Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) Overview

1. Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) Overview Laura McKelvey, U.S. EPA

2. TAR Development • CAA Implementation Authority [Section 301(d)] • 1990 CAA Amendments • Tribal air management authority • TAS / TIP

3. TAR Development (cont.) • EPA proposed implementation in 1994 • Eligibility requirements • Application procedures • Provisions for “treating tribes like states” • Rule proposed Aug. 25, 1994 • Rule promulgated February 12, 1998

4. Framework for Tribal Implementation of CAA Jurisdiction Sovereign immunity Modular approach Grant match requirement Federal implementation Eligibility requirements

5. Tribal Jurisdiction Within exterior boundaries of reservation Other areas where tribes can demonstrate jurisdiction

6. Sovereign Immunity • Treating tribes in a manner similar to states • Tribes objected • Sovereign immunity waived only voluntarily or by Congressional statute • Final TAR addresses issue directly • Withdraws proposal on section 304 • Allows alternative to judicial review

7. Modular Approach • Ensures flexibility • Tribes and EPA develop approaches • Elements to be • Reasonably severable • Consistent with legal requirements

8. Grant Match Requirements • Grants under Sec. 103 & 105 • Sec. 103 requires no match • Sec. 105 • 5%, then 10% after 2 years with TAS with EPA RA demonstration of tribes’ ability to increase it’s share • 40% without TAS • Waivers available for hardship (rare) • EPA will review program over time

9. Federal Implementation • Trust responsibility • Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) required • With necessary and appropriate provisions • Without unreasonable delay

10. Eligibility Requirements Federally recognized tribe Governing body with substantial governing duties and powers Statement of tribe’s authority to regulate air quality Capability to carry out program

11. TAR Litigation History • DC Circuit Court of Appeals • Petitions for review filed by • State of Oklahoma • AZ Public Service Company • National Assoc. of Manufacturers et al. • Salt River Project et al. • Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. • National Mining Association

12. Litigation Issues Judicial review Direct administration Public participation in TAS process Reservation size Jurisdiction Oklahoma-specific issues

13. DC Circuit Court Opinion Upheld EPA’s interpretation on every issue One judge dissented on extent of delegation provided by Congress

14. Appeal to Supreme Court • Issues in petition • Definition of “reservation” • Congressional delegation of authority • Supreme Court denied certiorari (review) • (re-hearing possible but not likely) • DC Circuit Court opinion upheld

15. TAS • TAS is eligibility (we used to call it an eligibility determination) • Implementation another matter • Administrative programs – nothing to implement (CAA 105), does not require separate program • No obligation • Part of unique 2-step process (TAS/TIP)

16. TAS • 40 CFR 49.9 details EPA review • Within 30 days of completeness finding • Notice/comment to appropriate governmental entities • (g) if the EPA RA determines that a tribe meets the requirements of 49.6 for the purposes of a Clean Air Act provision, the Indian tribe is eligible to be treated in the same manner as a state with respect to that provision.

17. TIP • Tribal Implementation Plan • Paralleled by SIP and FIP • Implements TAS programs • Tribe must submit demonstration of capability to implement • Can be combined with or separate from TAS application

18. TIP (cont.) • Does create an obligation • (h) …a tribal application containing a CAA program submittal will be reviewed by EPA in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory criteria in a manner similar to the way EPA would review a similar state submittal. • Tribes have been approved for CAA §106, 107, 110 • Administrative delegations of § 105, 505(a)(2) • Navajo Nation has delegation of Part 71 • Minor NSR permitting at St. Regis Mohawk