WPC4L .fLXfƛDVuH 5.=P\*e2沃hT+\\?hUqm:O~6ŊrO+sZ{;ǨlP]?, \Z*u7&!\UXE0K>Tt*KNw"sd0bPtsư$ T`:Ͱt`=e^R^( @e'‹ؑ#-W ,i/(Kw{Gc)5FFQfq胊YP|59G3vm > = En817(]Liz.ix{ix'T@;J\_dgni9ȷD!N (# (#  ` G.0 JudicialReview    p    (# (#  I.Background  "l"  ` Foralmost30years,Congresshasfocusedmajoreffortsoncurbinggroundlevel(tropospheric)ozone.In1990,CongressamendedtheCAAtobetteraddress,amongotherthings,continuednonattainmentofthe1hourozoneNationalAmbientAirQualityStandards(NAAQS)andtransportofair +$, pollutantsacrossStateboundaries. ` The1990AmendmentsreflectgeneralawarenessbyCongressthatozoneisaregional,aswellaslocalproblem.OzoneandNOx,oneofitsprecursors,maybetransportedlongdistancesacrossStatelinestocombinewithozoneandprecursorsdownwind,therebyworseningtheozoneproblemsdownwind.Thistransportphenomenonisamajorreasonforthepersistenceoftheozoneproblem,notwithstandingtheimpositionofnumerousemissioncontrols,bothFederalandState,acrossthecountry. ` Section110(a)(2)(D)oftheCAAisoneofthemostimportanttoolsforaddressingtheproblemoftransport.ThissectionstatesthatStatesmustadoptSIPsthatcontainprovisionsprohibitingsourceswithintheStatefromcontributingsignificantlytononattainmentproblemsin,orinterferingwithmaintenanceby,downwindStates.Section110(k)(5)oftheCAAauthorizesEPAtofindthataSIPissubstantiallyinadequatetomeetanyCAArequirement.ItfurtherauthorizesEPAtorequireaStatewithaninadequateSIPtosubmit,withinaspecifiedperiod,aSIPrevisiontocorrecttheinadequacy. ` #XXXX,#XXXXBynoticedatedOctober27,1998,EPAissueditsfinal F)#* ruleundersections110(a)(2)(D)and110(k)(5)NOxSIPcall *$, rulesfindingthatemissionsofNOxfrom22StatesandtheDistrictofColumbiasignificantlycontributetodownwindareasnonattainmentofthe1hourozoneNAAQS(63FR57356).#XXXX@#XXXXIntheNOxSIPcallrule,asmodifiedbytheMarch .  2,2000technicalamendment(65FR11222),EPAalsoestablishedemissionsbudgetsforNOxthateachoftheidentifiedStatesmustmeetthroughenforceableSIPmeasures.TheSIPcallruleaddressedboththe1hourozoneNAAQSinexistencesince1979andarevised8hourNAAQSEPApromulgatedin1997.VariousindustriesandStateschallengedthefinalNOxSIPcallrulebyfilingpetitionsforreviewintheU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheDistrictofColumbia(D.C.Circuit).5 $~XXXX  1       :  ` #XXXX# XXXX TheSeptember24,1998NOxSIPcallrequiredStatesto  submitSIPrevisionsbySeptember30,1999.StatePetitionerschallengingtheNOxSIPcallfiledamotion > requestingtheCourttostaythesubmissionscheduleuntilApril27,2000.Inresponse,inMay1999,theD.C.CircuitissuedastayoftheSIPsubmissiondeadlinependingfurtherorderoftheCourt.Michiganv.EPA,No.981497(D.C. .  Cir.,May25,1999)(ordergrantingstayinpart). ` InaseparatelegalchallengetoEPAsrevisedNAAQSforozone,theD.C.Circuitremandedthe8hourozoneNAAQS.AmericanTruckingAssociations,Inc.v.EPA,175F.3d1027   uponrehearing195F.3d4(D.C.Cir.1999).TheSupremeCourtisconsideringthiscase.PriortopresentingargumentintheSIPcallcase,EPAinformedthecourtthatitwouldstaythe8hourbasisoftheSIPcallandrequestedthatthecourtstayitsconsiderationofthe8hourbasisoftheSIPcallduetotheuncertaintiescreatedbythelitigation.#XXXX#ԀTheEPAindefinitelystayedtheNOxSIPcallas h itappliesforthepurposesofthe8hourNAAQS(65FR56245,September18,2000). ` OnMarch3,2000,thecourtofappealsissuedanopinion,largelyupholdingthe1hourbasisfortheNOxSIPcall.However,thecourtvacatedandremandedtheruleasitappliedtothreeStates!Wisconsin,GeorgiaandMissouriτonthebasisthattherecordforthe1hourstandarddidnotsupportEPAsdeterminationswithrespecttothesethree *$, States.Thecourtalsoremanded,butdidnotvacate,twootherminorissues!thedefinitionofanelectricgeneratingunit,asappliedtocogenerationunits,andthecontrollevelassumedforinternalcombustionengines.XKrXXX. .  #XXX.XKrM'#XXXX  ` OnApril11,2000,inlightofthecourtsfavorable   decision,EPAfiledamotionwiththecourttoliftthestayoftheSIPsubmissiondate.TheEPArequestedthatthecourtliftthestayasofApril27,2000.TheEPArecognized,however,thatatthetimethestaywasissued,Stateshadapproximately4months(128days)remainingtosubmitSIPs.#XXXX'#XXXXԀTherefore,EPAsmotiontoliftthestay  indicatedthatEPAwouldallowStatesuntilSeptember1,2000tosubmitSIPsaddressingtheSIPcall.0 $~X^XXXXXXX^  2      #XXXXn)#XXXXԀ#XXXX*#XXXXOnJune22, rH 2000,theCourtgrantedEPAsrequestinpart.TheCourt orderedthatEPAallowtheStates128daysfromtheJune22,  2000dateoftheordertosubmittheirSIPs.7 $~X^XXXX^XXX^X^XXX^XXXX^  3      #XXXX,+#XXXXԀ#XXXX!-#XXXXTherefore, *  SIPsweredueOctober30,2000.8 $~XXXX  4      ׀Becausethecourtvacated  theruleastoWisconsin,Georgia,andMissouri,theseStateswerenotrequiredtosubmitSIPsbythatdate. #XXXXd-#L =+GH,-Ah('LII.WhatActionisEPATakingToday?    L z(h =+GH,-L ` Today,EPAismakingfindingsoffailuretoofficially x  submitcompletesubmissionstotheirSIPs,includingadoptedrules,inresponsetotheSIPcall.TheStatesthatarereceivingthesefindingsareXXXXVirginia,WestVirginia, |  Alabama,Kentucky,NorthCarolina,SouthCarolina,Tennessee,Illinois,Indiana,Michigan,Ohio,andtheDistrictofColumbia#XXXX0#. TheEPAintendstocontinueworking  withtheseStatessothattheycansubmitapprovableadoptedrulesassoonaspossible.EPAisissuingfindingstodaytohelpensurecontinuedprogressinreducingNOxemissionsintheeasternportionofthecountry.XXXX ` Thesefinding s start s an18monthsanctionsclock;if !  theStatefailstomaketherequiredsubmittalwhichEPA "" determinesiscompletewithinthatperiod,theemissionsoffsetsanctionwillapplyinaccordancewith40CFR51.121(n)and52.31.Theoffsetsanctionrequires#XXXX2#XXXXnewor  X modifiedsourcessubjecttoaCAAsection173newsourcereviewprogramforozonetoobtainreductionsinexistingemissionsina2:1ratiotooffsettheirnewemissions.4 $~XXXX  5      #XXXXf4#XXXXԀIf \  6monthsafterthesanctionisimposed,theStatestillhasnotmadeacompletesubmittalthatEPAhasdeterminediscomplete,limitationsontheapprovalofFederalhighwayfundswillapplyinaccordancewith51.212(a)and52.31. #XXXX5#XXXX 6  Conversely,#XXXX'7#XXXXthe18monthclock,oradditional6monthclock,  stopsandthesanctionswillnottakeeffect ( orwillbelifted)whenEPAfindsthattheStatehasmadeacompleteSIPsubmittalundertheSIPcall.#XXXX7#XXXXԀ#XXXX8#XXXXԀ   `   Inaddition,CAAsection110(c)providesthatEPA d8 promulgateaFIPnolaterthan2yearsafterafindingundersection_179(a) . h  #XXXX8#          Inaddition,CAAsection110(c)providesthatEPAcan h promulgateaFIPimmediatelyaftermakingthefindings,aslateas2yearsaftermakingthefindings,oranytimeinbetween.     PublichealthindownwindStatesdependsonreductionsbeingmadeupwind  ,  anditisimportantthatsourcesinStatesthathavemettheirobligationsunderthe %& NOxSIPcallarenotatacompetitivedisadvantagetosourcesinotherStatessubjecttotheNOxSIPcall.  TheEPAwilltaketheseneedsintoconsiderationasitreviewstakinganyactionregarding_FIP    s._     ` OurgoalistohaveapprovableSIP    sthatmeettherequirementsoftheNOxSIPcall.WeremainreadytoworkwiththeStatestodevelopfullyapprovableSIPs,whichwouldeliminatetheneedforEPAtopromulgateaFIPorreplaceanyFIPthatEPAadopts.TheprocessofdevelopingtheSIPcallrulemakingofferedopportunitiesforcollaboration,andsuchopportunitiesremainastheStatescontinuetodeveloptheirSIPs. ` Recently,EPAsentletterstotheGovernorsoftheaffectedStatesdescribingthestatusoftheStateseffortandthesefindingsinmoredetail.Theselettersareincludedinthedockettothisrulemaking.  >  III.ADMINISTRATIVEREQUIREMENTS      L (*((L 3   3@2*  A  .3  0 `   NoticeandCommentUndertheAdministrativeProcedure "" Act3@@݌^$4$` (#` (# Ќ   ` XXXXThisnoticeisfinalagencyactionbutisnotsubject  && tonoticeandcommentrequirementsoftheAdministrativeProceduresAct(APA),5U.S.C.553(b).TheEPAinvokes,consistentwithpastpractice(forexample,61FR36294), +$, thegoodcauseexceptionpursuanttotheAPA,5U.S.C.553(b)(3)(B).#XXXXA#XXXXԀTheEPAbelievesthatbecauseofthelimited  timeprovidedtomakefindingsoffailuretosubmitandfindingsofincompletenessregardingSIPsubmissionsorelementsofSIPsubmissionrequirements,Congressdidnotintendsuchfindingstobesubjecttonoticeandcommentrulemaking.NoticeandcommentareunnecessarybecausenosignificantEPAjudgmentisinvolvedinmakinganonsubstantivefindingoffailuretosubmitSIPsorelementsofSIPsubmissionsrequiredbytheCAA.Furthermore,providingnoticeandcommentwouldbeimpracticablebecauseofthelimitedtimeprovidedunderthestatuteformakingsuchdeterminations.Finally,noticeandcommentwouldbecontrarytothepublicinterestbecauseitwoulddivertagencyresourcesfromthecriticalsubstantivereviewofcompleteSIPs.See58FR51270,51272,n.17(October1,1993);59FR39832,39853(August4,1994).#XXXXbC#    B.ExecutiveOrder12866(RegulatoryPlanningandReview) "l"  ` ThisactionisexemptfromOBMreviewunderExecutiveOrder12866.  %& C.RegulatoryFlexibilityAct 'p!(  ` UndertheRegulatoryFlexibilityAct(RFA),5U.S.C.etseq.,EPAmustpreparearegulatoryflexibilityanalysis *$, assessingtheimpactonsmallentitiesofanyrulesubjecttothenoticeandcommentrulemakingrequirements.Becausethisactionisexemptfromsuchrequirements,asdescribedunder(A)above,itisnotsubjecttotheRFA.  D.UnfundedMandatesReformActof1995    ` TitleIIoftheUnfundedMandatesReformActof1995(UMRA),P.L.1044,establishesrequirementsforFederalagenciestoassesstheeffectsoftheirregulatoryactionsonState,local,andtribalgovernmentsandtheprivatesector.Undersection202oftheUMRA,EPAgenerallymustprepareawrittenstatement,includingacostbenefitanalysis,forproposedandfinalruleswith FederalmandatesthatmayresultinexpenditurestoState,local,andtribalgovernments,intheaggregate,ortotheprivatesector,of$100millionormoreinany1year.BeforepromulgatinganEPAruleforwhichawrittenstatementisneeded,section205oftheUMRAgenerallyrequiresEPAtoidentifyandconsiderareasonablenumberofregulatoryalternativesandadopttheleastcostly,mostcosteffectiveorleastburdensomealternativethatachievestheobjectivesoftherule. ` BeforeEPAestablishesanyregulatoryrequirementsthatmaysignificantlyoruniquelyaffectsmallgovernments, *$, includingtribalgovernments,itmusthavedevelopedundersection203oftheUMRAasmallgovernmentagencyplan.Theplanmustprovidefornotifyingpotentiallyaffectedsmallgovernments,enablingofficialsofaffectedsmallgovernmentstohavemeaningfulandtimelyinputinthedevelopmentofEPAregulatoryproposalswithsignificantFederalintergovernmentalmandates,andinforming,educating,andadvisingsmallgovernmentsoncompliancewiththeregulatoryrequirements. ` TodaysrulecontainsnoFederalmandates(undertheregulatoryprovisionsoftitleIIoftheUMRA)forState,local,ortribalgovernmentsortheprivatesector.ThevariousCAAprovisionsdiscussedinthisnoticerequiretheStatestosubmitSIPs.ThisnoticemerelyprovidesafindingthattheStateshavenotmetthoserequirements.Thisnoticedoesnot,byitself,requireanyparticularactionbyanyState,local,ortribalgovernment,orbytheprivatesector. ` Forthesamereasons,EPAhasdeterminedthatthisrulecontainsnoregulatoryrequirementsthatmightsignificantlyoruniquelyaffectsmallgovernments.   'p!( L *J(((LE. ` SubmissiontoCongressandtheGeneralAccounting F)#*  ` Office *$,  ` Undersection801(a)(1)(A)oftheAPA,asamendedbytheSmallBusinessRegulatoryEnforcementFairnessActof1996(SBREFA),EPAsubmitted,bytheeffectivedateofthisrule,areportcontainingthisruleandotherrequiredinformationtotheU.S.Senate,theU.S.HouseofRepresentativesandtheComptrollerGeneraloftheGeneralAccountingOffice.Thisruleisnota majorruleasdefinedbyAPA804(2),asamended.    ` TheEPAisissuingthisactionasarulemaking.There `  isaquestionastowhetherthisactionisaruleof particularapplicabilityunder804(3)(A)oftheAPAasamendedbySBREFA,andthusexemptfromthecongressionalsubmissionrequirements,becausethisruleappliesonlytonamedStates.Inthiscase,EPAhasdecidedtoerronthesideofsubmittingthisruletoCongress,butwillcontinuetoconsiderthisissueofthescopeoftheexemptionforrulesof particularapplicability. 3   3W2J  F  .3  0 `   PaperworkReductionAct3WW݌"l"` (#` (# Ќ   ` ThisruledoesnotcontainanyinformationcollectionrequirementswhichrequireOMBapprovalunderthePaperworkReductionAct(44U.S.C.3501etseq.). 3   3Y2J  G  .3  0 `   JudicialReview3YGY݌F)#*` (#` (# Ќ   ` UnderCAAsection307(b)(1),apetitiontoreview *$, todaysactionmaybefiledintheCourtofAppealsfortheDistrictofColumbiawithin60daysof[insertdateofpublication].    X  ` XXXXD,!ated:  \  ______________________________RobertPerciasepeAssistantAdministrator#XXXXZ# 6