OAR Box 1107 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

37) IV-C-6 

Docket Number: 

A-81-21 

Printed 4/11/2008 3:03:46 PM 

• 

Sheet 37 of 90 

p.1 
P.2 

/T A-81- 2 

IV-C-6 

Mr. Ken Komoroski 

Environmental Control 

Lake Charles Complex Chemicals 

PPG Industries, Inc. ' 

P.O. Box 1000 

Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602 

Dear Mr. Komoroski: 

Please find enclosed the draft report of our December 11, 1984 meeting 

to discuss incinerator operations under the vinyl chloride standard. Information presented during the meeting on incinerator operations and bypass 

occurrences at PPG's EDC/VC facility in Lake Charles, Louisiana have been 

summarized in the meeting report. Please take this opportunity to review 

the draft report for any inaccuracies or confidential business information 

and contact us within 2 to 3 days if such information is noted. Your prompt 

attention to this request is necessary to facilitate decision making on this 

issue. 

We appreciate your assistance in our data gathering efforts. If you 

have any questions or requests for revisions, please call Ms. Karen Fidler 

of Radian at (919) 541-9100 or me at (919) 541-5671. 

Sincerely, 

Robert E. Rosensteel 

Section Chief 

Chemicals and Petroleum Branch 

Emission Standards and 

Engineering Division 

cc: Billy Salter, PPG/Lake Charles Plant 

OAQPS/ESED/SDB: WFDiranick, rm 1043, NCM, 541-5578 

(Radian/KKFidler/ibunn/541-9100/01-23-85) 
P.3 

A V 

Pending Confidential 

The foUowing Information 1s located in the confidential 

files of the Director, Emission Standards and Engineering 

01vision, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina. This Information is confidential, pending 

final determination by the Administrator, and is not available for public inspection. 

Enclosure, dated December 21, 1984, from K. K. Fidler, Radian Corporation, to 

W. F. Dimmick, EPArSDB. This 12-page trip report (December 12, 1984) 

contains pending confidential information. 
P.4 

T--A- Ar8d25 

IV-C-6 

f •> . MAR 2 2 1984 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

nr.cstry 

Mr. David G. dawkins f^y 0 8 1385 

Natural Kesources Defense Council 

1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 600 CENTRAL DOCKET 

Washington, D.C. 20006 --rTirwi 

Dear Mr. Hawkinst 

Thank, you for your letter of January 20, 1984, discussing 

EPA's handling of communications with the Office of Managetoent 

and budget (OMB) and other Federal agencies under Section 307(d) 

ot the Clean Air Act. 

As you know, Section 307(d) ostaolishes the requirements 

for maintaining rulemaking dockets under the Act. Among these 

requirements are the following (Section 307(d)(4)(a))t 

(ii) The drafts of proposed rules submitted 

Oy the Administrator to the Office of Management 

and Budget for any interagency review process 

prior to proposal of any such rule, all documents 

accompanying such drafts, and all written co-amenta 

thereon Oy other agencies and all written responses 

to such written comments by the Administrator 

shall be placed in the docket no later than the 

date of proposal of the rule. The drafts of the 

final rule submitted for such review process prior 

to promulgation and all such written comments 

thereon, all documents accompanying such drafts, 

and written responses thereto shall be placed in 

the docket no later than the date of promulgation. 

Your letter expresses two concerns. You state "(fjirst, 

it appears that the Agency is failing to place draft rules 

and transmittal documents (and, perhaps, written OMB comments) 

in the docket as required by Section 307(d)(4)(ii)•" I 

share your concern that these requirements be properly met. 

Since 1977, EPA has consistently recognized its obligation to 

docket all written communications with OMB on rules, out its 

actual practice may not always have kept pace. I have asked 

Joe Cannon to remind his staff of these requirements. 
P.5 

- I -

I 

( 

You also state, "(sjecond, it appears that OMfl is evading 

the clear intentSof the law by making oral comments rather 

than written ones^and that SPA is countenancing this evasion 

by not docketing *§ record of all such oral communications," 

I cannot agree with you that KPA is "countenancing" any "evasion" 

of the law. section 307(d) requires the docketing only of 

written communications between EPA and OMB. As you know, 

ePA has consistently viewed this language as meaning what it 

says, and as not extending to oral communications. 

In enacting Section 307(d), Congress fashioned an unusual 

set of requirements by, on the ono hand, specifying inclusion 

of documentary communications with OMB and within tbe executive 

branch (Section 307(d)(4)(B)(ii))> but, on tho other hand, 

excluding this portion of the docket froa the record for judicial 

review (see Section 307(d)(7)(A)), and not including any 

requirements for recording oral communications. This reflects, 

in ay viow, a carefully balanced approach to provide public 

overview of the informal rulemaking process, without impeding 

the free exchange of views. 

Indeed, in their 1980 brief filed in the challenge to the 

new source performance standards for utility boilers EPA and 

the Department of Justice argued the general proposition that 

"communication within the executive branch is not only good 

law out also good government." Sierra Club v. Costie, Brief 

for Respondents, D.C. Cir. No. 79-1565 and consolidated cases 

at 141. The orief went on to stress that an automatic logging 

requirement for conversations would undermine this desirable 

interchange. Those positions have been consistently hold 

since the Agency's first interpretation of Section 307(d) in 

1977, and continuing through various intra-agency memoranda 

since that tiH»e. 

In responding to these EPA arguments and discussing the 

exclusion of written intra-executive branch materials from the 

judicial review record under 307(a)(4)(tt)(ii), the court in 

Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 P.2a 298 (D.C. Cir. 1981), stated 

that! 

... we believe it evinces a Congressional intent for 

the reviewing court to judge the rule solely upon the 

data, information, and comments provided in the public 

docket, as well aa the explanations fcPA provides when 

it •jro.-nul.jataa the rule, ana not to concern itself witn 

who in tho Executive drancn noviscd whom aoout which 

policies to pursue. 

added.) 

057 P.2d at 405 n. 519 (fcraphasis 
P.6 

- 3 -

I believe similar concerns about unduly aeterring policy 

debate within the executive branch lie behind the careful 

distinction section 3U7 makes between written and oral comments* 

„.» 

To the extent that your letter requests that X institute 

requirements and procedures beyond those required by Section 

307(d) $ I believe such an approach is neither warranted nor 

appropriate* The proper exercise of informal ruleoaKlng authority 

requires both a full and complete dialogue within EPA* and 

consultation within the executive branch* As stated in Sierra 

Club, the rulemaking process involves: 

• •• the basic need of the President and his white 

House atari to monitor the consistency of executive 

agency regulations with Administration policy* He 

and his white House advisers surely must be briefed 

fully and frequently about rules in the making, and 

their contributions to policy making considered* 

.Id* 

Regulations of tho type involved here often have broad 

implications for national policy* Agencies charged with their 

proposal and implementation must understand the full scope of 

those policy implications. Our system could not function 

rationally if £?A were isolated from OHii and the rest of the 

executive branch. While your letter does not explicitly suggest 

such an isolation, it would effectively impose such a result 

tnrougn the "docuroontary microscope" that your requirement 

woula place on communications between £*>A and UMB* 

Section 307(d) and our guidance for implementing it require 

that the requisite factual support for any rulemaking appear in 

the docket, whether that support is supplied by the public, 

environmental groups, industry, or from within the executive 

Dranch, our proceoures presently require this, and will continue 

to do so. In my view* these are the appropriate limits of any 

docketing requirements* 

I appreciate your views on this matter, and the dialogue 

they have stimulated* I assure you that we will continue to 

compiy with the requirements of Section 307(d)* For the reasons 

discussed above, I oelieve that these are the proper limits of 

our obligations* 

Sincerely, 

/ S / WILLIAM D, RUCXELSHAUS 

Willia m 0 . Kuckelshaus 

Administrato r 

Prepared by: aSalo/COarter/dw/382-7620/LE-132A/3-20-8 4 

(^