Review of SraieImple&ntation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency



# Review of 

# State Implementation Plans and Revisionsfor 

# Enforceability and Legal S

# u ffi ciency

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Section 110: State Implementation Plans September 23,1987 

## MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency FROM: J. Craig Potter Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Thomas L. Adams Jr. Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring

http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ore/aed/comp/ccomp/c8.h!ml (1of 12) [5/6/02 10:13:45AM]~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~

Review of Staie Implem&tation Plans and Revisions for Enforceabilityand Legal Sufficiency Francis 

### S.Blake General Counsel Office ofGeneral Counsel TO: Addressees One critical function that your offices perform is to assure that regulations developed for stationary sourcesby the States under the Clean Air Act are enforceable and legally sufficient. Our regulations require that the state implementation plans 

### ("SIPS") must "be adopted as rules andregulations enforceable (emphasis added)by the State agency" 

### (40 C.F.R. $51.281 (1987)). We are concerned that review of SIPs for enforceabilityhas not been receiving adequate attention. The Agency sometimes experiences difficulties in its efforts to enforce the current rules because they are not sufficiently clear. The Regional Offices are at the forefront ofthe federal 

### SIP approval process. The purpose ofthis review necessary to assure that all SIPplans and revisions are enforceable and in conformance with the Act. Please do not forward for approval SIPs which fail to satisfy the enforceability criteria in this memorandum. 

### Background Recent information indicates that the attention being paid to 

### SIP approvals is declining, particularly for enforceability. The Office of General Counsel reviews regulations as to their adequacy under applicable law and Agency policy, but not for enforceability. This void is not being filled by other offices. Often, the problems with enforcing the regulations are not immediately obvious and only become known where a case or issue focuses on the particular regulation. At the October 1986 Annapolis meeting ofAir program Directors and Regional Counsel Air Branch Chiefs, a number ofproblems in recent enforcement cases due to difficulty in interpreting and enforcing regulations were discussed. With the recent work being done to address the nonattainment problem, it is even more critical that regulations be clear and enforceable.
It is appropriate that the Regional air compliance staff and the

http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ore/aed/comp/ccomp/c8.html(2 of 12) 15/6/02 1033:45AMIReview of State Implem&tation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency Regional Counsel's Office have primary responsibility for this enforceabilityreview because they have the most direct experience in compliance and rule interpretation. They also have resources allocated through their workload models specifically for SIPreview. Timing 

### ofReview The Regions should try to review developing State SIP provisions prior to final approval by the State, when the provisions are at their most malleable stage. In line with this, each Region shouldprovide 

### its Stateswith a copy ofthe implementing guidance associated with this memorandum and a briefing which outlinesthe enforceability requirements for new SIP submittals.If we provide the Stateswith more explicit guidance and make earlier contacts to resolve problems, we can avoid instances where EPA 

### is pressured to settle for a flawed regulation only because it isbetter than its predecessor. Enforceability Criteria Your review should ensure that the rules in question are clearly worded and explicit in their applicability to the regulated sources. Vague, poorly defined rules must become a thing ofthepast. SIP regulations that deviate from this policy are to be disapproved pursuant to Section 110(a) ofthe Clean Air Act, with appropriate references in the C.F.R. Specifically, we are concerned that the following issues be directly addressed. Therule should be clear 

### as to who must comply and by what date. The effect, if any, ofchanged conditions (e.g.,redesignation to attainment) should be set forth. The period over which compliance is determined and the relevant test method to be used shouldbe explicitly noted. Provisions which exempt facilities under certain sizes or emission levels must identify explicitlyhow such size or level is determined. Also, provisions which allow for "alternate equivalent techniques" or "bubbles" or any other sort ofvariation ofthe normal mode of compliance must be completely and explicitly defined and must make clear whether ornot EPA case-by-case approval is required to make such a method 

### of compliance federally effective.

http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ore/aed/mmp/ccomp/c8.html(3of 12) [5/6/02 10: 13:45'AM]

~~ ~~~Review of Stafe lmplernekation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency 

### Conclusion SIPrevisions shouldbe written clearly, with explicit language to implement their intent. The plain language of all rules, as well as the related Federal Register notices, shouldbe complete, clear and consistent with the intended purpose of the rules. Specific review for enforceabilitywill be a further step in improving the overall SIP process and structure. We have attached detailed guidance to assist you in implementing this memorandum.

’ Attachment Addressees: I
Regional Administrators Regions 

### I-X Regional Counsels Regions 

### I-X Air Management Division Directors Regions 

### I, I11 and 

### IX Air and Waste Management Division Director Region 

### I1 Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division Directors Regions 

### IV and VI Air and Radiation Division Director Region V

, Air and Toxics Division Directors Regions 

### VII, VI11 and X

cc:Deputy Regional Administrators Region 

### I-X

htlp:/les.epa.govloeca/orelaedlcomp/ccomp~c~.html (4 of 12) [5/6102 10:13:45AMI

~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency Regional Counsel Air Contacts Regions 

### I-X Air Compliance Branch Chiefs Regions 11,111, IV, V, VI, 

### IX Air Program Branch Chiefs Regions 

### I-X Darryl Tyler, Director Control Programs Development Division Gerald Emison, Director Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

cc: 

### John S. Seitz, Director Stationary Source Compliance Division Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards Alan W. Eckert Associate General Counsel Air Division Michael S.Alushin Associate Enforcement Counsel Air Enforcement Division UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

## MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency FROM:

http:lles.epa.govloecalore/aedlcomplccomplcE.h~ml (5of 12) [516/02 10:13:45 AM]

~~Review ofState Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency Michael S.Aluchin Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air Enforcement Alan W. Eckert Associate General Counsel Air and Radiation Division 

### John S.Seitz, Director Stationary Source Compliance Division Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards TO: Addressees This is to provide implementing guidance on the memorandum issued by 

### J. Craig Potter, Thomas Adams and Francis Blake on this date relating to review of SIP plans and revisions forenforceability and legal sufficiency. We urge you to provide copies of these memoranda to your State Agency Directors. Applicability This guidance applies to all SIPproposals which have not completed the state or local agency legal and procedural requirements for SIPS.For proposals that have not yet been submittedto the Regional office for action, the state and local agencies have forty-five (45) days from the date ofthis guidance to submit suchproposals for review in order for the proposal to be considered under previous procedures. SIP packages currently in Headquarters will undergo the usual review but will be returned to the Regions ifthey contain deficiencieswhich raise significant questions as to whether the regulation would be enforceable. Enforceability Criteria The notion of enforceability encompasses several concepts. At the most basic level, a regulation must be within the statutory authority ofthe promulgating agency. For example, some
http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ore/aed/cornp/ccornp/c8.html(6 of 12) [5/6/02 10:13:45 AM]

~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~

Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions forEnforceability and Legal Sufficiency states have statutory restrictions or prohibitions on the promulgation of regulations more restrictive than the federal counterpart. Although we should generally defer to a State's interpretation ofthe scope of its authority, when there is real doubt we should, at a minimum, consult the responsible State Attorney to be certain the issue has been considered and resolved. When appropriate, an opinion letter should be obtained from the State Attorney General. Please ensure that the following additional issues are directly addressed. Applicability
It should be clear as to whom the regulation applies. The 

### SIP should include a description of the types of affected facilities. The rule should also state in which areas the rule applies (entire state, specific counties, nonattainment, etc.) and advise the reader that State administrative changes require a formal SIPrevision. Also, some regulations might require a certain percentage reduction from sources. The regulation should be clear as 

### to how the baseline from which such a reduction 

### is to be accomplished is set. In some cases it may be necessary for enforcement 

### purposes and independent of Clean Air Act requirements for the SIP to include an inventory of allowable and actual emissions from sources in the affected categories in order to set the above baseline. Time The regulation should specify the required date 

### ofcompliance. 

### Is itupon promulgation, or approval by 

### EPA, or a future date certain? Future effective dates beyond the approved or proposed attainment date should not be allowed unless the related emissionsreductions are not needed for attainment. Also, the regulation should specify the important dates required of any compliance schedule which is required to be submittedby the source to the state. Effect of Changed Conditions If changed circumstances affect an emission limit or other

http:lles.epa.govloeca/orelaedlcotnplccomplc8.himl (7 of 12) [516102 IO:1345AM]Review of Statc lmpleme~tation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency requirement, the effect of changed conditions should be clearly specified. However, you should not approve state regulations which tie the applicability ofVOC control requirements to the nonattainment status ofthe area and allow for automatic nullification of the regulations ifthe area is redesignated to an attainment status. Such regulations should continue to apply if an area is redesignated from nonattainment to attainment status unless a new maintenance demonstration supporting a change in the rule's applicability is submitted and approved by EPA. Standard of Conduct The regulation must be sufficiently specific so that a source is fairly on notice as to the standard it must meet. For example, "alternative equivalent technique" provisions should not be approved without clarification concerning the time period over which equivalency is measured as well as whether the equivalency applies on aper source orper line basis or is facility wide. Incorporation 

### by Reference Some federal regulations are inappropriate for adoption by reference. For example, a state intending to enforce PSD regulations adopted by reference must adopt 

### 40 C.F.R. 852.21, not 

### 40 C.F.R. 551.166, as only the former is written in a form imposing obligations on permit applicants. Even then, changes may have to be made to take into account the difference between the State's situation and EPA's. Transfer Efficiency Some states have attempted to provide particular VOC sources with relaxation's of compliance limits in return for improvements in the efficiency with which the sources use the pollutant producing material. Any rules allowing transfer efficiency to be used in determining compliance must be explicit as to when and under what circumstances a source may use improved transfer efficiency as a substitute for meeting the SIP limit. Such provisions must state whether EPA approval is required on a case-by-case basis. Also, such

http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ore/aed/comp/ccomp/cE.html (8of 12) [5/6/02 10:13:45AMI.. Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency provisions may not simply reference the NSPS auto coating tables for the transfer efficiency. The improvement should be demonstrated through testing and an appropriate test method should be set forth. Implied improvements noted by the NSPS auto coating TE table are not to be accepted at face value. Compliance Periods 

### SIPrules should describe explicitly the compliance time frame associated with each emission limit (e.g. instantaneous, stack test, 3 hour average or daily). The regions should not assume that a lack of specificity implies instantaneous compliance. The time frame 

### or method employed must be sufficient to protect the standard involved. .

Equivalency Provisions and Discretionary Emission Limits Certain provisions allow sources to comply via "bubbles" or "alternate equivalent techniques" or through mechanisms "as approved by the Director." Theseprovisions must make it clear asto whether EPA approval of state granted alternative compliance techniques 

### is required on a case-by-case basis in order for the changed mode of compliance to replace the existing federally enforceable requirement. IfEPA case-bycase approval will not be required, then specific, objective and replicable criteria must be set forth for determining whether the new arrangement is truly equivalent in terms of emission rates and ambient impact. Such procedures must be consistent with the control levels specified in the overall SIP control strategy and must meet other EPA policy requirements, including the "Emissions Trading Policy", 51 Fed. Reg. 43814 (1986), in relevant instances. Recordkeeping The SIP must state explicitly those records which sources are required to keep to assess compliance for the time frame specified in the rule. Records must commensurate with regulatory requirements, and must be available for examination on request. The SIP must give reporting schedules and reporting formats. For example, these rules must require daily records if the SIP requires daily '

http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ore/aed/comp/ccomp/c8.html (9of 12) I516102 10:13:45AM1Review ofState Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency

Conclusion
We appreciate your attention to this matter and hope that the specificreview for enforceability will be a further step in improvingthe overall 

### SIPprocess and structure. To assist you, we have attached an enforceability checklist. This checklist shouldbe included aspart of your technical support packages in all future SIP packages. Please contact the appropriate staff attorney in the Office of General Counsel 

### or the Office ofEnforcement and Compliance Monitoring shouldyou have any questions concerning issues of enforceability in particular instances. Please contact Tom Helms, OAQPS, FTS-629-5526,for other questions concerning implementation ofthis guidance. Attachment compliance. Additionally, the recordkeeping must be required such that failure to do 

### sowould be a separate violation in itself. Test Methods Each compliance provision must list how compliance is to be determined and the appropriate test method to be used. The allowable averaging times shouldbe explicit. Both the test method and averaging times employed must be sufficient to protect the ambient standard involved. Exemptions If sources under a certain size are exempted from control requirements, the regulation must identify how the size 

### of a particular source is to be determined. Malfunction and Variance Provisions Any malfunction orvariance exemptionsmust be clear in their substantive application and in how they are triggered. The rule must specify what exceedances may be excused, how the standard is to be applied, and who makes the determination.

http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ore/aed/comp/ccomp/cE.html (IOof 12) [5/6/02 10:13:45 AM]Reviewof State Implementation Plans and Revisions forEnforceability and Legal Sufficiency


### Addresses: Regional Administrators Regions 

### I-X Regional Counsels Regions I-X Air Management Division Directors Regions I, 111 and IX Air and Waste Management Division Director Region 

### I1 Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division Directors Regions IV and VI Air and Radiation Division Director Region V Air and Toxics Division Directors Regions VII, VI11 and X cc: Deputy Regional Administrators Regions 

### I-X Regional Counsel Air Contacts Regions 

### I-X Air Compliance Branch Chiefs Regions 11,111,IV, V, Vi, and 

### IX Air Program Branch Chiefs Regions I-X Darryl Tyler, Director Control Programs Development Division

http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ore/aed/comp/ccomp/c8.htrnl (11 of 12) [5/6/02 10:13:45AM]