# OAR Box 1818

Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 17 ) ll-C-1 4 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/6/2008 3:12:42 PM Sheet 17 of 79 P. 1' J^"" 4 * * o



### ISK ^ UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENCY HINGTON

. D.C

. 

## Ml 

## 2 9 

## 198 7 XPBO ^

WASHINGTON

. D.C

. 2045 0

TH E ADMINISTRATO R 

### Honorabl e Joh n D . Dinael l Chairman , Subcommitte e o n Oversigh t and Investigation s Committe e o n Energ yand Commerc e Hous e o f Representative s Washingto n D.C . 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Chairman : I a mwritin g i

n r-^pons e t o you r lette r o f Ma y7 , 1987 , I n tha t letter. , yo u aske d question s relatin g t o EPA' s Re d Borde r process , th e opennes s o f EPA' s regulator yprocess , and EPA' s us e o f contractors . Enclose d ar e response s t o you r questions . Than k yo u fo r you r interes t i n thes e matters . Sincerely , £© © & Ihouia ; 

### Le e M
. Thoma s Enclosur eP. 3



### V

Concurren t "Re dBorderVOM B Revie wo f EP AGa s Marketing Proposal s Your lette r o f May7 questione d whethe r submitta l o f th e draf t notice s o f propose d rulemaking (NPRMs ) fo r gasolin e refueling an d volatilit ycontrol s fo r Red Borde r revie wconcurrentl ywit h OM B reviewwa s consisten t wit h Executive Orde r 1229 1 and sectio n 307(d ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act . A s I state d i n m ylette r o f Apri l 24 , concurren t OM B an d Red Borde r reviewo f th e NPRM s i s full yconsisten t wit h Executiv e Orde r 12291 . Sectio n 3(c)(2 ) o f tha t orde r require s tha t majo r propose d rulemaking notice s b e submitte d t o OM B fo r revie wa t leas t 6 0 day s prio r t o publication . A s yo u poin t out , th e executiv e orde r doe s no t requir e tha t th e draf t proposa l reviewed b yOM B b e th e same draf t reviewe d b yEPA' s uppe r managemen t during Re d Borde r review . However , nothing i n the orde r i n an ywaypreclude s EPAmanagemen t an d 0M 3 fro

mreviewin

g th e sam e draf t concurrently . Suc h a procedur e fall s withi n the discretio n implicitl yconferre d o n eac h agenc yb

yth e executiv e orde r an d ha s bee n use d o n man yoccasion s b

yEPA . Moreover , a primarypurpos e o f sectio n 3(c)(2 ) o f th e orde r i s t o giv e OM B adequat e time t o revie wma^o r propose d rule s befor e th e Agenc yput s th e proposa l i n finishe d for

mfo r publication . Sinc e th e tw o proposal s i n questio n ar e extremel ylength

yan d complex , providing OM B copie s o f thes e NPRM' s a s soo n a s theywer e sufficientl yrefine d t o warran t suc h reviewwa s completel yconsisten t wit h tha t purpose . A s I state d i n m ylette r o f Apri l 24 , I a mconfiden t tha t thes e notice s had bee n sufficientl yreviewe d an d refine d withi n EPAprio r t o Red Borde r revie wan d thu s tha t OM B revie wo f thos e draft s i s appropriate . Similarly , I believ e tha t the procedur e EPAi s following i s entirel y consisten t wit h th e requirement s o f sectio n 307(d)(4)(B)(ii ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act . A s yo u know , tha t sectio n specificall yrequire s tha t th e draft s o f propose d rule s submitte d t o OM B fo r revie wprio r t o proposal , al l document s accompanying suc h drafts , "al l writte n comment s thereo n . . . and al l writte n response s [b

yEPA ] t o suc h writte n comments " b e place d i n th e appropriat e rulemaking docke t n o late r than th e dat e o f proposa l o f th e rules . I assur e yo u tha t EP

Awil l compl yfull ywit h thi s requiremen t whe n th e gasolin e refueling an d volatilit yproposal s ar e read yt o b e published , an d tha t bot h draf t NPRM' s an d an yaccompanying document s provide d t o OMB , an d al l writte n comment s and writte n response s concerning thos e notice s *_/ wil l b e place d i n th e appropriat e publi c docket s a t tha t time . O f course , a s yo u request , w e als o wil l b e happy t o provid e al l suc h document s t o th e Subcommitte e a t tha t time .

I n accordanc e wit h sectio n 307(d)(4)(B)(ii) , an ywritte n comment s receive d fro mothe r agencie s (includin g th e Departmen t o f Transportation ) regarding th e draf t proposals , an d an ywritte n EP

Aresponses , wil l als o b e place d i n th e publi c docket s for thes e proposals .P. 4



### -2

-

I d o no t agree , however , wit h you r suggestio n tha t concurren t Re d Borde r an d OM B reviewo f thes e draf t proposal s i s someho winconsisten t wit h the •spiri t o r purpose'o f sectio n 307(d)(4)(B)(ii) . A s yo u know , tha t provisio n doe s no t expressl ypreclud e suc h a procedure . I n fact , i t doe s no t addres s i n an ywayth e issu e o f whethe r EP Amus t (a s yo u suggest ) complet e it s interna l reviewan

d provid e "finished " o r "completed " copie s o f suc h notice s an d related documents . Sectio n 307(d)(4)(B)(ii ) onl yrequire s tha t EP Apu t an ydraft s o f propose d rule s an d related document s provide d t o OM B (an d an y writte n comment s an d responses) , withou t regard t o thei r stat e o f "completeness, " i n the appropriat e docket . Yo u suggest , however , tha t the purpos e o f sectio n 307(d)(4)(B)(ii ) i s t o allo wCongres s o r the publi c t o b e abl e t o tel l whethe r an ydifference s betwee n the finished proposa l an d the draf t provide d t o OM B ar e du e t o EPA' s interna l reviewo r t o suggestion s fro m0M 3 (o

r anothe r agency ) an d tha t concurren t reviewwoul d thwar t tha t purpose , w e rea d th e statut e differently . Sectio n 307(d)(4)(B)(ii ) require s onl ytha t certai n writte n interagency revie wmaterial s (i f an ysuch document s exist ) b e place d i n the docket . I t doe s no t requir e EP At o creat e a recor d t o explai n o r documen t whe n an d wh y an ychange s i n a draf t propose d rulemakin g notic e wer e made . Rather , tha t provisio n leave s i t t o th e Agency' s discretio n t o decid e ho wand whe n t o conduc t an

yinteragencyre"iew , subjec t onl yt o the requiremen t tha t certai n writte n material s b e docketed . I believ e tha t i t i s a reasonabl e exercis e o f tha t discretion , i n case s suc h a s these , fo r th e Agenc yt o begi n the review proces s b

ysending a Red Borde r draf t t o OMB . Sinc e sectio n 307(d)(4)(B)(ii ) neithe r explicitl yno r implicitl yrequire s tha t al l change s i n a finishe d proposa l b e identifie d a s having bee n suggeste d b yEPA , OMB , o r an

yothe r agency , I d o no t believ e tha t th e concurren t review practice d her e an

d o n othe r occasion s i s inconsisten t wit h sectio n 307(d)(4)(B)(ii ) o r it s purposes . O f course,-m ystaf f an

d I wil l b e gla d t o cooperat e wit h GA O i n th e reviewtha t yo u hav e requeste d o f the lega l an d polic yissue s raise d i n your letter . Finally , yo u refe r i n you r lette r t o two document s reference d i n the gasolin e refueling draf t proposa l (reference s 1 0 an d 18 ) an

d sugges t tha t thes e ar e "incomplete " document s an d tha t theythu s rende r th e draf t proposa l incomplete . A s discusse d above , sectio n 307(d)(4)(B)(ii ) doe s no t requir e tha t draf t proposal s submitte d t o OM B p r document s reference d therei n b e full ycomplete d a t tha t time . I n an yevent , ite

mno . 1 0 (draf t "OG C Attachment" ) i s merel ya longer , mor e detaile d versio n o f a condense d discussio n i n th e draf t refueling notic e submitte d fo r Re d Borde r an d OM B review . Thus , th e draf t NPR

M i s complet e wit h respec t t o tha t issue . ( Afinishe d versio n o f th e longe r discussio n wil l b e place d i n th e publi c docke t fo r thi s rulemaking , a s th e draf t NPR

M states , shortly) . Ite mno . 1 8 (draf t "Summaryan d Analysi s o f Comment s o n Draf t Gasolin e Marketing Study" ) i s i n th e proces s o f being reviewe d withi n EPAan d wil l b e release d n o late r than th e dat e o f proposal .P. 5



### -3 -

I nan yevent , completio

no f tha t ancillarydocumen t wa s no t essentia l t o eithe r EP

A o r OM B revie wsinc e th e draf t proposa l contain s al l the informa

tion necessar

yfo r ful l an

d meaningfu l reviewwithi n EP Aan d OMB . Publi c Comment s o n th e Ga s Marketing Activit y I n your lette r o f Ma y7 , yo u expresse d your concer n tha t EPA"ha s no t don e a n adequat e job i n expressl yseeking comments " o n importan t matter s relating t o th e ga s marketing question . A s yo u know , the Agenc yha s ye t t o propos e an

ynewactio n wit h regard t o ga s marketing operations . Despit e the fac t tha t w e ar e i n the pre-proposa l stag e an d ar e no t obligate d t o reques t comment s fro

moutsid e groups , w e hav e ha d extensiv e communications , an d hav e bee n extremel yope n wit h a wid e arrayo f interest s whic h migh t b e affecte d b yan yEP Adecision . EP Arecognize s th e significanc e o f thi s issue , and , a s I state d in m y Apri l 2 4 respons e t o you r Marc h 2 5 letter , " I believ e tha t w e hav e provide d ver yextensiv e informatio n concerning our stud yo f bot h the refuelin g an d volatilit yissues , wit h a leve l o f detai l an d dept h whic h woul d normall yb e confine d withi n th e forma l rulemaking process. " A t suc h time a s tha t forma l rulemaking proces s begins , w e wil l provid e an yadditiona l relevan t materia l whic h ha s no t alread ybee n mad e public , an d provid e a n additiona l opportunit yfor al l intereste d partie s t o comment . Reques t fo r Informatio n o n EP Aus e o f Contractor s Finally , i n you r lette r o f Ma y7 yo u aske d for extensiv e informatio n o n EPA' s us e o f contractor s in severa l air-relate d areas . W e ar e attempting t o assembl e th e informatio n tha t yo u requested , and , a s discusse d wit h you r staff , w e wil l tr

yt o provid e yo u wit h a n interi msummarywithi n th e nex t fewweeks .