SIP and the requirements of section 11 0 (a) (2) (E) (ii) of the Clean Air Act as an element of the state's 

SIP. More specifically, 110 (a) (2XEXii) relates to the state's meeting requirements of section 128 of the 

Clean Air Act for the structure of its board having jurisdiction for administrative review of permits and 

enforcement actions. EPA's preliminary review of the Tennessee SIP suggests there a concern as to 

whether the State's SIP meets certain requirements pertaining to state boards from Section 128, because 

two of the provisions of subsection (a) (1) of section 128 are not adequately addressed. Section 128 reads 

as follows (underlining added): 

5 7428. STATE BOARDS 

(a) LLI Not later than the date one year after August 7,1977, each applicable implementation plan 

shall contain requirements that- 

(1) any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this chapter shall 

have at least a maioritv of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any simificant 

portion of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders under this chapter, and 

(2) any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an 

executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed. (Note this provision is addressed by state 

rule chapter 1200-3-17, efective at state level and approved to the SIP.) EPA is under a legal deadline to 
approval for infrastructure sub-element 1 lO(a)(2)(E)(ii),. Tennessee is committing to establish 

requirements in law under various options- administrative rulemaking, statutory amendment, executive 

order, or a combination of methods - to bring its SIP into conformity with the requirements of 5 128 of 

the Clean Air Act. In order to effectuate this commitment, Tennessee would take the following actions: 

1) Tennessee would designate at least a majority of positions of the current structure of the air 

pollution control board as meeting the requirement of serving in the "public interest" under the 

state's understanding of this term. 

2) Tennessee would also establish requirements to ensure that at least a majority of board members 

"do not derive any significant portion of personal income from persons subject to permits or 

enforcement orders" based on the state's view of the applicability of this term. 

a) Action 2 would be subject to exceptions for mayors of counties and municipalities to not be 

disqualified tiom appointment and service as members of its air pollution control board based 

on the income from a salary paid by the local government for which they were primarily 

employed. Although such local elected officials would work for "persons" which are 

"subject to" permits or enforcement in the strictest sense, Tennessee feels as a matter of its 

public policy that these board members would be accountable to the electorate and the 
if you should have further questions, please contact me or Quincy Styke at (615)-532-0525 or (615)-532- 

0562. 

Director 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

Copies to: Robert Martineau , Commissioner; 

Joe Sanders, General Counsel 

Division of Air Pollution Control, Central Files 

Pert of the need for these exceptions in 2(a) and (b) are driven by an understanding of "subject to" as meaning both potential and actual issues. 

1200-3-17 already has conflict -of-interest pmvisions which would operate to disqualify a board member 6om serving if a particular case 

involved hidher particular institution or government. So, this is a separate issue.