State Implementation Plan Processing Reform

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AD-FRL-4883-6]

State Implementation Plan Processing Reform

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Procedural change.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document describes changes being implemented as a method

for handling direct final State implementation plan (SIP) actions.

Presently, when the Regional Offices publish direct final SIP actions

in the Federal Register, if adverse comments are submitted on these

actions or notification is received that adverse comments are going to

be submitted, the Regional Office writes and publishes another document

which withdraws the direct final action. After the direct final action

has been withdrawn, the Regional Office prepares a third document which

serves as the proposal, and then a fourth document is written and

published for promulgation.

Under the revised procedure, when the direct final is published in

the Federal Register, a short informational document will be published,

simultaneously, in the proposal section of the Federal Register. The

purpose of the informational document is to inform the public of the

direct final, and states that if adverse comments are received, a

withdrawal notice will be published in the Federal Register, then the

substance of the direct final document will serve as a proposed rule

action. If such comments are received, the direct final document serves

as the detailed basis for the proposal, and the adverse comments will

be addressed in the promulgation document. If no such comments are

received, the direct final stands ``as is'' and no additional action

will need to be taken by the Regional Office. This revised procedure

eliminates the need for a new proposed rule and an additional comment

period, and assists in getting these SIP actions published in a more

expedient manner.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective on May 10, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jerry M. Stubberfield, Acting

Branch Chief, Regional Operations Branch, Air Quality Management

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, MD-15, Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-0876.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Recommendation for improving SIP processing at EPA has been

presented and approved in full to the Deputy Administrator (memorandum

from Gerald A. Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, to the Air Program Director, Regions I-X, dated December 23,

1987). An intra-agency work group took necessary action to put these

wide-ranging recommendations into place. One recommendation involved

the expanded use of direct final rulemaking procedures. The

recommendation concerned not only more frequent use of direct final

where appropriate but also more aggressive application of the concept.

Consequently, it is policy to achieve increased use of direct final

processing consistent with previously published criteria.

Proposed in 1981 and finalized in 1982 (46 FR 44477, September 4,

1981 and 47 FR 27073, June 23, 1982), direct final rulemaking has been

used to great advantage by several Regional Offices in the intervening

years. Under our current direct final procedures, SIP actions that are

noncontroversial, and where no adverse public comments are expected,

can be processed as direct final rules. This type of processing has

been demonstrated to cut the review time in half. Since its inception,

hundreds of changes have progressed to direct final, with very few

engendering any adverse public comment (which under existing procedures

would require withdrawal of the change, followed by full review and

comment processing).

This history of very little public intervention suggests that we

are not using, as we might, an effective tool for speeding review and

decision making on SIP's. During these 3 years, only 2 of 134 packages

were withdrawn because of adverse comments.

A wide variety of SIP actions can be candidates for direct final,

the primary criteria being that the action be noncontroversial and that

no adverse public comment is anticipated. These actions do not have to

be limited to trivial administrative changes. Although the risk of

aggressive action is a possible increase in the number of SIP's drawing

comment, this risk should be more than offset by the expected

improvement in timely processing and in numbers processed, without

jeopardizing air quality.

Dated: May 2, 1994.

Steven J. Hitte,

Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division.

[FR Doc. 94-11275 Filed 5-9-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P