•UNITED~P~TESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY~gth;-.-‘~b--*J~44~~-4~~SEP.231981.MEMORANDUMSUBJECT:ReviewofStateImplementationPlansandRevisionsforEnforceabilityandLegalSufficiencyFROM:J.CraigPotterAssistantAdministrator/~~forAirandRadiation.-‘‘7ThomasL.AdamsJr.sr...~~çAssistantAdministratorforEnforcementandComplianceMonitoringFrancisS.Blak~~(?~.L(__GeneralCounselOfficeofGeneralCounselTO:AddresseesOne.criticalfunctionthatyourofficesperformistoassurethatregulationsdevelopedforstationarysourcesbytheStatesundertheCleanAirActareenforceableandlegallysufficient.Ourregulationsrequirethatthestateimplementationplans(“SIPs”)must“beadoptedasrulesandregulationsenforceable(emphasisadded)bytheStateagency”(40C.F.R.551.281(1987)).weareconcernedthatreviewofSIPsforenforceabilityhasnotbeenreceivingadequateattention.TheAgencysometimesexperiencesdifficultiesinitseffortstoenforcethecurrentrulesbecausetheyarenotsufficientlyclear.TheRegionalOfficesareattheforefrontofthefederalSIPapprovalprocess.ThepurposeofthismemorandumistoremindyouoftheimportanceofdoingthereviewnecessarytoassurethatallSIPplansandrevisionsareenforceableandinconformancewiththeAct.PleasedonotforwardforapprovalSIPswhichfailtosatisfytheenforceabilitycriteriainthismemorandum.BackgroundRecentinformationindicatesthattheattentionbeingpaidtoSIPapprovalsisdeclining,particularlyforenforceability.TheOfficeofGeneralCounselreviewsregulationsastotheiradequacyunderapplicablelawandAgencypolicy,butnotforenforceability.Thisvoidisnotbeingfilledbyotheroffices.Often,theproblemswithenforcingtheregulationsarenotimmediatelyobviousandonlybecomeknownwhereacaseorissuefocusesontheparticularregulation.AttheOctober1986—2—AnnapolismeetingofAirProgramDirectorsandRegionalCounselAirBranchChiefs,anumberofproblemsinrecentenforcementcasesduetodifficultyininterpretingandenforcingregulationswerediscussed.Withtherecentworkbeingdonetoaddressthenonattainmentproblem,itisevenmorecriticalthatregulationsbeclearandenforceable.ItisappropriatethattheRegionalaircompliancestaffandtheRegionalcounsel’sOfficehaveprimaryresponsibilityforthisenforceabilityreviewbecausetheyhavethemostdirectexperienceincomplianceandruleinterpretation.Theyalsohaveresourcesallocatedthroughtheirworkloadmodelsspecifi—callyforSIPreview.TimingofReviewTheRegionsshouldtrytoreviewdevelopingStateSIPprovisionspriortofinalapprovalbytheState,whentheprovisionsareattheirmostmalleablestage.Inlinewiththis,eachRegionshouldprovideitsStateswithacopyoftheimplementingguidanceassociatedwiththismemorandumandabriefingwhichoutlinestheenforceabilityrequirementsfornewSIPsubmittals.IfweprovidetheStateswithmoreexplicitguidanceandmakeearliercontactstoresolveproblems,wecanavoidinstanceswhereEPAispressuredtosettleforaflawedregulationonlybecauseitisbetterthanitspredecessor.EnforceabilityCriteriaYourreviewshouldensurethattherulesinquestionareclearlywordedandexplicitintheirapplicabilitytotheregulatedsources.Vague,poorlydefinedrulesmustbecomeathingofthepast.SIPregulationsthatdeviatefromthispolicyaretobedisapprovedpursuanttoSection110(a)oftheCleanAirAct,withappropriatereferencesintheC.F.R.Specifically,weareconcernedthatthefollowingissuesbedirectlyaddressed.Theruleshouldbeclearastowhomustcomplyandbywhatdate.Theeffect,ifany,ofchangedconditions(e.g.,redesignationtoattainment)shouldbesetforth.Theperiodoverwhichcomplianceisdeterminedandtherelevanttestmethodtobeusedshouldbeexplicitlynoted.Provisionswhichexemptfacilitiesundercertainsizesoremissionlevelsmust•identifyexplicitlyhowsuchsizeorlevelisdetermined.Also,provisions.whichallowfor“alternateequivalenttechniques”or“bubbles”oranyothersortofvariationofthenormalmodeofcompliancemustbecompletelyandexplicitlydefinedandmustmakeclearwhetherot.notEPAcase—by—caseapprovalisrequiredto.makesuchamethodofcompliancefederallyeffective.—3—•ConclUSiOP~....•SIP.revisions8houldbewrittenclearly,withexpliàitlanguagetoimplementtheirintent.Theplainlanguageofallrules,aswellastherelatedFederalRegisternotices,shouldbecomplete,clearandconsistentwiththeintendedpurposeofthe‘rules.Specificreviewforenforceabilitywillbeafurtherstepin..improvingtheoverallSIPprocessandstructure.Wehaveattacheddetailedguidancetoassistyouinimplementingthismemorandum.AttachmentAddressees:RegionalAdministratorsRegionsI—XRegionalCounselsRegionsI—XAirManagementDivisionDirectorsRegionsI,IIIandIXAirandWasteManagementDivisionDirectorRegionIIAir,pesticides,andToxicsManagementDivisionDirectorsRegionsIVandVIAirandRadiationDivisionDirectorRegionVAirandToxicsDivisionDirectorsRegionsVII,VIIIandXcc:DeputyRegionalAdministratorsRegionsI—XRegionalCounselAirContactsRegionsI—XAirComplianceBranchChiefsRegionsII,III,IV,V,VI,IXAirProgramBranchChiefsRegionsI—XDarrylTyler,DirectorControlProgramsDevelopmentDivisionGeraldEmison,DirectorOfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandards—4—.cc:JohnS..Seitz,DirectorStationarySourceComplianceDivisionOfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandardsAlanW.EckertAssociateGeneralCounselAirDivision•MichaelS.AlushinAssociateEnforcementCounselAirEnforcementDivisiont~’~’i~1‘54~~iO~MEMORANDUMUNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCYSEP231987SUBJECT:FROM:ReviewofStateImplementationPlansandRevisionsforEnforceabilityandLegalSufficincyMichaelS.Alushin~I~AssociateEnforcementCounselforAirEnforcementAlanW.Eckert~~AssociateGenerConselAirandRadiationDivisionJohnS.Seitz,DirectorStationarySourceComplia1OfficeofAirQualityPlalTO:AddresseesThisistoprovideimplementingguidanceonthememorandumissuedbyJ.CraigPotter,ThomasAdamsandFrancisBlakeonthisdaterelatingtoreviewofSIPplansandrevisionsforenforceabilityandlegalsufficiency.weurgeyoutoprovidecopiesofthesememorandatoyourStateAgencyDirectors.ApplicabilityThisguidanceappliestoallSIPproposalswhichhavenotcompletedthestateorlocalagencylegalandproceduralrequirementsforSIPS.Forproposals~thathavenotyetbeensubmittedtotheRegionalofficeforaction,thestateandlocalagencieshaveforty—five(45)daysfromthedateofthisguidancetosubmitsuchproposalsforreviewinorderfortheproposaltobeconsideredunderpreviousprocedures.sIPpackagescurrentlyinHeadquarterswillundergotheusualreviewbutwillbereturnedtotheRegionsiftheycontaindeficiencieswhichraisesicznificantquestionsastowhethertheregulationwouldbeenforceable.EnforceabilityCriteriaThenotionofenforceabilityencompassesseveralconcepts.Atthemostbasiclevel,aregulationmus~b~wfth~p~.thestatutOtYauthorityofthepromulgatingagency.Forexarnple,(~.somestateshavestatutoryrestrictions.orprohibitionson€he.~romutgationofregulationsmorerestrictivethanthefederalcounterpart..ngandStandards—2—Aithoughweshouldgenerallydefertoa~sJ~nterpretationofthescopeof.itsauthority,whenthereisrealdoubtwishould,ataminimum,consulttheresponsibleS~áteAttorneytobecertaintheissue’haS”beenconsideredandresolved.Whenappropriate,anopinionlettershouldbeobtainedfromtheStateAttorneyGeneral.Pleaseensurethat,thefollowingadditionalissuesaredirectlyaddressed.ApplicabilityItshouldbeclearastowhomtheregulationapplies.TheSIPshouldincludeadescriptionofthetypesofaffectedfacilities.Theruleshouldalsostateinwhichareastheruleapplies(entirestate,specificcounties,nonattainment,etc.)andadvisethereaderthatStateadministrativechangesrequireaformalSIPrevision.Also,someregulationsmightrequireacertainpercentagereductionfromsources.Theregulationshouldbeclearastohowthebaselinefromwhichsuchareductionistobeaccomplishedisset.InsomecasesitmaybenecessaryforenforcementpurposesandindependentofCleanAirActrequirementsfortheSIPtoincludeaninventoryofallowableandactualemissiOnsfromsourcesintheaffectedcategoriesinordertosettheabovebaseline.•TimeTheregulationshouldspecifytherequireddateofcompliance.Isituponpromulgation.orapprovalbyEPA,orafuturedateàertain?Futureeffectivedatesbeyondtheapprovedorproposedattainmentdateshouldnotbeallowedunlesstherelatedemissionsreductionsarenotneededforattainment.Also,theregulationshouldspecifytheimportantdatesrequiredofanycomplianceschedulewhichisrequiredtobesubmittedbythesourcetothestate.•EffectofChangedConditionsIfchangedcircumstancesaffectanemissionlimitorotherrequirement,theeffectofchangedconditionsshouldbeclearlyspecified.However,youshouldnotapprovestateregulationswhichtietheapplicabilityofVOCcontrolrequirementstothenonattainmentstatusof’the’àreaandallowforautomaticnullificationoftheregulationsifthearea’isredesignated,toanattainment:s~tus.Suchregulations‘shouldcontinuetoapplyifanareaisredesignatedfromnonattainment’to‘àttãinmentstatusunlessanewmaintenancedemonstrationsupportingachangeintherule’sapplicabilityissubmittedandapprovedbyEPA.—3—StandardofConduct~heregulationmustbesufficientlyspecific~othatasourceisfairlyonnoticeasto_thestandarditcmust.meet.Forexample,”alterflativeequivalenttechWi4ué”provisionsshouldnotbeapprovedwithoutclarificationconce~i~ingthetimeperiodoverwhichequiv~lefsi~äSUredaswellaswhethertheequivalencyappliesonipersourceorperlinebasisOrisfacilitywide.oIncorporatiOnbyReferenceSomefederalregulationsareinapprppr~ate.foradoptionbyreference.Forexample,astateintendingtoenforcePSOregulationsadoptedbyreferencemustadopt40C.F.R.S52.21,not40C.F.R.S51.166,asonlytheformeriswritteninaformimposingobligationsonpermitapplicants.Eventhen,changesmayhavetobemadetotakeintoaccountthedifferencebetweentheState’ssituationandEPA’S~oTransferEfficiencySomestateshaveattemptedtoprovideparticularVOCsourceswithrelaxationsofcompliancelimitsinreturnforimprovementsintheefficiencywithwhichthesourcesusethepollutantproducingmaterial.AnyrulesallowingtransferefficiencytobeusedindeterminingcompliancemustbeexplicitastowhenandunderwhatcircumstancesasourcemayuseimprovedtransferefficiencyasasubstituteformeetingtheSIPlimit.SuchprovisionsmuststatewhetherEPAapprovalisrequiredonacase—by—casebasis.Also,suchprovisionsmaynotsimplyreferencetheNSPSautocoatingtablesforthetransferefficiency.Theimprovementshouldbedemonstratedthroughtestingandanappropriatetestmethodshouldbesetforth.ImpliedimprovementsnotedbytheNSPS’autocoatingTEtablearenottobeacceptedatfacevalue.oComplianceperiodsSIPrulesshoulddescribeexplicitlythecompliancetimeframeassociatedwitheachemissionlimit(e.g.instantaneous,stacktest,3houraverageordaily).TheRegionsshouldnotassumethatalackofspecificityimpliesinstantaneouscompliance.Thetimeframeormethodemployedmustbesufficienttoprotectthestandardinvolved.oEquivalencyprovisionsandDiscretionaryEmissionLimitsCertainprovisionsallowsourc~stocomplyvia“bubbles”or“alternateeauivalenttechniques”orthroughmechanisms“asapprovedbytheDirector.”TheseprovisionsmustmakeitV—4—clearastowhetherEPAapprovalofstategrantedàlternativécompliancetechniquesisrequiredonacase—by—casebasisinorderforthechangedmodeofcompliancetoreplacetheexistingfederallyenforceablerequirement.IfEPAcase—by—caseapprovalwillnotberequired,thenspecific,objectiveandreplicablecriteriamustbesetforthfordeterminingwhetherthenew.arrangementistrulyequivalentintermsofemissionratesandambientimpact.SuchproceduresmustbeconsistentwiththecontrollevelsspecifiedintheoverallSIPcontrolstrategyandmustmeetotherEPApolicyrequirements,includingthe“EmissionsTradingPolic~,’”,51Fed.Reg.43814(1986),inrelevantinstance$.RecordkeepingTheSIPmuststateexplicitlythoserecordswhichsourcesarerequiredtokeeptoassesscomplianceforthetimeframespecifiedintherule.Recordsmustbecommensuratewithregulatoryrequirements,andmustbeavailableforexaminationonrequest.TheSIPmustgivereportingschedulesandreportingformats.Forexample,theserulesmustrequiredailyrecordsiftheSIPrequiresdailycompliance.Additionally,therecord—keepingmustberequiredsuchthatfailuretodosowouldbeaseparateviolationinitself.oTestMethodsEachcomplianceprovisionmustlisthowcomplianceistobedeterminedandtheappropriatetestmethodtobeused.Theallowableaveragingtimesshouldbeexplicit.Boththetestmethodandaveragingtimesemployedmustbesufficienttoprotecttheambientstandardinvolved.oExemptionsIfsourcesunderacertainsizear~eexemptedfromcontrolrequirements,theregulationmustidentifyhowthesizeofaparticularsourceistobedetermined.oMalfunctionandVarianceProvisionsAnymalfunctionorvarianceexemptionsmustbeclearintheirsubstantiveapplicationandinhowtheyaretriggered.Therulemustspecifywhatexceedancesmaybeexcused,howthestandardistobeapplied,andwhomakesthedetermination.ConclusionVWeappr~eciateyourattentiontothismatterandhopethatthespecificreviewforenforceabilitywillbeafurtherstepinimprovingtheoverallSIPprocessandstructure.Toassistyou,wehaveattachedanenforceabilitychecklist.ThischecklistshouldbeincludedaspartofyourtechnicalsupportpackagesinallfutureSIPpackages.—5—PleasecontacttheappropriatestaffattorneyintheOfficeofGeneralCounselortheOfficeofEnforcementandComplianceMonitoringshouldyouhaveanyquestionsconcerningissuesofenforceabilityinparticularinstances.PleasecontactTomHelms,OAQPS,FTS—629—5526,forotherquestionsconcerningimplementationofthisguidance.AttachmentAddressees:RegionalAdministratorsRegionsI—XRegionalCounselsRegionSI—XAirManagementDivisionDirectorsRegionsI,IIIandIXAirandWasteManagementDivisionDirectorRegionIIAir,Pesticides,andToxicsManagementDivisionDirectorsRegionsIVandVIAirandRadiationDivisionDirectorRegionVAirandTo2cicsDivisionDirectorsRegionsVII,VIIIandXcc:DeputyRegionalAdministratorsRegionsI—XRegionalCounselAirContactsRegionsI—XAirComplianceBranchChiefsRegionsII,III,IV,V,VI,IXAirProgramBranchChiefsRegionsI—XDarrylTyle~,DirectorControlProgramsDevelopmentDivisionGeraldEmison,DirectorOfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandards

# Attachment

SIP PPOVABILITY CHECKLIST- 

# ENFORCEABILWI



# • SIP Package No.

STATE:

_______ 

# Date Rec. Date Due

______________



# subject Hatter:

--



# (Specific Provisfori and c~ri≠ionT

Enforceability Analysis

1. Applicability



# a. What 

# sources are being regulated?

b. What are criteria for exemption?

C. 

# Is calculation procedure for exemption

• clearly specified?



# • d. Is emission inventory

listed in the background document

of the.attainment

denastrat ion? State S~~itt~

- 

# (list res~nses) EPA Requirement



# Clarity

Clarity

Example calculation or

clear explanation of

how to determine

exemption (line by line,

etc.)

Inventory including

allowable and actual

emissions in source category should be

included, for enforce

ment purposes and

independent of any Clean

Air Act requirements,



# in the attainment demcn—



# stration if such data is

necessary for determin

ing baselines in regula

tions. Approvability (Approvable or Not)

# •~nforceabiljty Analysis Istate Submittal JEPA Reaulrement

e. Is the averaging time(s)L

used in the rule differ-.

ent from that of the

ambient standard? The averaqing time in the

rule must be consistent

with protecting the ambient

standard in question. Normally, it should be equal

to or shorter than the

time associated with the

standard. L~nger term averaging is available only in limited instances

provided that the ambient

standard is not compromised.

Clearly stated in the

rule

Explicit description of

how averaging, bubbling,

or equivalency is to be

determined. VOC

eouivalency must be on

a “solids applied”

basis. Any method must

be independently re producible. Provision

must be explicit as to

whether EPA case—by—

case approval required.

If provision intended

to be “generic” then EPA

bubble policy must 

# be

met. ‘p 

# ~p rovability (Approvable or Not



# f. What are the units of

cowpliance (lbs ‘ICC 

# per gallon of solids

applied less water, grains 

# per standard



# cubic foot?)

g. Is 

# bubbling or averag ing of any type

• allowed? If yes,

• state criteria.

Could a US. EPA

inspector independently



# determine if the

• criteria were met? Does

EPA 

# have to approve

• each case?

C

# EnforceabilitY Analysis State Submittal EPA Requirement AoDrovabilitv (Approvable or Not

h. If there is a cedesigna—

tion, will this change

the emission limita

tions? If 

# yes, which

ones and how?

2. Compliance Dates

a. What is compliance

date?

b. What is the attainment

date?

3.. specificity of Conduct



# a.~ What test method is required?

• b. What is the averaging

time in compliance



# test method?



# .c. Is a compliance

calculation or evaluation required?

(i~e., daily weighted

average for VOC).

.d. If yes to “c,” list



# the formula, period of

cr~nnii~n~. 

# and/or Regulation may not automatic~1ly allow for

self nullification upon redesignation of area

to attainment. New

maintenance demcnstra—

tion required in order

to drop regulation.

Must riot be later than approved or about to

be approved date of

attainment unless

emission reductions not

necessary for att~in—

ment. In some cases,

it will be necessary

for the regulation to specify dates in compli

ance schedules that are required to be sut~itted

by source to state.

Test method must be

explicitly stated,

Averaging time and application of limit

must be explicit.

Formula must be

explicit. I:

# EPA Re~irem~!3~ AtDDroVabilitY.(Approvable or Not

EnforceabilitY Analysis

4. incorporation by Reference State Submittal



# a. what is state authority

for 

# rulemaking?

b. Are methods/rules incorporated by

reference 

# in the right manner.

5.: Recordkeepiflg

a. What records are required to determine

V V 

# compliance?

b. In 

# what form 

# or units (lbs/gal, gr/dscf,

etc.) 

# must the

records be 

# kept? On

•

. 

# what time 

# basis

• (instantaneously, hourly, daily)?

c. Does the rule affirm— atively 

# reciuire the

records be kept? Records to be kept



# must be consistent

with units of

compliance in the 

# per

formance requirements,

including the appli

cable time period.

There must be a clear

separately enforceable provision that requires

records to be kept. Clarity

V



# I.

# Enforceability Analysis State Submittal

- 

# EPA 

# Reouirement Approvability (Approvable or Not)

6. ExernptiOn8

a. List any exemptions Must be clearly defined

• allowed, and distinguishable from what constitutes a

• b. Is the criteria for violation.

application clear?

.7. Malfunction provisions Rule must specify what exceedances may be

excused, how the

standard is to be

applied, and who makes

the determination.

V