Opinion ID: 672915
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Kamp v. Hernandez

Text: 27 Our decision is controlled by Kamp v. Hernandez, 752 F.2d 1444 (9th Cir.), modified, 778 F.2d 527 (1985). Kamp involved Arizona's SIP for combatting sulphur dioxide emissions from copper smelters. Arizona had submitted plans for controlling sulphur dioxide. The EPA originally proposed to give conditional approval to Arizona's submissions. The EPA said it would approve Arizona's plan on the condition that Arizona submit to the EPA in the near future a plan for controlling fugitive emissions. 752 F.2d at 1449. However, in its final ruling, the EPA dropped its proposed conditional approval in favor of combining full, unconditional approval of the implementation plan with a requirement that Arizona promulgate fugitive emission regulations. Id. The EPA informed Arizona that if it failed to promulgate adequate and timely regulations, EPA would do so. Id. 28 A citizen of Arizona challenged the EPA's action, arguing that the SIP that resulted from EPA approval of Arizona's plan was improper under the CAA because the state plan as approved was incomplete. Specifically, the plan lacked regulations controlling fugitive emissions. The citizen argued that the inadequacy of the plan mandated that the EPA issue a FIP. We rejected that argument as follows: 29 [A]n implementation plan need not be in absolute compliance with Sec. 110(a)(2) [42 U.S.C. Sec. 7410(a)(2) (1988) ] before it receives federal approval. EPA can approve a substantially complete implementation plan if it has assurance that the state will promptly complete the plan and if the approval of the incomplete plan does not circumvent any of the Act's substantive requirements.... [T]he demands of its difficult and complex job require that EPA be given some flexibility to approve nearly complete implementation plans. 30 752 F.2d at 1455 (citations and internal quotations omitted). In Kamp, we affirmed EPA approval of Arizona's plan for sulphur dioxide because the plan was substantially complete. Accordingly, we held that such incremental approval of the SIP was in accord with the CAA and that no FIP was required. Id. at 1454-55. 31 The 1982 Conditional Approvals were not substantively different from the EPA approval at issue in Kamp. As the 1982 Conditional Approvals state, conditional approval may be given only when the deficiency in the plan is not judged to be major. 47 Fed.Reg. at 19327 (May 5, 1982); see 47 Fed.Reg. at 29532-33 (July 7, 1982) (directing that the May 5, 1982 notice be used as a reference in reviewing the July 7, 1982 notice). Accordingly, the 1982 Conditional Approvals note only minor deficiencies in the Pima and Maricopa plans. 47 Fed.Reg. at 19327-28 (May 5, 1982) ([O]nly minor deficiencies remain in the [plan].); 47 Fed.Reg. at 29533 (July 7, 1982) ([T]he ... [plan] contains only minor deficiencies....). Neither Tucson nor Phoenix challenges these characterizations. Because the 1982 Conditional Approvals addressed plans that were substantially complete within the meaning of Kamp, the approvals were proper. Upon proper approval by the EPA, the plans became part of Arizona's SIP, now binding on the cities. 32 That the EPA opted in Kamp to call its action final rather than conditional is irrelevant in this case. The plan in Kamp was just as complete or incomplete as was the plan in the instant case. Whether the extra work the state has to do is called complying with a condition in order to obtain EPA approval so that the EPA will not issue a FIP or complying with a requirement so that the EPA will not issue a FIP is really irrelevant to whether the approved portions of the incomplete plan become part of the state's SIP. The EPA in Kamp unilaterally changed conditional approval to final approval with requirements without changing any substantive provisions of the plan and without requiring anything more of Arizona than it would have if it had conditionally approved Arizona's plan. The EPA's ability to make this change implies that the two modes of plan approval make no difference as to whether the approved portions of the plan actually become part of the state's SIP. 33