor-
hoods. local governments, ana private associations to achieve their personal
aortal, and amnmnic objectives through coopsrativa effort
(!) 1b tha abaanca of daar constitutional or statutory authority, tha presump-
tion of sovereignty should rest with tha Individual States. Uncertainties
regarding tha legitimate authority of tha government should be
resolved against regulation at tha national laveL
Se& i. Federalism Policymaking Criteria. In addition to tha fundamental
federalism principles sat forth in section 2. Executive departments and agen-
das shall adhere, to tha extent permitted by law. to the following criteria
whan formulating and implementing policies that have implica-
tions
(a) There should be strict adherence to constitutional principles. Executive
departments and agencies should closely examine the constitutional and
statutory authority supporting any Federal action that would limit the politer-
making discretion of this States, and should carefully assess tha necessity for
socfa action. To tha extent practicable, tha States should be consulted before
any such action is implemented. Executive Order No. 12372 ("Intergovernmen-
tal Review of Federal Programs") remains ig affect for the propams and
activities to which it is applicable.
(bl Federal action limiting the policymaking discrstyon of the States should be
taken only where constitutional authority for the action is dear and certain
aad the national activity is necessitated by the presence of a problem of
national scope. For the purposes of this Order
(1) U is important to recognize the distinction between prooiems of national,
scope (which may justify Federal action) and problems that are merely
common to the States (which will not justify Federal action because individual
States, acting individually or together, can effectively deal with them).
(2) Constitutional authority for Federal action is dear and certain only when
authority for the action ipay be found in a specific provision of the Constitu-
tion. there is no provision in the Constitution prohibiting Federal action, and
tha action does not encroach upon authority reserved to the States.
(c) With respect to national policies administered by tha States, the national
government should grant tha States the maximum administrative discretion
possible. Intrusive. Federal oversight of State administration is neither neces-
sary nor deairabla.
(d) When to formulate and implement polides that have federal-
ism Implications, Executive departments and agendea shall:
(1) Encourage States to develop their own polides to achieve program objec-
tives sad to work with appropriate officials in other States.
(2) Refrain, to tha ""Hihmii extent poaalble. from establishing uniform, nation-
al standards for programs and. when poaaible, defer to the States to establish
standards.
(S) Whan national standards are required, consult with appropriate offldals
aad organizations r"pfM"M"g tha States in developing those standards.
See. 4 SpecmJ Requirements far Preemption, (e) To the extent permitted by
law. Executive departments and agendas shall construe, in reguletions end
otherwise, a Federal statute to preempt State law only when the statute
—an express preemption provision or there is some other Brm and
evidence compelling the conclusion that tha Congress intended
pfyympn
-------
Mwl 88. Ha CT / fHdiy. Ortober 10. W / PwUkIiI Deiiuntrti 42B87
W *U» e Wnl *e(ate deee set preeaxpt State law (as addressed in
¦^mcHob (e| tkto Mdtan), Executive depertaeats ead agendes shall
construe any authortzetioa Id fce iMtti far the issuaace of regulation! as
aathodxiag preemption of Stale law by nik-making only when the statute
aqm4r euthorlxea ieeuaace «f pseemptive nguletiaas or than is some other
tea and palpable evidence T^m-y tha coadusioa that tha Congress
Intended lo delegate to tha dapartmeat or agency tha authority to issue
wyritttopi pretnnptiag SUI» law.
-------
418M Fsdawl Blister / Volga, No> O / Friday. Oetobf » MP ) Hwltaiilil Dnruiwiiir
(4) Idiliiy tha axtenl to which the policy would affect tha States' ability to
dachaiys tradMoaal State pprarwranial funrilons. or othar aspacts of State
8m 7* Gartmamtf'Widt fkdtralitm Coordination and Rarirw. (a) In impla-
aaatiaf Executive Ordar Not. 1SB1 and UM and MO Circular No. A-U,
tha Office of Management aad Budget to the attest permitted by law and
T"'""' with the protiaiooa of thoeo authorltisa. shall taka ictkxi to «nsura
that tfaa of tha hacattw depaitaaate aad agendas art consistent
with thaprtadplaa. attaria. aad caquiraneate stated ia Mfttoni 2 through 9 of
tbto(M»
(b) la sabmlsstoiw to tha OOsa of Msnstpmsnl aad Badfrt porsaaat to
1"—¦"*— Ordar No. 12291 aad (AO Ctaeuar No. A-191 Executive dapart-
aoata aad afaadaa shall identify piopossd regulatory aad statutory provi-
sions that have fsdsrallna fanpUcattoas ad shall addnss any
subifaaHsl federalism concerns. What* tha departmaats or agsarfas deem It
appropriate. substantisl federalism coocaiua should also ba addrassad la
aotkas of proposad rule-making aad memgM transmitting legislative propos-
als to tha Coopssa.
Sab «. Judicial Reritw. This Ordar la tataaded only to Improve tha Interna*
management of tha Executive branch. aad ia aot(fateaded to create any right
or benefit substeattva or procedural. enforeaabls at law by a party against tha
United States. its agendas, its officers. or any parson.
THE WHITE HOUSE.
October 2& 1887.
craoKV-mn
H-5.
-------
VeL «*. N» S
m tm
======
Pr sidential Docum nts
TUb >» Innlivi Older 12291 ot February 27, IM
The President Federal Refutation
By the sulhority vested tnmsu President by the Constitution and laws of the
United States of America, cad in order to reduce the burden* of existing and
future regulations. increase afeacy accountability for regulatory actions, pro-
vide for presidential oversight of the regulatory process, minimize duplication
•ad conflict of regulations. and insure well-reasoned regulations, it is hereby
ordered as follows:
Section 1. Definition*. For the purposes of this Order
(•) "Regulation" oc "role" means an agency statement of general applicability
and future effect designed to implement interpret or prescribe law or policy
or describing the procedure or practice requirements of an agency, but does
not include:
(1) Administrative actions governed Ky the provisions of Sections SM and 557
of Title 5 of the United States Code
(2) Regulations Issued with respect to a military or foreign affairs function of
the United States or
(3) Regulations related to agency organization, management or personnel.
(b) "Major rule" me ens any regulation that la likely to result in:
(1) An annual effect on the economy of S10Q million or more:
(2) A major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries.
Federal State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions: or
(3) Significant adverse effects on competition, employment investment, pro-
ductivity. innovation, or on the ability of United States*based enterprises to
compete with fbreiy^based enterpriaes in domestic or export markets.
(c) Dtrector" oseoas the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(d) "Agency" meane any authority of the United States that is an "agency"
under M U.&C 3802(1). en chiding those agencies specified in 44 U.SC.
3902(10).
(a) "Task Force" aeaaa the Presidential Task Force oa Regulatory Relief.
Sec 1 Genera/ Requirements. In promulgating new regulations, reviewing
existing regulation*. aad developing legislative proposals concerning regula-
tion. su agendas, to the extent permitted by law. shall adhere to the following
requirements:
(a) Administrative decisions shall be based on adequate informetion concern-
lag the need for aad consequences of proposed government action:
(b) Regulatory ecbea shall not be undertaken unless the potential benefits to
society for the regulation outweigh the potential costs to society;
(e) Regulatory abtacflvas shall be choeen to maximite the net benefits to
(d) Among altvnattv* approaches to any given regulatory objective, the
alternative involving the least net cost to society shall be chosen: and
(a) Agendes shall set regulatory priorities with the aim of maximizing the
aggregate net benefits to society, taking lata accouat the condition of the
H- 6.
-------
131S4 Federal Register / Vol 4a. No. 33 / Thursday. February to. 1S81 / Presidential Documents
particular industries affected by regulations, the condition of the a»<
¦cnnoniy. sod other regulatory Kttou contemplated for tha future.
Sec. X AtgaJatvry Impact Aoaiytu end Raritw.
(M) ta ardor to Implement Section 2 of this Order, each agency shall is
ennnocttao with ovary aaior rule. prepare. tad to the axtont permitted by law
coaridor. a Regulatory impact Analysis. Sad) Aaalyoos may bo eenbiiMd with
aay Regulatory Flexibility Aaalyoos performed under 3 U.S.C. m and eo*.
(b) !*ek agency afaaO Initially determine whether a rule It intend* to propose
or to taoao ts • oufor rait, proridsd that, tho Director, subject to tha direction
of the Took Foreo. shall have authority, tat emordance with Sections 1(b) and 2
of tfate Orim. to prescribe criteria for Mch determinations. to order a
roio to bo mo tod aa a m|or rule. and to require aoy set of related rule* to be
Bonitrtowd together aso motor rale.
(e) Empt oo provided ia Section I of this Order, agencies shall prepare
Regulator? Unpad Analyses of major rale* aad transmit them, along with all
aotteao or proposed ratomakiag and all Baal rules, to the Director as follows:
(}] If ao aofee of proposed rulemaking ia to be published for a proposed major
ralo that la aot aa emergency rule, the agency shall prepare only a finer
Regulatory Impact Analyst*, which shall be transmitted, along with the pro-
posed rula. (o the Director at least 80 days prior to the publication of the major
ralo as a fiaal rula:
(2) With respact to all other major rales, the agency shall prepare a prelimi-
nary Reaulatory Impact Analysis, whldk shall bo transmitted, along with a
notice of propoeed rulemaking, to the Director at (east oo days prior to the
publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking and a final Regulatory Impact
Analysis, which shall be transmitted along with the Baal rule at least 30 days
prior to the pobtteattoo of the major rule aa a Baal rule
(3) For all rain other than major rales, agenda* shall submit to the Dlrecta
least 10 day* pttor to publication every notice of proposed rulemaking
final rule.
(d) To permit each proposed major rule to bo aaalyxed la light of the
requirements stated ta Soctlon 2 of this Order, each preliminary and final
Regulatory Impart Analysis shall contain the following information:
(1) A description of the potential benefits of the rule, induding any beneficial
effects that t—*"*•>* be quantified la monetary terms, and the identification of
those likely to receive the benefits:
(2| A description of the potential casta of the rule, induding sny advene
offsets that cannot be quantified ia monetary terms, aad the identification af
those likely to bear die costs
(3f A determination of the potential net bene fits of the rule, induding an
evaluation of effects thai caaaot be quantified ia monetary terms:
(4) A description of alternative approaches that could substantially achieve
tha regulatory goal at lower cost together with aa analysis of this
potential benefit sad costs aad s brief explanation of tha legal reasons why
such alternatives, if piopueod. could not bo adopted: and
(9) Unlesa covered by the description required under paragraph (4) of this
tytn+ctfrm, an explanation of aay legal reasons why tha rule cannot be based
oa tha requirements sol forth ia Section 2 of this Order.
(e) (1) Tha Director, rubjoct ta tho direction of tha Task Force, which »hall
resolve aay issues raised oader this Order or ensure that they are presented to
tho President, ia authortsod ta review aay preliminary or flaal Regulatory
Analysis. nottcs of ptopusod rulemaking, or Baal ralo based oa the
requirements of this Order.
(2) Tha Director shell be deemed to have concluded review unless die Directr
advises aa agency to the coatrary under mhsectloa (f) of this Sectioi
H-7.
-------
Imdmnl Register / VoL 46. No. 33 / Thursday. F«bru«ry 19. 1981 / Presidential Documents U195
(A) Within 60 days of a submission under subsection (c)(1) or a submission of
• preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis or notice of proposed rulemaking
under subsection (c)(2):
(B) Within 30 days of tha nibmiaaion of a final Regulatory Impact Analysis
and a final rule under subsection (e)(2); and
(CV Within 10 days of tha submission of a notice of proposed rulemaking or
final rait under subsection (c)(3).
(fl (1) Upon tha request of the Oirector. an agency ahall consult with the
Director concerning the review of a preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis
or notice of proposed rulemaking under this Order, and shall, subject to
Section 6(a)(2) of this Order, refrain from publishing its preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis or notica of proposed rulemaking until such review is con-
cluded.
(2) Upon receiving notice that the Director intends to submit views with
respect to any final Regulatory Impact Analysis or final rule, the agency shall,
subject to Section 8(a)(2) of this Order, refrain from publishing it* final
Regulatory Impact Analysis or final rale until the agency has responded to the
Director's views, and incorporated thoae views and the agency's response in
the rulemaking file.
(3) Noihiri in this subsection shall be construed as displacing the agencies
responsib...iies delegated by law.
(g) For every rule for which an agency publishes s notice of proposed
rulemaking, the agency shall include in its notice
(1) A brief statement setting forth the agency's initial determination' whether
the proposed rule is a major nil*, together with the reasons underlying that
determination: and
(2) For each proposed major rule a brief summary of the agency's preliminary
Regulatory Impact Analysis.
(h) Agencies shall make their preliminary and final Regulatory Impact Analy-
ses available to the public
(1) Agencies shsll Initiate reviews of currently effective rules in accordance,
with the purposes of this Order, and perform Regulatory Impact Analyses of
currently effective major rules. The Director, subject to the direction of the
Task Force, may designate currently effective rules for review in accordance
with this Order, and estsblish schedules for reviews and Analyses under this
Order.
Sec 4. JUgulotory R*viaw. Before approving any final major rule, each agency
(a) Make e determination that the regulation is dearly withia the authority
delegated by law and consistent.with congressional intent, and include in the
Federal Renter at the time of promulgation a memorandum of law supporting
thai determination.
(b) Make a determination that the factual conclusions upon which the rule is
based have substantial support is the agency record, viewed aa a whole, with
Ml attention to public comments In general and the comments of persons
directly affected by the rule ia particular.
Sac 1 JU$uJotory Aftndo*.
(a) Each sgency shall publish, la October and April of eech year, sn agenda of
proposed regulations that the agency haa iaaued or expects to issue, and
currently effective rules that are under agency review pursuant to this Order.
Tbaee tg**"*** may be Incorporated with the agendas published under S
UAC 60L and muat contain at the minimum;
(1) A summary of tha nature of each major rule being considered, the
objectives and legal basis for the Issuance of the rule, end sn approximate
H-8.
-------
131 rwUni Register / Vol 4* No. 33 / Tboreday. Febraary 1ft mi / Presidential Documents
schedule tar completing action an any oafer nil* for which the agencylua
leased • settee of proposed rulemaking;
(31 The um aad telephone number of • knowledges bit agency am r
each item on the agenda; aad
3} A list of existing regulations to bo reviewed under tho terms at this Order,
•ad o brief discussion of each radi regulation.
(b) Tho Director. subioct to tho direction of tho Task Force, may. to the extent
permitted by law;
(1) Require agenrioe to provide additional information ia aa agenda: and
(2) Require publication of the agenda ia toy form.
Sac & Th» Taak Forca and Offlc* ofMana&mant and Budgft
(a) To tho extent permitted by law, tho Director shall have authority, subject
to tha direction of tho Taak Forca, to:
(11 Deeignate any proposed or existing rule aa a aiaior rule ia accordance with
Secttoa 1(b) of thia Order;
(2) Prepare aad promulgate uniform standards for tho identification of major
rales and tha development of Regulatory Impact Analyses;
(3) Require aa agency to obtain aad evaluate, ia connection with a regulation,
any additional relevant data from aay appropriate source
(4) Waive tha requirements of Sections 3.4, or 7 of thia Order with respect to
aay proposed or existing major rule
(3) [daatlfy duplicative, overlapping aad conflicting rules, existing or pro-
posed. and existing or proposed rales that are Inconsistent with tha policies
underlying statutes governing agencies other than tha issuing agency or with
tba purpoees of thia Order, aad* te each such case, require appropriate
interagency consultation to ",lwi—or elhninate such duplication, overl;
(•) Develop procedures for estimating tha annual benefits and costs of agency
regulations, on both aa aggregate aad economic or industrial sector basis, for
purpoeea of compiling a regulatory budget
(7) hi consultation with interested agendas, prepare for consideration by the
President recomatenda dona for changes ia tha agenaes' statutes; and
(t| Monitor agency compliance with tha requirements of thia Order and advise
tba President with respect to such compliance.
(b) Tba Director, subject to tha direction of tha Taak Forca. ia authorized to
rHaWlsh procedures for tha performanca of all functions vested in the Direc-
tor by thia Order. Tba Director shall take appropriate steps to coordinate ihe
faapiemeatatlaa of tba analysis, transmittal review, and clearance provisions
at tbte Order with tha authorities aad requirementa provided for or imposed
spaa tba Otractar aad agtncies under tba Regulatory Flexibility-Act. S U S.C
OBI H Mf. aad tha Paperwork Reduction Plan Act of 1990. 44 U.5.C. 3201 et
9a& 7. fading Regulation*.
(a) To the extent necessary te permit reconsideration In accordance with this
Older. ff*Hmm shall. except at provided ia Section S of thia Order, suspend
or poatpoaa the affective date* of all major rules that they have promulgated
la fiadfona aa of tho data el thia Older, bat that have not yet become
aflieii llva. wclmHiig
(1) Major rales that cannot legally be peatpoead or suspended:
(3) Major rake that for good causa, ought to become effective as final rules
-Itfflir* reconsideration. Ageadea shall prepare, ia accordance with Section 3
of tbte Order, a Baal Regulatory Impact Analysts far each major rule th»*,fc
eoapend or poatpoaa.
H-9.
-------
Federal Kegbl«r / VoL 4& No. 39 / Thursday. February 19. 1881 / Presidential Documents »i
(b) Agendas shall report to tha Director no later than IS day* prior to
affective data of any rule that the agency has promulgated in final form a:
tha date of this Order, and that haa not yet become effective, and that wilt
be reconsidered under subsection (a) of (hia Section:
(1) That the nil* la excepted from reconsideration under subsection
induding a brief statement of the legal or other reasons for that determinati
or
(2) That the rule is not a major rule.
(c) The Director, subject to tha direction of the Task Force, is authorized
tha extent permitted by law, to:
(1) Require reconsideration, la accordance with this Order, of any major r
that an agency haa issued in final form as of the date of this Order and t,
has not become effective; and
(2) Designate a rale that an agency haa issued in final form as of the date
this Order and that has not yet become effective as a major rule in accordar
with Section 1(b) of this Order.
(d) Agencies may, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act a
other applicable statutes, permit major rules that they have issued in fit
form as of the date of this Order, and that have not yet become effective,
take effect as interim rules while they art being reconsidered in accordar
with this Order, provided ihot agencies shall report to the Director, no U
than 15 days before any such rule is proposed to take effect as an'interim ru
that the rule should appropriately take effect as an interim rule while the n
ia under reconsideration.
(e) Except as provided ia Section 8 of this Order, agendas shall to the exti
permitted by law. refrain from promulgating as a final rule any propos
major rule that has been published or issued as of the date of this Order ur
a final Regulatory Impact Analysis, ia accordance with Section 3 of this Ord
has been prepared for the proposed major rule.
(0 Agencies shaQ report to the Director, no later than 30 days prior
promulgating as a Anal rule any proposed rule that the agency has publish
or issued as of the date of thia Order and that has not been considered unc
the terms of this Order:
(1) That the rale cannot legally be considered in accordance with this Ord
together with a brief explanation of the legal reasons barring such consider
tioa: or
(2) That the rule is not a major rule, in which case the agency shall submit
the Director a copy of the proposed rale.
(f) The Director, subject to the direction of the Taak Force, is authorized,
the extent permitted by law. to:
(1) Require consideration, in accordance with this Order, of any propos
major rule that the agency has published or issued as of the dete of this Ord
•ad
(2) Designate a proposed rule that an agency has published or issued as of :
date of this Order, as a major rule ia accordance with Section 1(b) of tJ
Order.
(h) The Director shall be deemed to have determined that an agency's rep
to the Director under subsections (b). (dj. or (f) of thia Section is consist)
with tha purposes of thia Order, unless the Director advises the agency to t
contrary.
(1) Within IS days of lis report ia the case of aay report under subsections
or (d); or
(2] Within 30 days of its report, ia tha case of any report under subsection
H-10.
-------
13198 .r«dfi Register f Vol. No. 33 / Thwdiy. February i». mi / Presidential Documents
(0 b complying with this Section. agencies shell comply with all applicable
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act and with any other proce-
dural requirements nude epplicable to the agencies by other statutes.
Sec 1 Extmptiong.-
(a) Tha procedures prescribed by tfala Ordar shell aot apply t«
(1) Any ragulation that responds to in emergency situation. provided that any
such nguletion ahall ba reported to tha Director at aoea aa la practicable, the
agency shall publish in tha Federal Register a statement of tha reasons why ii
ia iapracticaDle for tha a fancy to follow tha procedure* of this Order with
laapact to auch a rule. and tha agency ahail prepare and tranamit as toon a* is
pracflcabla a Regulatory Impact Analysis of any such major rule: and
(2) Any regulation for which consideration or reconsideration under tha terms
of thia Ordar would conflict with daadUnaa imposed by statute or by judicial
ordar. provided that any auch regulation shall ba reported to tha Director
together with a brief explanation of tha conflict, tha agency ahall publish in
tha Federal Register a statement of tha reasons why it ia impracticable for the
agency to follow tha procedure* of thia Ordar with respect to such a rule. Ind
the agency, ia consultation with tha Director, shall adhere to tha requirements
of thia Order to tha extant permitted by statutory or Judicial deadlines.
(b) Tha Director, subject to tha direction of tha Teak Force, may. ia accordance
with tha purposes of this Ordar. exempt any daaa or category of regulations
from any or all requirements of thia Order.
Sac •. Judicial JUvfaw. This Ordar la intended only to improve tha Internal
management of tha Federal government aad ia aot intended to crea'®"««
right or benefit, rabatantiva or procedural enforceable at law by q
againsl tha United States, its agandea. Its officers or any parson. The di _
nations made by agandea under Section 4 of thia Ordar. and any Regulatory
Impact Analyses for aay rule, shall ba made part of tha whole record of
agency action in connection with the rata.
Sec 10k fUrocations. Executive Ordera No. UM4, as amended, and No. 12:74
¦re revoked.
THE WHITE HOUSE.
AAruory 17. JUL
m Oa*.
ei-sm
r
-------
APPENDIX I
- Categories of Regulations Submitted for Incorporation by Reference, 9/6/89
Memorandum from Johnnie Pearson to Regional Air Branch Chiefs
1-1.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
September 6, 1989
KEMPRANWM
SUBJECT: Categories of R Incorporation by Reference
I want to express my appreciation to your responses to my memorandum
dated March 31, 1989, in which I asked you to identify the category of
regulation each State submits for incorporation by reference. This
Information was needed because the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) was
concerned about the Environmental. Protection Agency's (EPA) practice of
submitting typed rather than printed regulations for incorporation by
reference. The OFR felt that discrepancies between the typed and printed
versions might result which could raise questions about which copy was
Federally enforceable.
Attached 1s a letter and index dated July 26, 1989 to the OFR which
identifies the categories of regulations submitted to EPA. Also, attached is
a letter dated August 10,' 1989 from the OFR which states that only the version
of the State regulation cited In our letter will be accepted by them for
incorporation by reference. The EPA must update the index if a State changes
their laws and submits a different type of regulation. Please advise your
staff responsible fqi; preparing State implementation plan (SIP) actions that
the OFR will only attept the types of regulations identified in our letter for
incorporation by reference. Delays In the publication of Federal Register
notices will result 1f the appropriate material 1s not submitted to the OFR.
If you have any questions, please call Oenlse Gerth at (FTS) 629-5550 or
me at (FTS) 629-5691.
Attachments
cc: Oenlse Gerth
Steve Hltte
Vickie Reed
Sara Schneebero
Racqueline She1 ton
SIP Contacts
FROM: Johnnie Pearson
Regional Activl
TO: Chief, A1r Bran
1-2.
-------
* UN,TEDSATEf ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION agency
u/-^ I Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
iImIResearch Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
July 26, 1989
Sandra McLean, Esq.
Office of the Federal Register
National Archives & Records Administration
1100 L Street, N.W., Room 8401
Washington, O.C. 20408
Dear Ms. McLean:
Some time ago, you Informed us that the Office of the Federal Register
(0FR) was concerned about the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) practice
of submitting typed rather than printed versions of State regulations for
Incorporation by reference. You felt that discrepancies between the typed and
printed versions might raise questions about which one is enforceable.
Previously we determined the categories of regulations that are
submitted by the States. These categories are as follows:
(1) Regulations that are published in the State register. These
regulations are not State effective until they are published.
(2) Regulations that are effective lamedlately upon adoption and
signature by the Secretary of State. All of these regulations will have
either an official stamp denoting the date of adoption and signature by the
Secretary of State or some form of certification from the State indicating
that the material was adopted by the State. This certification/letter also
needs to be incorporated by reference.
(3) RegulatlSfis that are immediately effective (same as number 2 above)
except that the States periodically publish a compilation of their
regulations. However, the official version is the originally adopted version
signed by the Secretary of State.
Enclosed 1s a list which identifies the category of regulation that each
State presently submits to EPA. I understand that you intend for this list to
serve as an Index for the OFR to ensure that the correct material is submitted
for incorporation by reference. Please recognize, however, that States may,
for various reasons, not follow this precise description when submitting
material. This may occur because the States periodically revise their
procedures, because the official State publication has not occurred prior to
submission of the rule to EPA, or a myriad of other reasons that may delay the
•official" version. If a State deviates from the category on the enclosed
list, we will Identify the basis of the deviation upon transmittal of the
final Federal Register notice to you.
1-3.
-------
2
If you have any questions, call Denlse Gerth at (FTS) 629-S550 or me
at (FTS) 629-5691.
Enclosure
cc: SIP Contacts, Regions I-X
Racquellne She!ton
Denlse Gerth
Sara Schneeberg
Betty Abraason
Steve H1tte
Barry Howard
Sincerely,
Johpitfe I. Pearson
/ Chief
leglonal Activities Section, ROB
1-4
-------
REGION
STATE
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hanpshire
Rhode Island
Veraont
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
- Allegheny County
- Philadelphia County
Virginia
West Virginia
Alabana
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
Nox^h Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
CATEGORY OF REr.tTT.ATTr^
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x°
X7
X
x"
X
8
£
1-5.
-------
¦ CATEGORCV OF REGITLATTCT
VIII
IX
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Havaii
Nevada
Northern Mariana Islands
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
X
X
X
X10
ill,12
X13
Cl4
15
yl6
Cl7
rl8
1-6.
-------
FOOTNOTES
1/ Regulation becomes effective after signature by Department of Natural
Resources.
ZJ Regulation becooes effective after signature by the Chairman, County
Commission.
2/ Regulation becooes effective after Mayor's signature.
y Effective 20 days after filed with Secretary of State.
5/ Does not require Secretary of State signature.
£/ Regulations adopted at local level and then the State Air Pollution Control
Board adopts them at the State Level.
U Variances and permits submitted by these States fall into category
number 2.
3/ Motor Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) and Transportation Control
Measures (TCM) commitments, Visibility Protection Plans; and'Emergency Rules.
2/ The South Oakota rules are not .immediately effective, but effective 20 days
after filing with the Secretary of State. Revised rules are published on a
case-by-case basis, not every one or two years. Rules do not need to be
published»to be effective. There is no South Oakota Register.
10/ The regulations become effective 30 days after the Secretary of Fono signs
the regulations.
11/ The regulations Adopted by the 44 local districts are effective
ioanedlately at the local district level. The State adopts these regulations
as a formality (the State does not have authority within the local districts)
and forwards them to EPA.
12/ The regulations adopted at the State level become effective 30 days after
the official filing with the Secretary of State, e.g., the State has the
authority only over mobile sources, which includes motor vehicle and fuels
regulations.
12/ The regulations become effective after the legislature signs off on them,
generally a 45-day period after adoption.
14/ The regulations become effective 30 to 60 days after signature by the
Governor.
iy The regulations becomne effective after a 30-day public comment period 1n
the local newspaper. The public notice allows for an additional hearing if
one is necessary. If there are adverse public comments, the effective date of
the regulations will be delayed until agreement is reached.
1-7.
-------
16/ Lt. Governor signs regulation and It becomes effective 30 days later.
12/ Effective the. date of adoption by the Idaho Bureau of Health.and Wei far
unless regulation contains an effective date.
15/ Effective 30 days after signed by the Director of the Department of
Ecology.
1-8
-------
J\Jational
Archives
Washington, DC 20408
August 10/ 1989
Mr. Johnnie L. Pearson
Chief, Regional Activities Section, ROB
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Dear Mr. Pearson:
Thank you for your letter of July 26, 1989. Your letter
identifies the version of state regulations effective and
enforceable in each state as a matter of state lav. However,
your letter adds, "that States may, for various reasons, not
follow this precise description when submitting material."
Only the official, enforceable version of a state regulation
cited in your index will be accepted by this Office as a
revision to the incorporation by reference of the SIP.
Should a state*s law change and a different version of a
state regulation be effective, EPA must update the index.
The categories you have established, along with appropriate
footnotes, wil,l provide an excellent index for this Office's
legal staff ztr use in reviewing EPA's SIP documents. Please
contact me at (202)523-5240 or Sandra McLean of our Legal
Services Staff if you have any questions concerning this
matter.
Sincerely,
1-9
-------
appendix J
- The Public Docket and Rulemaking Under Section 307 of the Clean Air Act,
Hay 16, 1988
J-l.
------- |