08/29/89
Revised Guidance on Enforcement of State Implementation Plan>
Violations Involving Proposed SIP Revisions>
Clean Air Act Compendium Document No. E.32.
MEMORANDUM August 29, 1989
SUBJECT: Revised Guidance on Enforcement of State Implementation Plan
Violations Involving Proposed SIP Revisions
FROM: /s/ Terrell E. Hunt
Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
/s/ John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Addressees
Attached is final guidance on the above-referenced topic. We issued
this guidance in draft on April 26, 1989. The final policy reflects the
comments we received in response to the draft as well as relevant judicial
developments that have occurred between the dates of the draft and final
document.
This guidance is being issued to help alleviate the uncertainty which
currently affects decisions to initiate enforcement actions against sources
with pending SIP revisions, particularly sources of volatile organic
compounds ( VOCs ). Because of the importance of the ozone non-attainment
problem currently confronting EPA, it is crucial for the Agency to maintain
an active docket of VOC enforcement actions. This guidance can help Regions
target enforcement actions to situations where the facts are favorable to
the Agency's position in litigation.
On June 7, 1989, after the draft guidance was issued, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit issued its opinion in United States v.
General Motors Corp. ( Framingham, Mass. ) No. 88-1799. This decision,
which found that EPA has four months in which to act on proposed SIP
revisions but that failure to act does not raise an enforcement bar, has
been incorporated into the guidance.
-2-
Some commenters on the draft guidance suggested that, instead of waiting
to refer a case affected by a particular proposed SIP revision until after
the proposed disapproval of that SIP revision is published in the Federal
Register, it might be preferable to refer the case, but hold off filing
until the disapproval is published. We have not adapted this change because
it would place a substantial burden on the Department of Justice ( DOJ ) to
scrutinize cases to make sure that they are ready to be filed. Every case
referred for enforcement action should be ready to be filed immediately.
Other commenters noted that we had not discussed the situation where a
proposed SIP revision is submitted to EPA after a case is referred but
before it is filed. We have added a discussion of this situation. We have
not discussed the situation where a proposed SIP revision is submitted to
EPA after a case is filed because it seems apparent that this should not be
cause for dismissing a filed enforcement action.
This guidance supersedes the "Guidance on Evaluating Clean Air Act
Enforcement of State Implementation Plan Violations Involving Proposed State
Revisions," dated December 31, 1987. Please insert this document in its
place at Part E, Document #32 of the Clean Air Act Policy Compendium.
Please address any questions on this policy to Judy Katz (LE-134A), 382-
2843.
Attachment
Addressees:
Regional Counsels
Regions I-X
Regional Counsel Air Contacts
Regions I-X
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, and IX
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division Directors
Regions IV and VI
-3-
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, and X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions I-X
Alan Eckert
Office of General Counsel
David Buente
Environmental Enforcement Section
U.S. Department of Justice
Robert Van Heuvelen, Assistant Chief
Environmental Enforcement Section
U.S. Department of Justice
MEMORANDUM August 29, 1989
SUBJECT: Revised Guidance on Enforcement of State Implementation Plan
Violations Involving Proposed SIP Revisions
FROM: /s/ Terrell E. Hunt
Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
/s/ John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Addressees
In light of the Fifth Circuit decision in American Cyanamid and other
recent decisions across the country which have interpreted Clean Air Act
time limits for processing State Implementation Plan ( "SIP" ) revisions, we
are providing some guidance to help EPA decide on appropriate enforcement
responses where SIP revisions are pending. Where Regions have decided to
pursue a judicial civil action, this guidance also suggests how to develop
an effective SIP enforcement action. Appendix A of this guidance describes
recent cases that have ruled on this issue.
We have also attached, as Appendix B, a case evaluation form for
assessment of each case. The format is designed to allow EPA Headquarters
to assess national trends in SIP revisions. Please evaluate the facts of
individual cases based on the criteria in this guidance, then complete and
include the form with all litigation reports in SIP enforcement cases. The
evaluation forms should be submitted to the Department of Justice as well as
to EPA. They need not be included with pre-referral packages.
-2-
I. Background
Section 110 of the Clean Air Act requires each state to prepare a SIP
for the attainment and maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, and to submit the SIP to EPA for approval. The Administrator is
required by Section 110(a)(2) to act on initial submissions within four
months. Section 110(a)(3) provides the procedure for EPA action on SIP
revisions, but has no similar explicit deadline for EPA action. As
discussed more fully below, some federal circuit courts have concluded that
the four-month deadline applicable to initial SIP submissions applies as
well to SIP revisions. Although other courts have suggested that this time
limitation does not apply to SIP revisions, the trend has been for courts to
find that the four month limit applies.
The Act authorizes the Administrator to initiate enforcement proceedings
against any person in violation of any requirement of an applicable SIP,
i.e., the implementation plan, or the most recent revision thereto, which
has been approved by EPA. In the past few years, Federal circuit courts
have limited Section 120 and section 113 enforcement when final EPA action
on a SIP revision has been pending for more than four months.
EPA currently reviews approximately 150 to 200 SIP revisions each
calendar year. The review of each of these revisions routinely requires
more than four months to complete. Under EPA's current workload model, a
final SIP revision decision is scheduled to be published within 14 months of
submission. In fact, however, less than 50% of these revisions are
processed within fourteen months, and some revisions have taken four to five
years to process. Although delays have often resulted from the submission
by states of incomplete SIP revision packages, internal delays at EPA also
affect the timing. Additionally, OMB review of proposals to disapprove
submitted revisions may cause further delays in the process.
Even with the administrative steps EPA has recently taken to streamline
and further standardize the SIP review process, or any possible new
legislation setting a statutory time period for EPA review which is longer
than four months, cases will continue to be affected by pending SIP
revisions. The Agency's workload can be expected to increase as a result of
SIP calls for ozone nonattainment areas, new SIPs resulting from NAAQS
revisions ( e.g., PM10 ), and SIP revisions contemplated by proposed
legislation. In addition, SIP revisions can be expected to increase as a
defensive strategy to side-track enforcement in light of recent adverse
judicial interpretation. Therefore, addressing proposed SIP revisions and
the SIP revision process will become important considerations in pending and
future air enforcement cases.
-3-
II. Guidance on Referring Cases Affected by SIP Revisions
The following factors should be considered during the determination of
whether to refer a civil action. Some are clear-cut matters and some
involve the weighing of equitable circumstances:
A. SIP revision approval is likely.
If a Region after reviewing a formal state submittal or a submittal
provided for parallel processing, is able to determine that it will probably
approve a pending SIP revision which would authorize the source's existing
operations, there is very little likelihood that a court would either order
compliance with more stringent existing limits or assess substantial
penalties for emissions unless the defendant exceeds the limits allowed in
the revised SIP. Therefore, it is unlikely that a complaint would be filed
as a result of a referral seeking either injunctive relief or penalties in
this situation. Enforcement resources would be better directed to other
cases. However, if a Region determines that an important deterrent purpose
would be served by pursuing a penalties-only enforcement action for a source
in this category, the referral may be made.
B. Fifth Circuit cases.
The Court of Appeals decision in American Cyanamid ( See Appendix A )
was not appealed. Therefore, enforcement actions against sources located
within the Fifth Circuit's jurisdiction should be pursued only in factually
different circumstances. The Region should not seek Section 120 penalties
in administrative or judicial proceedings until EPA has published at least
one final disapproval of a SIP revision in the Federal Register. However,
if Section 120 enforcement is being delayed by successive proposed
revisions, it can proceed after denying the first revision. The successive
submittals would be a new problem not addressed by the court. A Region
might also refer cases based upon other factors not adversely decided in
American Cyanamid; and it might refer cases for Section 113 proceedings,
which, unlike Section 120, allow consideration of equitable factors in the
assessment of penalties. We urge you to consult with the Air Enforcement
Division and Department of Justice attorneys as Fifth Circuit cases are
considered for referral.
C. No Compliance with Proposed SIP Revision.
If the source has not materially complied with the proposed SIP
revision, the case is a reasonable candidate for referral even before the
Region acts on a pending SIP revision. A court may be persuaded that
penalties are appropriate. The appropriate
-4-
injunctive relief should be analyzed in the litigation report with
modifications to be determined at the time of settlement or judicial
decision.
D. No Proposed Revision Submitted to EPA.
Where federal approval of a SIP revision is required and the state has
not submitted a proposed SIP revision, e.g., a nongeneric bubble, then there
is no reason to delay enforcement. 1/
1/ EPA ought to inform both the State and the affected source for source-
specific revisions that EPA believes the SIP revision requires formal
Federal approval, where there is a defensible legal basis for EPA's
position.
Conversely, if the source complies with a generic bubble which has been
approved by the State, and EPA agrees that the state's bubble approval
authority is generic, no enforcement action should be undertaken. If EPA
has not received a formal SIP revision submittal because the State is still
processing the proposal and has not requested EPA to review the revision
pursuant to the parallel processing procedure or an incomplete submittal was
returned to the State, the case may be referred for enforcement. 2/
2/ Where EPA has received only an informational package, the Region ought
to notify immediately the state and the affected source ( in the case of
a source specific proposal ) that the package is not a formal submittal,
and that enforcement action may commence against the source unless
parallel processing is requested.
The litigation report should discuss any known pending state action on a
SIP revision if the matter otherwise merits such action. Likewise, if a
Region refers a case and then subsequently receives a proposed SIP revision
before the case has been filed by DOJ, there is no reason to withhold filing
the case unless the Region determines that the SIP is likely to be approved.
E. SIP Revision Disapproval by Region.
As discussed earlier, courts have differed about the need for final
Agency action before an enforcement action may be commenced. Where the
Region plans to disapprove a SIP revision, we recommend that the Region
refer a case for enforcement after the proposed disapproval has been
published in the Federal Register unless a serious endangerment to health
will result from a delay. If a serious health risk exists, the case should
be referred after the Regional Administrator acts on the package proposing
disapproval and the Regional SIP staff have discussed
-5-
all issues with the appropriate Headquarters offices. Other factors
outlined in the equitable consideration section of the December 31, 1987,
guidance also should be considered.
F. Equitable Considerations.
Equitable considerations bear on the decision to refer an enforcement
action when a SIP revision is pending with the Region. Since no court has
held that EPA should be barred from seeking injunctive relief when a SIP
revision is pending, it may, in appropriate circumstances, be desirable to
refer an action for injunctive relief. For example, if imminent and
substantial endangerment to health exists in any jurisdiction, including the
Fifth Circuit, enforcement should be undertaken regardless of the status of
the SIP revision. Similarly, as discussed above, a case should be referred
after the Regional Administrator acts to propose disapproval of a SIP
revision but before it is published in the Federal Register if a serious
health risk exists.
Additional equitable factors which bear on the decision to refer a case
include the actual SIP revision review period, the timing of the SIP
revision submittal in relation to any preliminary enforcement procedures
( i.e., whether the submittal appears to be a dilatory tactic employed to
impede enforcement action ), the source's ability to comply with the
applicable SIP without great expense and difficulty, and the cooperation of
the source in providing accurate information and endeavoring to comply with
air requirements. Many of the above factors may pertain to a case and
should be evaluated along with the source's willingness to negotiate in
assessing the appropriate enforcement action. We also recommend that you
consult with the Air Enforcement Division and Department of Justice before
referring a case based only on these equitable factors.
IV. Other Considerations
In order to assess a case for referral, the Regional attorneys will have
to consult with the Region's SIP analysts. We recommend that this be
undertaken with an awareness of the Seventh Circuit decision in Bethlehem
Steel Corp. v. EPA, 638 F.2d 994 ( 7th Cir. 1980 ).
The Case Evaluation Sheet with definitions of its data points has been
provided to assist you in ensuring that the relevant information has been
obtained for your evaluation. This data will be used for national
evaluations of all SIP enforcement cases. We therefore ask that you
complete the evaluation form for all SIP enforcement actions regardless of
whether a revision is pending at the time of referral.
-6-
V. Summary
In summary, we recommend that enforcement be initiated when one of the
following set of circumstances exist: 1) the source is not in compliance
with the pending SIP revision, 2) no SIP revision has been submitted to EPA,
3) the ( proposed ) disapproval of the SIP revision has been published in
the Federal Register ( except for the Fifth Circuit where final disapproval
is needed ), or 4) equitable considerations mandate action. We recommend
that a Region concentrate on these cases rather than cases where a SIP
revision approval is likely, or where the merits of the SIP revision have
not been addressed by the Region.
Our staff will be available to discuss specific cases with you. We
appreciate your assistance in considering these additional factors in your
case evaluation. Please contact us, or Judy Katz, Air Enforcement Division,
(FTS 382-2843), if you have any questions regarding this policy.
Attachment
Addressees:
Regional Counsels
Regions I-X
Regional Counsel Air Contacts
Regions I-X
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, and IX
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, and X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions I-X
Alan Eckert
Office of General Counsel
Appendix A
Judicial Interpretation of the SIP Revision Procedure
Several courts have scrutinized SIP revision procedures and, in some
instances, have also considered whether SIP revision timing affects
enforcement. These judicial determinations should be considered by a Region
during an evaluation of a case prior to its referral. The following
judicial decisions have addressed the issue of the SIP revision procedure.
In Duquesne Light Co. v. EPA, 698 F.2d 456 ( D.C. Cir. 1983 ), the D.C.
Circuit held that SIP revisions must be acted upon by the Administrator
within four months and that Section 120 administrative penalties may be
assessed but collection would be "held in abeyance" for the period beyond
the four month deadline after a request for a SIP revision is submitted to
EPA. If EPA later disapproves the proposed revision, it may then collect
the penalty from the date of the four-month deadline, with interest.
Council of Commuter Organizations v. Gorsuch, 683 F.2d 648 ( 2nd Cir.
1982 ) and Council of Commuter Organizations v. Thomas, 799 F.2d 879 ( 2nd
Cir. 1986 ) were cases where the Second Circuit Court of Appeals used the
four-month requirement for review of initial SIPs as an analogy and stated
that EPA was required to approve or disapprove SIP revisions within four
months. The Second Circuit did not, however, discuss whether the pendency
of a SIP revision for more than four months impinges on EPA's authority to
enforce a provision of the applicable SIP. Instead, the court stated that
the appropriate remedy for requiring an EPA decision within four months was
a citizen's suit.
In United States v. National Steel Corp., 767 F.2d 1176 ( 6th Cir.
1985 ), the Sixth Circuit accepted EPA's interpretation that the four month
rule in the Act applies only to EPA review of general state plans and not to
revisions.
The Northern District of California, in Dunn-Edwards v. Thomas, C.A. No.
C-87-3157 MHP ( N.D. Cal. August 4, 1987 ), noted in dictum that there was
no express statutory deadline for EPA action on SIP revisions. The Court
did not decide whether EPA delays impinged on Section 113 enforcement. It
distinguished American Cyanamid ( see below ) and Duquesne Light as
involving penalty assessments pursuant to Section 120 rather than Section
113. The court dismissed an action by paint manufacturers to enjoin EPA
from taking initial steps pursuant to Section 113 to enforce a SIP where a
proposed revision had been pending at EPA for more than four months.
Although the court did not decide
-2-
whether the pendency of the SIP revision for more than four months would bar
issuance of a Section 113(a) administrative order or initiation of a Section
113(b) judicial enforcement action, the Court refused to "rescind" the
Notices of Violation which EPA issued to the companies.
The Fifth Circuit refused to adopt the D.C. Circuit Court Duquesne Light
reasoning rule regarding the effect of delay past four months in a Section
120 proceeding. In American Cyanamid Co. v. EPA, 810 F.2d 493, 500 ( 5th
Cir. 1987 ), the Court held that EPA may not collect Section 120
administrative penalties for violations of an applicable SIP during the
period "between 1) four months after a state submits and 2) the date EPA
rejects the revision." The Court also held that EPA may not "commence" a
Section 120 proceeding to collect the economic benefit of noncompliance with
the applicable SIP, other than to issue a notice of noncompliance, once four
months have passed without EPA action on a pending revision. After EPA
ultimately rejects a proposed revision, it may commence a Section 120
proceeding. The court stated that it had not prohibited EPA from collecting
noncompliance penalties from the date of a notice of noncompliance until
four months after the state submitted a proposed SIP revision and then
resuming noncompliance penalties for the period after EPA rejected the
State's proposed revision. Neither Duquesne Light Co. v. EPA, supra, nor
American Cyanamid Co. v. EPA, supra, pertained to an injunctive action.
The first case to consider whether EPA can bring a Section 113 judicial
enforcement action when a SIP revision has been pending for longer than four
months was U.S. v. Alcan Foil Products, Civil No. C-87-0434-L-B ( W.D. Ky.
March 15, 1988 ). The court held that EPA was required to review a pending
SIP revision within four months of its submittal and that the Agency could
not bring a Section 113 judicial enforcement action for violation of a
federally approved SIP until after EPA acts on any SIP revision submitted to
EPA by the State. The amount of penalties would be determined in accordance
with the equities of each case. The Alcan court held that EPA could not
enforce the standards of the proposed revision because it had not taken
final action on those standards. The court stated that Kentucky and EPA
must resolve the state-federal factual dispute about whether Alcan complied
with the proposed SIP revision before EPA could commence an enforcement
action against Alcan for any violations of that SIP revision if it were
approved. The court did not address the merits of EPA's claim of a
violation of the Clean Air Act. EPA has filed an appeal to the Sixth
Circuit.
-3-
In U.S. v. Arkwright, Inc., C.A. No. 87-2000-D ( D. N.H. June 10,
1988 ) the court held that EPA was required to review a pending SIP revision
within four months, but that the Agency's failure to make a final decision
on the SIP did not bar this simultaneous Section 113 enforcement proceeding
for the violation of a SIP. The defendant had to comply with the existing
federally approved SIP until it was formally revised by EPA. The court also
denied the defendant's motion to dismiss based on its equitable estoppel
defense, holding that dismissal was unwarranted factually and against public
policy. The court adopted the penalty collection procedure established in
Duquesne Light, requiring EPA to reject the SIP revision before it could
collect the civil penalty. The penalty was to be assessed for the time
period from four months after submission of a SIP revision. The court
denied EPA's motion for clarification in which it sought penalties from the
day that defendant first violated the SIP rather than from four months after
submission of a SIP revision. EPA had issued the notice of violation in
this case sooner than four months after EPA received the proposed SIP
revision and has now formally disapproved the proposed SIP revision.
In U.S. v. General Motors Corp., ( Framingham, Mass. ) No. 88-1799 ( 1st
Cir. June 7, 1989 ), the First Circuit reviewed the opinion of the U.S.
District Court in Massachusetts which held that EPA had four months to act
on proposed SIP revisions and that, if the Agency failed to act within that
time, it was prohibited from bringing or continuing an enforcement
proceeding until it took final action on the pending SIP revision. The
First Circuit reversed the District Court's opinion. While finding that EPA
did have four months to act on proposed SIP revisions, the First Circuit
held that Agency inaction on the SIP revision did not bar enforcement
action. Rather, the Court held, EPA delay in acting on proposed SIP
revisions and the reasons for the delay should be considered by courts as
equitable factors contributing to the determination of an appropriate civil
penalty under Section 113. The court's opinion did not address availability
of injunctive relief.
In arriving at its decision, the First Circuit attempted to strike a
balance between the approaches taken by the American Cyanamid court on one
side and the Duquesne Light court on the other.
Many courts which have not directly addressed the deadline issue have
held or stated in dicta that revisions to SIPs are ineffective without EPA
approval. See Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 92 (1975) ( "This litigation,
however, is carried out on the polluter's time not the public's, for during
( the pendency of a SIP revision ) the original regulations remain in
effect, and the polluter's failure to comply may subject him to a variety of
-4-
enforcement procedures" ); NRDC v. EPA, 507 F.2d 905, 915 ( 9th Cir. 1974 )
( "...until any variance is sanctioned by the EPA, any source operating in
contravention of a state implementation plan that has been approved by that
Agency is subject to forced compliance at the instance of the EPA" );
Metropolitan Washington Coalition for Clean Air v. District of Columbia, 511
F.2d 809, 813 ( D.C. Cir. 1985 ) ( "A requirement of EPA approval prior to
effectuation of any proposed revision is thus essential to prevent critical
irreparable delays which the Administrator is not empowered to authorize
under the less rigorous revision provisions or which do not meet the
standards for revision" ); Getty Oil Co. ( Eastern Operations ) v.
Ruckelshaus, 342 F. Supp. 1006 ( D. Del. 1972 ), rem'd on other grounds 467
F.2d 349 ( 3d Cir. 1972 ); United States v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, 818
F.2d 1077 ( 3d Cir. 1987 ) ( pending bubble application at a state agency is
not effective until approved by the state agency and EPA and cannot be a
basis for extending compliance schedule in consent decree ); United States
v. Ford Motor Co., 814 F.2d 1099, 1103 ( 6th Cir. 1987 ) ( "the original
emission limit remains fully enforceable until a revision or variance is
approved by both the State and EPA" ); Ohio Environmental Council v. U.S.
District Court., 565 F.2d 393, 398 ( 6th Cir. 1977 ) ( "If a plan became
unenforceable every time such a revision became a possibility, the entire
enforcement procedure of the Clean Air Act would be crippled" ); United
States v. West Penn Power Co., 460 F. Supp.1305 ( W.D. Pa. 1978 ).
Appendix B
CASE EVALUATION FORM FOR STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ( SIP ) CASES
1. SOURCE NAME: ________________________________________
2. SOURCE LOCATION:_____________________________________
3. REGION:_______________________
4. FEDERAL COURT: CIRCUIT _______________ DISTRICT ____________
SIP REVISION
5. HAS A PROPOSED SIP REVISION BEEN SUBMITTED TO EPA? __________
6. IF NOT, A) DOES THE REGION BELIEVE THAT THE STATE HAS GENERIC
AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THE TYPE OF REVISION AT ISSUE?* ________
B) DOES THE STATE BELIEVE THAT IT HAS GENERIC AUTHORITY TO APPROVE
THE TYPE OF REVISION AT ISSUE?
7. IF A SIP REVISION HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY EPA, IS IT A FORMAL
SUBMITTAL? ____________ ( IS IT BEING PARALLEL PROCESSED? ______ )
OR IS IT INFORMATIONAL?______________
8. IF IT IS A FORMAL SUBMITTAL, HAS THE DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS
BEEN MADE? _____________
9. IF COMPLETE, PROVIDE DATE RECEIVED. ______________
10. IF INCOMPLETE, A) WAS IT RETURNED TO THE STATE? __________________
DATE RETURNED: ______________________
11. IS SIP REVISION APPROVAL LIKELY? ________________
-2-
12. DOES EPA BELIEVE THE SOURCE COMPLIES WITH THE PROPOSED
SIP REVISION?______________
13. DOES THE STATE BELIEVE THE SOURCE COMPLIES WITH THE
PROPOSED SIP REVISION? ______________
14. STATUS OF SIP REVISION SUBMITTED TO EPA:
STATUS OUTCOME DATE
( Approval / Disapproval )
PROPOSAL TO HQ ________________ _______________
PROPOSAL TO OMB ________________ _______________
PROPOSAL PUBLISHED ________________ _______________
FINAL TO REGION ________________ _______________
FINAL TO HQ ________________ _______________
FINAL TO OMB ________________ _______________
FINAL PUBLISHED ________________ _______________
ENFORCEMENT
15. DATES(S) RECEIVED VIOLATION INFORMATION: ____________________
and TYPES OF INFORMATION RECEIVED: __________________________
16. DATE(S) OF NOTICE(S) OF VIOLATION: __________________________
DATE(S) OF NOTICE(S) OF NONCOMPLIANCE: ______________________
EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS
17. WHAT RELIEF DOES EPA SEEK? _________________________________
PENALTY: ______________ INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: _________________
18. IS THERE AN IMMINENT AND SUBSTANTIAL ENDANGERMENT TO PUBLIC
HEALTH? ___________________
DESCRIBE: ___________________________________________________
19. IS THERE A SERIOUS RISK TO PUBLIC HEALTH? ___________________
DESCRIBE: ________________________
20. POLLUTION INFORMATION:
(a) MAJOR SOURCE: _______________________
(b) VOLUME OF EMISSIONS: (i) ACTUAL EMISSIONS: ___________TPY
(ii) ALLOWED EMISSIONS:___________TPY
(c) TYPE OF POLLUTANT: ____________________________________
(d) EXTENT OF VIOLATION: (i) ACTUAL EMISSIONS: ___________
(ii) EMISSION LIMITATION:_________
(e) NONATTAINMENT AREA:____________________________________
(f) EXTENSION AREA:________________________________________
21. ESTIMATE COST OF COMPLIANCE OPTIONS:_______________________
22. COOPERATION BY THE SOURCE
(a) IS SOURCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING SIP? ___________
(b) IS SOURCE SEEKING ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF RESOLVING THE
NONCOMPLIANCE? _____________________
23. OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS: ___________________________________
-1-
DEFINITIONS FOR CASE EVALUATION FORM FOR SIP CASES
1. Name of company / entity violating the Clean Air Act.
2. City, County and State where source is located.
3. EPA Region
4. ( See attached list of Circuit Courts )
SIP REVISION
5-13. Self-explanatory
14. Indicate whether the revision has been formally
recommended for approval or disapproval and the date of
the decision or publication.
ENFORCEMENT
15. List dates EPA received information of violation(s) and
indicate whether information was provided by the source
or an air pollution control agency, or as a result of an
inspection by EPA.
16. Self-explanatory.
EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS
17-18. Self-explanatory.
-2-
POLLUTION INFORMATION
19(a). A Class A Source; including Class A1: Any stationary source
whose actual or potential emissions while operating at design
capacity equal at least 100 tons per year, and Class A2: Any
stationary source whose uncontrolled emissions while operating
at design capacity are at least 100 tons per year of any
regulated pollutant.
(b)(i). Annual tons per year of a regulated pollutant actually emitted
by the source
(ii). Annual tons per year of a regulated pollutant, permitted by
applicable SIP
(c). Self-explanatory
(d)(i). Actual measurement of emission level of regulated pollutant.
eg. ______ pounds per gallon excluding water, of VOCs
(ii). SIP authorized limit of emission level of regulated pollutant.
(e). An area which as predicted by air quality modeling or measured
by monitoring data exceeds any national ambient air quality
standard for an air pollutant.
(f). Is the source located in a nonattainment area which has an
extension until December 31, 1987, to attain the national
primary standard for photochemical oxidants and/or carbon
monoxide?
20-22. Self-explanatory.
Return to Enforcement Policies