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has been withdrawn, the Regional Office prepares a third document which 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