What happens if a state does not file a plan — sanctions, a federal substitute, and a court unwinding the chain
The Environmental Protection Agency partially withdrew findings that thirteen state and local agencies had failed to submit plan revisions, affecting six agencies. A federal appeals court had partly vacated the underlying findings, so deadlines for sanctions and a federal plan no longer apply.
Document overview (primary data)
- Document typeRule
- AgencyEnvironmental Protection Agency
- Citation91 FR 35628
Key points
- The Environmental Protection Agency partially withdrew findings of failure to submit against thirteen agencies, affecting six of them.
- The subject was a 2015 plan call on provisions for excess emissions during startup, shutdown and malfunction.
- The withdrawal matches a federal appeals court decision partly vacating the findings of substantial inadequacy and the plan call.
- As a result, certain deadlines for imposing sanctions and promulgating a federal implementation plan no longer apply.
- Where a state does not file, the machinery proceeds in stages: a finding, sanctions, and a federal plan in the state place.
1The machinery for not filing
The implementation plan system runs on states writing plans and the federal government approving them. What if a state does not file? The Clean Air Act holds machinery for that.
- 1A plan callThe agency finds an existing plan substantially inadequate and requires a revision
- 2A finding of failure to submitWhere nothing arrives by the deadline, that fact is found
- 3SanctionsAfter a period, sanctions such as limits on federal highway funds may apply
- 4A federal implementation planFurther along, the agency writes the plan in place of the state
Pressure builds in stages, ending with the federal government writing a plan in the state place, at which point the state loses the chance to hold its own. The regime presumes state initiative while providing a fallback for when that does not function.
2What was at issue
The provisions concerned excess emissions during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. Emissions when equipment is brought up, shut down, or fails differ from those in normal operation. On how to treat emissions in those periods, the agency found in 2015 that many state plans were substantially inadequate and required revisions.
3A court removes the premise
The court partly vacated the underlying findings of substantial inadequacy and the plan call. Once the premise falls, so does the obligation built upon it, the finding of failure, and the deadlines for sanctions and a federal plan that follow from those. This action unwinds that accumulation to match the decision.
4Three layers
The case shows the air regime running in three layers: states writing plans, the federal government reviewing and identifying shortfalls, and courts testing the federal judgment itself. This site covers several articles on approval and disapproval of state plans, and this one shows that their premises can be overturned by judicial decision.
Why it matters
A chain of regulation unwinds entirely when its topmost judgment is overturned in court. Following approvals and disapprovals of state plans means also watching whether the federal findings beneath them are being contested.
FAQ
What happens if a state does not file a plan?
Why were the findings withdrawn?
Sources (primary)
Source: Federal Register (federal documents, public domain). Links go to the official site.