[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 10, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-11275]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: May 10, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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has been withdrawn, the Regional Office prepares a third document which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
