; . 

A EO 4 Sr rFs 

D ~\\\\~ //~// 

- f 

`~O 

4( pqu1E 

MEMORANDUM EPA. Rum Ill 

SUBJECT : State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in 

Response to Clean Air Act (,Act) De~a~lines 

FROM : John Calcagni, Director 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards R E C E I V E D Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 Air Programs Branch 

OCT 2 8 1992 NOV 0 2 1992 

Air Quality Management D~vision, OAQPS \(MD-15) 

TO : Director, Air, Pesticides and TCxicsManagement Division, Regions I `and IV 

Director, Air and Waste Management Division, 

Region II 

Director, Air, Radiation, and Toxics Division, 

Region III 

Director, Air and Radiation Division, 

Region V 

Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division, 

Region VI 

Director, Air and Toxics Division, 

Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X 

The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify issues related 

to redesignation requests and SIP actions submitted in response 

to Act deadlines, and specifically address SIP elements that are 

due November 15, 1992 . The following topics are addressed below : 

completeness determinations on commitment submittals ; requests 

for parallel processing to meet Act deadlines : effect of 

redesignation requests on mandatory Act submittals ; completeness 

determinations on emission inventory submittals : and issuing 

letters to the States making a finding of failure to submit a 

required SIP, or SIP element . 

completeness Determinations on Commitment Submittals 

In anticipation of commitment SIP's being submitted to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as authorized by section 

110(k)(4) of the Act, my staff are working with the Office of 

General Counsel (OGC) to revise the completeness criteria in 

Appendix V of 40 CFR Part 51 .1 Specifically, it is our intent to 

include specific completeness criteria for committal SIP's . 

A July 22, 1992 memorandum from Michael Shapiro identified a 

number of statutory requirements for which EPA is inclined to 

accept committal SIP's . (A clarification of that memorandum was 

issued by Michael Shapiro on September 16, 1992 .) 
The current completeness criteria do not address commitments 

submitted under section 110(k)(4) of the Act . However, we are 

interpreting section 110(k)(4) as allowing EPA to accept commitments from a State as complete submittals even though commitments 

will lack some of the substantive elements required under the 

current completeness criteria . Consequently, committal SIP's 

submitted to EPA should be reviewed against only those elements 

of the completeness criteria that are directly applicable to 

commitments in order to be determined complete . The elements of 

the completeness criteria that are applicable to commitments are : 

1 . A formal letter of submittal from the Governor or his 

designee requesting EPA approval of the commitment . 

2 . The commitment was subject to a public hearing pursuant 

to 40 CFR 51 .102 . 

3 . The submittal contains a schedule for the adoption of 

the statutorily required measures . 

Additionally, States should be encouraged to submit documentation 

and a justification explaining the need for a commitment . 

If a Regional Office receives a submittal that contains one 

or more commitments in association with other rules or control 

measures, the Region should consult with the responsible 

Headquarters program office to determine if a commitment is 

acceptable in that specific circumstance . (Please refer to my 

July 9, 1992 memorandum entitled "Processing of State 

Implementation Plan Submittals," specifically the part on 

conditional approvals .) If EPA determines that it will consider 

the commitment under the conditional approval process, the 

commitment should be reviewed only as to the criteria that would 

be applicable for commitments . However, if EPA determines that a 

commitment cannot be used to meet the statutory requirement, the 

submittal should be reviewed against all elements of the 

completeness criteria . 

Requests for Parallel Processing to Meet Act Deadlines 

The EPA expects a number of States to request parallel 

processing of draft rules as a way to meet Act deadlines . A 

State request for parallel processing is not an official 

submittal satisfying a statutory deadline since it is a draft 

rule (i .e ., the State has yet to adopt the regulation) . 

When the completeness criteria were promulgated with an 

exception for parallel processing, EPA was not anticipating 

submittals subject to statutory deadlines . The intent was to 

continue the timesaving concept of parallel processing Stateinitiated actions . However, the exceptions in the completeness 

criteria could be interpreted as requiring EPA to accept draft 
rules in order to meet statutory deadlines . As noted above, 

draft submittals are not considered plan submittals under the Act 

because they have not been adopted by the State . Consequently, 

EPA is not precluded from making a finding of failure to submit a 

required SIP element when a State submits a draft rule . 

If a request for parallel processing is submitted to EPA 

before the statutory deadline, EPA may agree to parallel process 

the the action . However, EPA will not make a completeness finding 

section 110(k)(1) since that section applies to official 

plan submittals and not draft rules . However, if the statutory 

deadline passes and a State has not submitted the fully-adopted 

regulation, the Regions should make a finding of failure to 

submit under section 179(a)(1) . This will initiate the sanctions 

time clock . 

Subsequently, if a State submits a fully-adopted rule or 

maintenance plan, EPA will review the submittal against the 

completeness criteria . The EPA will commence rulemaking action 

if the submittal is complete . If the completeness criteria are 

met, a finding of completeness will stop the time clock for 

sanctions . If the completeness criteria are not met, EPA should 

make a finding of incompleteness, thereby maintaining the 

previous time clock for sanctions . 

Because the parallel processing exception could be 

interpreted to require EPA to accept draft rules as meeting a 

statutory deadline, we are presently revising the completeness 

criteria to remove the parallel processing exception . It should 

be noted, however, that although parallel processing submittals 

are not official plan submittals, EPA will continue to use 

parallel processing as an effective avenue for approving State 

rules expeditiously . 

Effect of Redesignation Requests on Mandatory Act Submittals 

It has come to our attention that some States plan to submit 

redesignation requests prior to November 15, 1992 with the 

understanding that this will exempt them from implementing 

mandatory Act programs due to start in November (e .g ., oxygenated 

fuels program, stage II vapor recovery rules, etc .) . The 

approvability of a redesignation request is based on the 

requirements applicable as of the date of submittal of a complete 

redesignation request .2 States, however, are statutorily 

For a redesignation request to be complete, any portions of the 

redesignation request that are SIP revisions (e .g ., 

maintenance plans and any additional control measures) must meet 

the completeness criteria for SIP revisions . Redesignation 

requests submitted for parallel processing will not be considered 

official submittals ; therefore, they will not be treated as 

complete submittals . 
obligated to meet SIP requirements that become due any time 

before an area is actually redesignated to attainment . Such 

redesignation occurs when EPA has taken final rulemaking action 

to approve a redesignation request . 

Hence, if there is a failure by the State to meet a 

statutory deadline for an area (before EPA has redesignated the 

area as attainment), a finding of failure to submit should be 

made . This, in turn, begins the sanctions process under section 

179(a) (see September 4, 1992 memorandum, entitled "Procedures 

for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment") . 

The findings letter should recognize any pending redesignation 

request, note the State's statutory obligation to implement any 

mandatory requirements that are due, and indicate that one of the 

sanctions will be imposed after 18 months unless EPA approves the 

redesignation request before the 18-month period has ended . 

Thus, the Regions should make all reasonable attempts to ensure 

that the redesignation approval process does not take over 18 

months . 

Completeness Determinations on Emission Inventory Submittals 

In a September 29, 1992 memorandum from William Laxton and 

myself addressing public hearing requirements for emission 

inventory submittals, it was stated that EPA was providing a "de 

minimis" deferral of the public hearing requirement for emission 

inventory submittals . In that memorandum, it was also stated 

that if emission inventory submittals do not meet the 

completeness criteria (except for the deferred public hearing 

requirement), EPA should make a finding of incompleteness . 

However, that memorandum did not specify the process for making 

completeness determinations on emission inventory submittals that 

only lack the public hearing element . 

After discussion with OGC, we have determined that for the 

emission inventory submittals that are only lacking evidence of a 

public hearing, EPA should make a finding of completeness 

contingent upon the State fulfilling the public hearing 

requirement . The completeness letter to the State should 

indicate that the completeness determination is contingent upon 

the State's fulfilling the public hearing requirement by the time 

identified in the September 29 memorandum . If the public hearing 

requirement is not met by the time specified, then EPA will make 

a finding of incompleteness on the original emission inventory 

submittal . The completeness letter should further state that the 

public hearing requirement must be met before or at the time of 

submittal of a rate-of-progress or maintenance plan, or at the 

time the inventory takes on regulatory significance such as 

providing a basis for banking or trading . 
As noted in the September 29 memorandum, EPA also is 

providing a "de minimis" deferral of the requirement for EPA to 

take action on the emission inventory submittals . The 12-month 

statutory timeframe for approving or disapproving the emission 

inventory submittal will start at the time the public hearing 

requirement is met . If EPA has found the submittal incomplete, 

EPA will not be required to take approval action on the 

submittal . 

Issuing Letters to the States Making a Finding of Failure to 

Submit a Reauired SIP or SIP Element 

The Regional offices should be planning to issue findings of 

failure to submit to States not meeting the November 1992 (and 

other) statutory deadlines . The Agency has taken a strong stance 

that such findings should be made soon after a due date has 

passed . Notice that a State has failed to submit a SIP, or SIP 

element, is made in the form of a letter from the Regional 

Administrator to the Governor of a State . Please refer to the 

July 22, 1992 Shapiro memorandum, entitled "Guidelines for State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittals Due November 15, 1992," for 

further information . Further guidance will be made available on 

the schedule and format of the findings . 

If you have any questions on this memorandum, please contact 

Denise Gerth at (919) 541-5550 . 

cc : Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X 

John Cabaniss 

Jeff Clark 

Denise Devoe 

Tom Helms 

Steve Hitte 

Steve Hoover 

Ed Lillis 

David Mobley 

Rich Ossias 

Joe Paisie 

Lydia Wegman