450R90102
iyyu
Report to the Deputy Administrator
Clean Air Act Implementation Task Force
July, 1990
;. Doarbcrn 5^-
oi.aca.go.,, i]L 60604
-------
CONTENTS
Paoe
Executive Summary — ——— — — —— ii
Introduction
Purpose, Objectives, Methodology——————— 1
Current Agency Regulatory Development Experience-— 3
-process flow charts/statistics——————— 4
-problems/concerns——————————— 5
Task Force Conclusions and Recommendations — 7
-Preparation Responsibilities—— — 7
-Fundamental Principles 8
-Steering Committee Role———————— 10
-Specific Process Options and Criteria— 11
-Streamlined Method——————— 11
-Core Workgroup — 12
-Accelerated Agency Workgroup ——— 12
-Deputy Administrator Oversight 12
-General Streamlining Methods 13
Remaining issues————-————— ———- 14
Recommendations————————————— ie
Appendix A—Expected CAA Requirements
Appendix B—Specific Procedures for Processes
Appendix C—Expanded Start Action Request Form
Appendix D—Task Force Composition
-------
1.
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Why the Concern?
-Volume of regulations and tight statutory deadlines
-Current Agency regulatory experience averages 37 months for
rule development
-Need to neet statutory requirements and still satisfy
Agency needs
Fundamental Conclusions
-Different approaches for different categories of rules-
There will be different procedural guidelines for different
categories of rules to ensure that participation and
timeliness are adequately balanced.
-Decisions and action-forcing mechanisms—Unresolved issues
will be raised for resolution quickly and will not linger in
the workgroup until consensus is reached.
-Need for strict oversight—Senior management will be
involved in the oversight of these regulations through
reports and meetings to ensure that milestones are met and
issues are resolved.
-Presumptive deadlines—These regulations will have very
strict deadlines for development and review. OAR will go
forward with regulation at the date stated.
f
-Culture change in Agency—A culture change within EPA
stressing quick resolution of issues, and a changing
relatinship between offices where input is based on office
interest not opinion and fail to comment will be considered
concurrence.
Specific Process Option Recommendations and Criteria
-The Task Force recognized that not all rules need the same
amount of time for review. The reasons for these different
types of review include: timeframe for rule, cross Agency
interest, and amount of latitude provided by statute
-The four methods developed by the Task Force are:
-Streamlined Method—OAR develops draft rule and
circulates around the Agency for comment, but not
concurrence, before proceeding to next step.
ii
-------
-Core Workgroup—OAR develops regulation with limited
workgroup and only the AAships participating in the
workgroup get concurrence rights.
-Accelerated Agency Workgroup—OAR develops regulations
with more inclusive workgroup since rule nay have large
cross nedia concerns.
-Deputy Adainistrator Oversight—Deputy Administrator
has quarterly meetings on the regulations to provide
guidance and ensure timeliness. This process will only
be used for a few select regulations with tight
deadlines and large cross media impacts.
Other Basic Changes
-Expanded Start Action Requests (SAR) will replace
Development Plans. SARs may be grouped for rules with
common elements.
-More oversight of workgroup members including rewards and
incentives.
-Use workgroup closure as final Agency sign-off
-OAR will provide preliminary lists and briefings on CAA
regulations to program offices to help identify priorities.
-Steering Committee will act as an issue resolution and
elevation body and also provide oversight of rule and link
to the AAs.
-Facilitators—OAR should use procedural experts in the
development of the rule to relieve the workgroup chairs of
this duty where possible.
Remaining Issues
-Uncontrollable time—The amount of time outside of the
Agency's control (e.g. public comment period).
-Regulatory Negotiation as a possible option to the other
recommended methods for select rules
-Resources and Staffing—Insufficient planning or amount of
resources both within OAR and the rest of the Agency (e.g.
OGC and OPPE) nay cause problems for timely rule
development.
iii
-------
-Use of the Streamlined Method on aore complicated and
controversial regulations.
-State involvement in the CAA process has been accomplished
through the different workgroups set up by CAA Title and
through their associations.
iv
-------
INTRODUCTION
Purpose/Objectives
The new Clean Air Act Amendments will require a large number
of separate regulations, guidelines, and reports that the
Agency will need to develop and promulgate in a timely
fashion. In addition to the tine and resource problems
associated with issuing a large number of regulations, the
Clean Air Act is a major piece of legislation which will
affect every major industry in the United States. The rules
that EPA promulgates will have potential impacts for all
other Agency programs. It is therefore important to take
into consideration cross-Agency impacts and participation in
their development.
Consequently, the task force was asked to identify the main
rulemaking and guidance tasks needed to carry out the Act,
to identify barriers within the Agency that may prevent EPA
from meeting the statutory mandates, and develop
recommendations on how the Agency can work together to
overcome these barriers. This report presents the results
of the Task Force efforts.
Methodology
OAR and OPPE co-chaired the Task Force. The full Task Force
met three times. The first meeting was mostly devoted to
explaining the nature and extent of the problem to the Task
Force.. The Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) provided an
overview of the five titles of the Clean Air Act Amendments
and what regulations would be required from each title. The
Regulatory Management Division (RMD), within OPPE, then
provided information on the Agency's current regulatory
procedures, typical lengths of time associated with each
step, and Agency statistics on rulemaking time. The Task
Force discussed certain barriers that can cause regulatory
delay based on RMD's Procedures Evaluation Project (PEP)1.
At the initial meeting, workgroups were set up to discuss
and provide recommendations on major areas of concern about
the regulatory process: roles and responsibilities of the
workgroup chairs and members; decision making and issue
resolution; and the structure of the regulatory process.
1 The Procedures Evaluation Project studied and continues
to study EPA's internal regulatory procedures and also those
associated with other Federal and State agencies.
-------
During the second meeting of the full task force, the three
workgroups presented their findings and recommendations.
Certain issues and recommendations were raised repeatedly by
each workgroup. These were:
-Different regulatory processes would be appropriate
for different types of regulations (much in the same
way the HSWA regulations were developed).
-Rapid elevation and resolution of issues and a
•echanism to ensure that this occurs are necessities if
the Agency is to meet CAA deadlines.
-Senior level management attention and commitment to
these regulations is needed to help facilitate
timeliness and issue resolution, especially on short
deadline rules.
Given these issues, another workgroup (consisting of members
of the earlier groups) was formed to develop a "strawman"
that would address these concerns and ultimately to draft
the Task Force recommendations offered to the Deputy
Administrator.
The final meeting of the Task Force discussed the
recommendations and concerns. There was general agreement
within the Task Force on the recommendations presented.
-------
Current Process
The flow chart below displays the steps required in the
Agency's regulatory process for a major rule, and an idea of
the amount of tine associated with each step. It is
interesting and important to note that there are periods of
time that are relatively uncontrollable during rule
development, such as the public comment period and OMB
review, in addition, most rule development time does not
occur during review but during the initial stages of
development and the time following the comment period.
OVERVIEW OF THE REGULATION DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
FOR MAJOR RULES (AGENCY EXPERIENCE)
-------
Statistics
Statistics provide some interesting insights into the rule
development process in EPA. First, in general, the amount
of tine from start to proposal averages almost the same as
from proposal to promulgation. Second, it is evident that
the process can be made to work expeditiously as evidenced
by the fact that 25% of the regulations vere completed in 16
months or less.
The following provides some statistics on the time required
for EPA regulations.
TABLE 1
Time Taken for Various Parts off
EPA Regulation Development Pr
Start Action Request to Proposal
Mean 19 months
Median 14 months
Range 1 to 88 months
25% of rules took less than 5.5 months
25% took over 21 months
50% took between 5.5 and 21 months
Proposal to Promulgation
Mean 17 months
Median 14 months
Range 2 to 71 months
25% of rules took less than 8.5 months
25% took over 25 months
50% took between 8.5 and 25 months
itart Action Request to Promulgation
Mean 37 months
Median 29 months
Range 6 to 112 months
25% of rules took less than 16 months
25% took over 50 months
50% took between 16 and 50 months
-------
Problems and Concerns in Regulatory Development
The Task Force as veil as the recent PEP study identified
probleas and reasons for EPA rulemaking delay in four
general categories: workgroup operations, management level
concerns, procedural delays, and external forces.
1. Workgroup Operations
o Attempting to reach consensus in the workgroup
instead of elevating issue to nanageaent. Work-
group chairs often view raising an issue to
management as a failure.
o Workgroup members not representing office because:
-Member pursues personal interests or is out
of touch with his or her office
-Management not focusing on rules until late
in the process
o Loss of momentum—After a proposal, the workgroup
waits for public comments and may be assigned to
other projects. The priority of the first rule
say diminish.
o Workgroup members may be slow in responding to the
Chair with input on a rule.
o Large workgroups are difficult to manage (e.g.
"too many cooks...") and some members nay be
unnecessary.
o Failure to share information among the workgroup
could cause delays when the information finally
becomes available and members need to analyze it.
o Inadequate workgroup leadership
o Lack of workgroup experience
o Difficult to get on AA calendar for briefing
"2. Management Level Concerns
o Management not providing clear direction to the
workgroup chair and members
o Initial priority setting not done by lead office
management or numerous shifts of priorities as new
issues arise.
o Managers not focusing on the regulation until the
final step (i.e. Red Border) and raising issues
late in the process.
o Management not designating effective workgroup
representatives or not making workgroup
participation a priority.
-------
o Putting wrong person on the workgroup
o Lack of explicit objectives for workgroup
participation; What is the role of the workgroup
member?)
3. Procedural Delays
o Number of concurrence points
o OMB—Often extends their review period.
o Late hits—Workgroup offices bringing up issues
late in the process.
o Redrafting time caused by comments and changes to
existing packages
o Assessing late information
o Problems caused by redrafting and addressing one
office's concerns
4. External Forces
o Inadequate resources—Offices which must
participate in all rules can cause backlog, e.g.
OGC.
o Substantive public comments
o Other projects competing for time and attention
o Information/Data Collection
o Turnover
o Court actions
o Congress—Keeping them informed, providing
information, briefings, etc.
-------
TASK FORCE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Task Force's review and analysis resulted in the
development of conclusions and recommendations in five major
areas: preparation responsibilities, fundamental principles,
Steering Committee role, the use of specific processes for
different rules, and general streamlining.
Preparation Responsibilities
There are a variety of actions that should be taken in
preparation for the passage of the CAA to facilitate
regulatory development. The Task Force recommends that
these actions be started now to prepare the Agency for the
large influx of rules into the system.
1. OAR should develop and circulate to AAs descriptions of
anticipated CAA amendment regulations. To aid in
priority setting, OAR should try to present as many
rules as possible up front. They should make enough
information available so that EPA offices can determine
how the regulation may affect their program or their
interests. This can be done with an expanded SAR* that
includes: cross media implications, enforcement
concerns, schedule, and who OAR expects to participate.
Other EPA offices can also ask OAR for a more in-depth
briefings if necessary.
2. The Steering Committee should determine initially which
specific process each CAA regulation will undergo (see
sections on the role of the Steering Committee and on
specific recommended rule development processes).
3. EPA program offices should determine and identify to
OAR their priority rules.
4. OAR workgroup chairs should go through the OPPE
workgroup chair training to sharpen their workgroup
management skills.
5. ' OAR should identify all data needs as early as
possible.
6. OPPE should provide training or briefings for OAR staff
on bow best to deal with process concerns (Regulatory
Facilitators).
'See Appendix C for a copy of the expanded SAR.
7
-------
Fundamental Principles
These principles stress the importance of rapid elevation of
issues, workgroup operations, and oversight that will govern
all of the CAA regulations. Adhering to these principles
should help the Agency to develop these regulations within
the statutory deadlines.
The systems used for the development of the CAA regulations
oust keep items moving through the process with self-
enforcing deadlines (i.e., if an office does not respond,
OAR will continue to the next step). In some cases, it may
be necessary to include the Deputy Administrator to ensure
that tight schedules can be met (e.g., when issues cannot be
resolved at a lower level).
1. OAR should raise unresolved issues quickly to the
appropriate level (i.e., they should not linger in the
workgroup).
2. The issue resolution hierarchy should be workgroup to
Steering Committee, Steering Committee to AAs, and AAs
to Deputy Administrator. If an issue is raised that
cannot be resolved at the workgroup level, the
workgroup chair schedules the issue for resolution at
the next Steering Committee meeting. Ths may encourage
management to resolve the issue before the scheduled
meeting; if not, the Steering Committee discusses and,
if possible, resolves the issue. If still unresolved,
a meeting of the affected AAs is immediately scheduled
with the AA/OAR. If the issue is not resolved before
or during the AA's meeting, a meeting is scheduled with
the Deputy Administrator to resolve the issue.
3. When issues are raised to the Steering Committee, they
should be dealt with by resolution or further elevation
at that meeting (Steering Committee representatives
must come prepared to resolve issues or recommend
elevation).
4. OAR should document resolved issues. Once issues are
• resolved, they should not be raised again unless new
information dictates a change.
5. Workgroup members should represent their offices and
base their positions on how issues affect their
offices, not on personal opinions or private agenda.
8
-------
6. OAR should provide the Deputy Administrator, Agency
AAs, and Steering Committee representatives with a
monthly report of CAA activities. This report should
include milestones, schedule slippages, and unresolved
issues. OAR also should brief the DA once a month on
the status of regulations. This briefing should
include issues on which OAR needs decisions. All AAs
are encouraged to attend these meetings.
7. In all cases, OAR should be responsible for the
regulations, the decisions made, and keeping the rule
on schedule. If other program offices think that OAR
is not proceeding adequately, they should raise their
concerns to the AA/OAR and/or the DA. This will stop
the regulation and is analogous to the "emergency
brake" on a train. It should only be used in extreme
circumstances.
8. The "emergency brake" should be used in situations
where other offices believe that OAR is proceeding in a
direction that is counter to the policy of the Agency
or a specific program. The AA of the affected office
would pull the brake cord by contacting the Deputy
Administrator and thus stop the rulemaking. The Deputy
Administrator would then determine which way the rule
should go. The emergency brake should only be pulled
for serious unresolved issues and cot for minor
comments. It is pulled when necessary, an action not
taken lightly.
9. Currently the Agency develops many regulations by
consensus using workgroups. This may be time consuming
as discussions, compromises and deals are made between
different offices. The Agency will have strict
deadlines for enacting CAA regulations, therefore, it
will be necessary to enforce discipline in the decision
making, process. OAR will expect timely responses. In
the past, lack of response has often caused delays
while lead offices extended deadlines for non-
.. respondents. This practice oust stop. It is the
; responsibility of a reviewing office to make its
• concerns known in a timely Banner. If OAR hears
nothing by the time of a deadline, it will assume
concurrence and move on.
10. The 12th floor special assistant should attend all
Steering Committee discussions of CAA issues.
-------
Steering Committee Role
The Task Force recommends that the role of the Steering
Committee should be enhanced to better facilitate the
development of the CAA regulations within statutory
deadlines.
1. Steering Committee representatives must be delegated
the authority to speak for, and commit their offices on
most CAA matters. OAR will consider any non-responses
as concurrences. It is assumed that the Steering
Committee representative will have access to senior
management in their AAship.
2. OAR must use the Steering Committee for issue
resolution/elevation.
3. Steering Committee representatives must meet with the
workgroup members and senior management in their
AAships on a regular basis to facilitate issue
resolution.
4. The Steering Committee should have three major roles:
-Ratify the specific regulatory development
process and workgroup membership (using OAR
suggestion) for each rule.
-Ensure adequate workgroup participation by
providing access and support to workgroup members
so that they can resolve issues.
-Resolve workgroup issues or raise them to the
appropriate level for resolution.
5. The Steering Committee should determine the appropriate
process that OAR will use for each regulation (based on
OAR suggestions). OAR must provide enough information
in its expanded SAR so that the Steering Committee can
determine a rule classification. The Deputy
•" Administrator should resolve any differences of opinion
on classification between OAR and the Steering
Committee.
6. To allow for quick resolution or elevation of CAA
issues, the Steering Committee should either meet every
week, rather than bi-weekly, or a separate CAA Steering
Committee should be set up to meet on alternate weeks.
In the first case, time will be set aside during each
meeting to address CAA issues.
10
-------
Specific Process Options and Criteria
The Agency can and should treat different types of
regulations differently. Regulations need to be assigned an
appropriate regulatory development process based on specific
criteria. OAR should recommend the specific process fox-
each regulation required under the new CAA to the Steering
Committee for approval. Any differences of opinion between
OAR and the Steering Committee on classification should go
to the DA for final resolution immediately. There are some
classes of actions, such as Reports to Congress and some
guidances, which do not require intra-Agency review. The
process changes discussed here will not affect these
actions.
The criteria used to determine which process to apply to a
regulation include:
o Schedule or Statutory Deadline
o Degree of Cross Agency Interest
o Amount of Regulatory Discretion Allowed by
Statute
Based on these criteria, each regulation would be developed
under one of four processes: the Streamlined Method, the
Core Workgroup, the Accelerated Agency Workgroup, or Deputy
Administrator Oversight. These are summarized below; and
Appendix B contains a description of the actual steps for
each process.
1. The Streamlined Method
The Agency should use this method when there are no or
very few cross agency concerns or when the statute
dictates the specifics of the regulation (e.g. the
tailpipe emission standards). With this method, OAR
will not convene a formal workgroup, but will obtain
the agency expertise (technical, legal, etc.) it needs
to develop the regulation. The Steering Committee
:- would be the forum for another office to request
•' involvement. There would be no concurrence process,
but OAR would circulate drafts to the AAs for comment
before continuing on to OMB review. OAR would prepare
a memo explaining the changes Bade in response to
Agency comments, and an explanation of comments not
accepted. It would be up to other program offices to
raise any major disagreements they have with OAR to the
AA/OAR who would then either resolve the differences or
schedule a meeting with the DA for final resolution.
This process would be repeated for final promulgation.
11
-------
2. Core Workgroup Method
The Agency should use this process when there are few
cross media concerns so that only a limited number of
offices have an interest (e.g. Onboard Diagnostic
systems). This process would formalize the workgroup,
but would limit participation in the core workgroup to
directly affected offices. Other offices can be part
of an information group that would receive packages.
We should anticipate OPPE, OGC, ORD, OECM, and a lead
region participation at a minimum, but any of these can
choose to opt out if they do not have an interest.
This process would accelerate the regulatory
development process by reducing the size of the
workgroup, thereby Baking it function more smoothly,
and limiting concurrence to those offices with a
demonstrated interest in the rule.
3. Accelerated Aoencv Workgroup Method
The Agency should use this process for those
regulations that have major cross-media implications or
interests and/or less stringent timeframes (mobile
sources, air toxics). This process would provide the
same mechanisms as the Core Workgroup Method to
expedite development and facilitate issue resolution.
Regulatory Scoping meetings and/or Decision Meetings
might be necessary for a select number of these
regulations given the cross media implications and the
need for senior management guidance.
4. Deputy Administrator Oversight Method
The Agency should use this process for major rules with
large Cross media concerns and very tight deadlines
(e.g. Permit Program). The major feature of this
process is that the DA would have regularly scheduled
AA level meetings (every three months) for these rules
to make decisions, give guidance, and enforce
: schedules. The first meeting would initiate the
regulation, provide initial advice, develop procedural
guidelines such as schedule development and determine
the number of DA level meetings, and designate next
steps. An agency workgroup (set up by the Steering
Committee) would develop the details of the regulations
with the guidance provided by the 12th floor.
12
-------
General Streamlining
Regardless of the processes used in the development of the
CAA regulations, there are several general streamlining
actions that the Agency can take.
1. Use Regulatory Facilitators' on major/complicated rules
to help guide the rule through the procedural steps of
the process.
2. Group SARs with common elements to decrease some of the
paperwork and take advantage of regulations with common
elements.
3. Eliminate routine Steering Committee information
briefings that do not require the Committee to take
some type of action (e.g. resolve or elevate an issue).
4. Expedite 12th Floor signature by getting a commitment
that the document will be turned around within a week
unless there are major concerns.
5. Limit public comment period to the extent allowable by
law. Limit the number of extensions, and limit public
hearings. The Federal Register notice needs to make
clear that EPA will not grant extensions to the comment
period except in the most extreme circumstances.
6. Eliminate Red Border review. Final Agency sign-off
will occur at Workgroup Closure unless problems occur
at the closure meeting which dictate that a short Red
Border review may be necessary.
7. Use different lead Regions for different rules by
having the Regions assign rules to different sub-lead
regions. This will help to distribute some of the lead
Region workload.
8. Maintain strict oversight by the Steering Committee,
OAR, and the 12th Floor through reports and meetings to
-" assure that rules stay on schedules.
* A Regulatory Facilitator would be part of the workgroup
to help the workgroup chair with the procedural concerns such as:
determining when issues need to be elevated; whether an
Information Collection Request is necessary; or getting better
workgroup representation.
13
-------
REMAINING ISSUES
There are issues remaining that the Task Force has discussed
but not resolved. These are presented below so that the
Deputy Administrator may consider them as part of the
context of the Task Force's recommendations.
Use of the Streamlined Method
A suggestion was made to use the Streamlined Method of rule
development for come rules with large cross media
implications (e.g. the Permit Program rule). The argument
is that OAR will be more likely to meet its statutory
deadline using this method. Other program offices (OPPE,
ORD) stated some concern with this approach.
Workgroup Closure vs. Red Border
The Task Force agreed that having both Workgroup Closure and
Red Border is redundant and unnecessary. A majority of the
Task Force (and OAR in particular) favored using Workgroup
Closure as the final sign-off because it will be quicker.
OAR agreed to distribute memos announcing that these
closures will be the final sign-off. Some members of the
Task Force felt that the AA level Red Border signature was
important and was a sure way to get management to focus on
the rule. Another way to address this issue is to make rule
specific decisions on whether Red Border is necessary. For
example, if there are no issues at closure, then a Red
Border is not necessary. If program offices need to see
specific language before final sign-off then a short Red
Border can be set up.
Uncontrollable Time
There is a substantial amount of time that is relatively
uncontrollable in the regulatory development system (e.g.,
public comment period, 0KB review, etc.). This can account
for up to six months of time, leaving six months for rule
development on some CAA regulations. One item that may need
to be discussed is the possibility for concurrent OMB review
to alleviate some of these time constraints.
4i-
Development Time
Rules require differing amounts of time for data collection,
analysis, comment evaluation, etc. The time needed for
these important steps in rule development vary tremendously.
This needs to be taken into consideration when planning
schedules.
14
-------
Regulatory Negotiation
OAR has had good experiences with regulatory negotiation and
many of the CAA regulations nay fit the criteria for
negotiated rulemaking. The Regulatory Negotiation staff in
OPPE has begun some preliminary work to determine which
rules qualify and will contact OAR with their suggestions.
Workgroup Rewards
Since workgroup participation is a major aspect of the
regulatory development process and "good" participation
improves rulemaking, the Task Force felt that the idea of
providing rewards to good and helpful participants would
facilitate the rulemaking effort. The unresolved questions
are where the rewards would come from and who would be
responsible for granting them. One suggestion is that since
these regulations are Agency products, the rewards should
come from an Agency pool dedicated to the CAA regulations.
Responsibility for granting rewards could rest with OPPE
since it represents a cross-Agency perspective and manages
the rule development process.
Resources and Staffing
The Task Force felt that it was necessary for all offices
within the Agency to begin doing staffing analysis so they
can plan for the upcoming regulatory development load. In
addition to OAK, at least OGC and OPPE would be faced with
significantly increased workloads related to promulgation of
CAA regulations.
State Involvement
States have been providing input concerning the CAA
regulations through the CAA Title workgroups that OAR set up
to deal with the different titles of the statute. They also
will be participating through their associations
(STAPPA/ALAPCO).
15
-------
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
This section provides a summary of the Task Force's
recommendations on how the Agency should deal with the CAA
regulations.
Recommendation il
Recommendation 12
Recommendation 13
Recommendation 14
Recommendation 15
Recommendation 16
Recommendation #7
Recommendation 18
Recommendation 19
Recommendation flO
There should be different regulatory
processes used for different categories of
rules as described in the Report.
OAR should not delay its development of
regulations if other offices have missed
deadlines or have not responded.
OAR should assure that unresolved issues are
•levated quickly and do not linger in the
workgroup.
OAR should provide the Deputy Administrator
with monthly reports and briefings on the
status of the CAA regulations.
OAR should begin developing descriptions of
the regulations necessary as a result of the
CAA and circulate these to the other program
offices. Program offices should provide OAR
a prioritized list of rules in which they
have an interest.
The Steering Committee should have an initial
meeting to classify the CAA regulations
according to the processes described in this
Report.
OAR, with the help of OPPE, should identify,
and begin training in rule development for
the workgroup chairs who will be responsible
for the CAA rules.
The role of the Steering Committee should be
enhanced to encompass issue resolution and/or
•levation.
In those cases where final Agency sign-off is
necessary, workgroup closure should be the
mechanism to do this, unless circumstances
dictate otherwise.
Resource and staffing analyses should be
completed for each office to help plan for
the influx of regulations caused by the CAA.
16
-------
Appendix A
FIRST CUT AT CATEGORIZING CLEAN AIR ACT RULES
Rules with an * may need the next higher level of review.
Rules That Would Use The Streamlined Method
Wonattainment
Publish area designations and classification (8 months)
Some of the SIP guidance
Mobile sources
Revise diesel particulate standard for MY91-94 urban buses
(6 months}
Promulgate requirements for overhauled urban buses (12
months)
Promulgate requirements for clean fuel urban buses (12
months)
Promulgate diesel fuel sulfur standard (12 months)
Promulgate oxygenate banking and trading credits program (12
months)
Ban lead in. gasoline (12 months)
Add idle test to Federal Test Procedure (12 months)
Revise tailpipe standards for HDE, LDV and LDT (18 months)
Revise assembly line audit regs (12 months)
Tailpipe emission standards (6 months)
Revisions to warranty program
Addition of short test procedures to I/M certification (12
months)
-------
Air Toxics
Most of the MACT standards, after proceudres for determining
HACT have been devloped.
Five year RACT, BACT, LAER - MACT extension
Acid Rain
Information requirements for repowering (Jan 1996)
Twenty year £02 trends report
Baseline determination calculation method* (12 months)
Rules That Would Use The Core Workgroup Method
Honattainment
Some of the SIP Guidance (36 months)
Most of the PM10 Control Technology Guidance's (18 months)
Most of the VOC Control Technology Guidance's (36 months)
Marine Vessel Regulation (48 months)
Consumer Solvent Study (24 months)
*
Consumer Solvent Rule*
Mobile iources
Set formulation standards for conventional gasoline (24
monthsJ
Revise recall program regs (36 months)
Revise certification regs for fleets (36 months)
Promulgate revised evaporative requirements for vehicles (18
months)
-------
Promulgate onboard diagnostic systems requirements for
vehicles (18 months)
Revise Federal Test Procedure to account for more real world
conditions (18 months)
Promulgate cold temperature carbon monoxide standards for
vehicles (18 months)
Promulgate onboard refueling requirements for vehicles (18
months)
Guidance on I/M programs (12 months)
Guidance on transportation control measures (12 months)
Set total in-use emissions standards for MY95-98 vehicles in
severe and extreme ozone nonattainment areas (9 months)
Specifications for reformulated gasoline in conventional
vehicles for 9 cities (12 months)
Air Toxics
MACT standards for source categories where another office
has special interest in industry or chemical.
Petition process to list and delist chemicals
90% voluntary reduction alternative compliance*
List of major source categories (12 months)
»
Acid lain
Create allowance auction (36 months)
Establish emission monitoring t tracking (18 months)
Clean Coal Technology Interpretative Rule (12 months)
Evaluation of trading S02 for NOx (Jan. 1994)
-------
Low NOx burner emission rates* (18 months)
Retrofit NOx emission rates* (Jan. 1997)
Revise NOx NSPS* (Jan. 1994)
Revise NSPS for fossil fuel stationary source* (36 months)
Enforcement
Establish procedures for determining penalties
Establish field citation program
Promulgate regulations concerning Citizen Suit Awards
Revisions to contractor listing regulations.
Rules That Would Use An Accelerated Agency Workgroup
Konattaizunent
Some of the PM10 Control Technology Guidance's (18 months)
Some of the VOC Control Technology Guidance's (36 months)
Some of the SIP Guidance (36 months)
Mobile source*
Set fuel quality specifications to minimize vehicle
•missions (36 months)
Determine available clean fuels for KY99 and later vehicles
(60 months)
Set total in-use emissions standards for MY99 and later
vehicles in severe and extreme nonattainment areas (48
months)
Set regs and credits for clean fuel/vehicle fleet program
-------
(36 months)
Promulgate regs redefining useful life for vehicles (36
months)
Study on impacts of heavy-duty trading, banking and
averaging program for particulate and nitrogen oxide
emissions (48 months)
Study of vehicle air toxics (18 months)
Study of non-road engines and vehicles (24 months)
Study of non-road fuels
Promulgate standards to determine availability of clean
fuels and vehicles (24 months)
Set federal and private fleet standards for clean
fuel/vehicles (24 months)
Air Toxics
First group of MACT standards (24 months)
Residual risk evaluation (60 or 84 months)
Great Lakes study (60 months)
4
Negligible risk alternative compliance (Feb. 1992)
Vexmits -
Permitting Guidance
Acid main
Acid Rain permit program including excess emission fee
system (18 months)
-------
pules Requiring Deputy Administrator Oversight
Mobil* Sources
Establish clean fuel vehicle program including establishing
annual emission reduction requirements, determining fuel
availability and establishing 9 city program.
Air Toxics
First MACT standard (24 months)
Permits
Permit Program (12 months)
Acid Rain
Establish allowance system including criteria for electing
into allowance system (18 months)
-------
Appendix B
PROCESS FOR THE STREAM UN ED METHOD
8TZP 1 OAR completes expanded SAR and submits to Steering
Committee for agreement on process to be used.
STEP 2 OAR develops regulation without a formal
workgroup. OAR will bring in relevant technical
or legal expertise from other offices when needed.
STEP 3 OAR circulates draft rule to other AAs within
agency for comment but aot concurrence. AAs have
2 weeks to respond.
STEP 4 OAR will develop a short memo that describes how
they dealt with the major internal agency comments
and circulate it to the AAs.
Other offices can raise issues to the AA/OAR if
they feel OAR has improperly overlooked their
comments. OAR will then schedule a meeting with
the Administrator or DA.
OAR incorporates relevant comments and sends (via
OPPE) to 0KB for review4 (60 Day review).
STEP 5 OAR briefs the Administrator or DA in an open
meeting on the regulation, if accessary, prior to
signature.
The Action Memo to the Administrator must contain
those significant issues raised by other offices
but not incorporated by OAR.
Administrator signs regulations (2-4 weeks).
*
STEP € Package sent to Federal Register. Public comment
period (2 months).
STEP 7 OAR analyzes comments, drafts final rule.
STEP • OAR circulates draft final rule to other AA's for
comment, aot concurrence. AA's have 2 weeks to
respond.
4 0KB review period is 60 days for major NPRMs, 30 days
for major Final rules and 10 days for all other actions.
-------
STEP t OAR will develop a short nemo that describes how
they dealt with the major internal agency comments
and circulate it to the AAs.
Other offices can raise issues to the AA/OAR if
they feel OAR has improperly overlooked their
comments. OAR will then schedule a meeting with
the Administrator or DA.
OAR incorporates relevant comments and sends (via
OPPE) to 0KB for review*.
STEP 10 OAR briefs the Administrator or DA on the
regulation, if necessary, prior to final
signature. Administrator signs final rule (2-4
weeks).
Action nemo to the Administrator must contain
those significant issues raised by other offices
but not incorporated by OAR.
STEP 11 Final rule sent to FR.
24-30 weeks of total time is uncontrollable by EPA.
See footnote 3.
-------
PROCESS FOR CORE WORKGROUP METHOD
8TEP 1 OAR prepares expanded SAP.
•TZP 2 Rule comes to Steering Committee for workgroup
assignments and designations. Steering Committee
•ets up a "core" group for formal concurrence, and
information group who will receive packages, can
make comments, but will not participate in the
final concurrence sign-off.
•TEP 3 Workgroup develops regulation.
OAR'c workgroup chairs will quickly raise any
unresolved issues through their management and
their Steering Committee representative. The
Steering Committee must be given one week notice
if OAR plans to bring an issue before it. The
Steering Committee must resolve the issue at this
point (failure to get to the AA or to get a
decision cannot hold up the rule). If Steering
Committee can't resolve the issue, OAR will
schedule a meeting for the DA or include it on the
agenda for the monthly CAA meeting with the DA to
get resolution. AAs from interested offices can
attempt to resolve the issue before the DA's
meeting.
STEP 4 OAR goes to workgroup closure. Core members
(representing their AAs) are the only
participants. This will be the final sign-off of
the Agency package and signature by the
representative of the office will constitute final
office level position.
STEP 5 OAR sends rule to OMB for review*.
•TEP 6 OMB clears regulation. Administrator signs rule
(2-4 weeks).
8TEP 7 Package sent to FR, public comment period (2
months).
•TZP • OAR analyzes comments, workgroup drafts final
rule.
STEP 9 OAR briefs Steering Committee. Steering Committee
determines any streamlining processes (e.g.,
skipping workgroup closure).
See footnote 3.
-------
STEP 10 OAR's workgroup chairs vill quickly raise any
unresolved issues through their Steering Committee
representative. The Steering Committee must be
given one week notice if OAR plans to bring an
issue before it. The Steering Committee must
resolve the issue at this point (failure to get to
the AA or to get a decision cannot hold up the
rule). If Steering Committee can't resolve the
issue, OAR will schedule a meeting for the DA to
get resolution. AAs from interested offices can
attempt to resolve the issue before the DA's
meeting.
•TEP 11 OAR goes to workgroup closure. Core members
(representing their AAs) are the only
participants. This will be the final sign-off of
the Agency package and signature by the
representative of the office will constitute final
office level position.
In the event that there are BO significant issues
raised during the comment period or by the Agency,
the rule may be able to skip STEPS 10 and 11. If
so, the rule gets Agency clearance (workgroup
closure or RB) (2 weeks), and OAR sends to OPPE
for OMB review7.
STEP 12 OMB clears rule. Administrator signs (2-4 weeks)
and sends to the FR.
26-32 weeks uncontrollable time.
See footnote 3.
-------
PROCESS FOR
ACCELERATED AGENCY WORKGROUP METHOD
STEP 1 OAR develops expanded SAR.
STEP 2 Kule cones to Steering Committee for workgroup
assignments and designations. Steering Committee
sets up a workgroup and determines process.
STEP 3 Regulatory Scoping meeting (optional)
•TIP 4 Workgroup develops regulation.
OAR'c workgroup chairs will quickly raise any
unresolved issues through their Steering Committee
representative. The Steering Committee must be
given one week notice if OAR plans to bring an
issue before it. The Steering Committee must
resolve the issue at this point (failure to get to
the AA or to get a decision cannot hold up the
rule). If Steering Committee can't resolve the
issue, OAR will schedule a meeting for the DA to
get resolution. AAs from interested offices can
attempt to resolve the issue before the DA's
meeting.
STEP 5 OAR goes to workgroup closure. Workgroup members
(representing their AAs) provide final
concurrence. This will be the final sign-off of
the Agency package and signature by the
representative of the office will constitute final
office level position.
STEP 6 OAR sends rule to 0KB for review*.
STEP 7 OKB clears regulation. Administrator signs rule
(2-4 weeks)
STEP 8 Package sent to FR, public comment period (2
months).
STEP 9 OAR analyzes comments, workgroup drafts final
rule.
STEP 10 OAR briefs Steering Committee. Steering Committee
determines any streamlining processes.
See footnote 3.
-------
STEP 11 OAR'c workgroup chairs will quickly raise any
unresolved issues through their Steering Committee
representative. The Steering Committee oust be
given one week notice if OAR plans to bring an
issue before it. The Steering Committee must
resolve the issue at this point (failure to get to
the AA or to get a decision cannot hold up the
rule). If Steering Committee can't resolve the
issue, OAR will schedule a meeting for the DA to
get resolution. AAs from interested offices can
attempt to resolve the issue before the DA's
meeting.
STEP 12 OAR goes to workgroup closure. Workgroup members
(representing their AAs) provide final
concurrence. This will be the final sign-off of
the Agency package and signature by the
representative of the office will constitute final
office level position.
In tbe event that there are BO significant issues
raised during the comment period or by the Agency/
the rule Bay be able to skip STEPS 10 and 11. if
so, the rule gets Agency clearance (workgroup
closure or KB) (2 weeks), and sends to OMB for
review (30 days).
STEP 13 If no changes from proposal, rule gets Agency
clearance (workgroup closure or RB) (2 weeks), and
OAR sends rule to OPPE for OMB review'.
STEP 14 OMB clears rule. Administrator signs (2-4 weeks)
and sends to the FR.
26-32 weeks of uncontrollable time.
See footnote 3.
-------
PROCESS FOR
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR OVERSIGHT METHOD
•TIP 1 OAR prepares expanded BAR. Steering Committee
sets up a agency workgroup.
•TEP 2 Regulatory Scoping meeting
DA has first AA level meeting on the regulation to
provide initial guidance, develop a procedural
strategy including specific schedule, and
determine next steps.
1TEP 3 Agency workgroup begins development of the
regulation. OAR raises unresolved issues to
Steering Committee quickly for resolution or
further elevation.
DA meeting for status report and issue resolution.
This should occur as regulation approaches
closure.
STEP 4 When draft is complete, DA open meeting acts as
workgroup closure mechanism. The DA group will be
the final sign-off in most cases.
10
STEP S Rule sent to OMB
STEP C OMB clears rule and Administrator signs proposal
(2-4 weeks).
STEP 7 Rule sent to FR. Public comment period (2
•onths).
STEP 8 OAR analyzes comments.
DA meeting to discuss possible changes as a result
of comments. Provides guidance and direction.
(Depending on the significance of the comments,
this meeting may not be necessary.)
STEP t It no major changes from proposal, rule proceeds
to OMB after DA meeting concurrence. If changes.
see STEPS 3 and 4.
10
See footnote 3.
-------
,11
•TEP 10 OMB review
STEP 11 Administrator signs final rule and sends to FR (2-
4 week).
26-32 weeks of uncontrollable tine.
See footnote 3.
-------
****.. «
{ | M«|Qf I j i»r"*U*l • -
0'
-t
•i :-Oit MC * IlltM* 0'
or
*et
-------
s. I*T -te—i-.c«. it**** ane
c;3«
7-1?) »'».:,«
-------
>" *
«
Appendix D
CLEAN AIR ACT IMPLEMENTATION TASK FORCE
Chairperson - Michael Shapiro, Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation - 382-7403
Co-Chair - Gary Katz, Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation - 382-4407
orrzcs or AIR AKD RADIATION
Larry WeinstocJc (ANR-443)
Special Assistant
Office of Air i Radiation
382-2632
John Cabaniss (AKR-445)
Policy Analyst
Office of Mobile Sources
382-7645
Ton Eagles (ANR-445)
Regulatory Impact Analyst
Office of Policy Analysis & Review
382-5585
John Schakenbach (ANR-445)
Acid Rain Staff
Office of Atmospheric I Indoor Air Programs
475-8545
William Gunter (ANR-460)
Criteria & Standards Division
Office of Radiation Programs
475-9603
John Bachmann (MD-11)
Environmental Engineer
OAQPS -.Immediate Office
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
ITS 629-5359
Mike Tnitna (MD-15) Permit ting
Chief, Air Toxics Programs Section
OAQPS
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
FTS 629-5345
Robert Kellan (MD-13) BISBAP8
Chief, Pollutant Assessment Branch
OAQPS
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
FTS 629-5647
-------
Ton Helms (MD-15) Noaattaiaaent
Chief, Ozone/CO Projects Branch
OAQPS
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLXXNCE MONITORING
Michael Alushin (LE-134A)
Associate Enforcement Council
for Air Enforcement
382-2820
omcE or SOLID WASTE AKD EKERQENCY RESPONSE
Elizabeth LaPointe (OS-110)
Director, Policy Analysis I External Affairs Staff
382-4617
Elaine Davies (OS-120)
Director, Chemical Accident Prevention Staff
475-8600
orricE or PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
Judy Nelson (TS-788)
Director, Regulatory Coordination Staff
382-2890
orricE or GENERAL COUNSEL
Tin Williams (LE-132A)
Attorney-Advisor (Air)
382-7636
orrici or WATER
Jin Horn (WH-556)
Director, Water Policy Office
382-7818
-------
OFFICE 07 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Peter Preuss (H-8105)
Director, Office of Technology Transfer
and Regulatory Staff
382-7669
OFFICE Or POLICY, PLANNING AND EVALUATION
Alex Cristafaro (PM-221)
Director, Air ft Energy Policy Division
382-5490
REGIONAL OPERATIONS AND STATE/LOCAL RELATIONS
Judith Gleason (A-101)
Associate Adninistator
245-3870
Brenda Greene (H-1502
Regional Coordinator
245-3870
Too Haslaney, Director
Air Management Division
EPA - Region III (3AMOO)
841 .Chestnut Bldg
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597-9390
Dave Kee, Director
Air & Radiation Division
BPA - Region V (5AR-26)
230 S. Pearborn St.
Chicago, ZL €0604
FTS 353-2212
Bob Hannesschlagtr
Acting Director, Air, Pesticides
tnd Toxics Division
BPA • Region VI
1445 Ross Ave. Suit* 1200
Dallas, TX 25202-2733
ITS 255-7200
-------
.
. •- • *
t^"TV •*>
Irv Dicfcstein, Director
Air & Toxics Division
EPA - Region VIII (8AT)
999 18th St.
Denver Place - Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
FTS 330-1438
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND POLICY EVALUATION
Dan Fiorino
Deputy Office Director, Office of Policy Analysis
382-4034
Paul Lapsley, (PM-223)
Director, Regulation Management Division
362-5480
Scott Furlong, (PM-223)
Regulatory Development Branch
382-7202 •
Cornellius Xervin
Dean, School of Public Affairs
The American University
685-2941
IT. S. Environmental
". •: ,,-n 5, Library ; '
"' "•. Dearborn St-.
-D, IL 60604
------- |