October 2, 1997
Mr. Richard Wilson
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20416
Dear Mr. Wilson:
I am writing about the recently published Nonroad Diesel Engines Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by the Environmental Protection Agency. This rule was the first rule proposed by EPA subject to the provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Flexibility Act of 1996.
I was pleased to find that all five flexibility provisions recommended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Flexibility Act Panel, which consists of representatives from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, and EPA, were included in the proposed rule. The Panel process provides a unique opportunity for those small entities that would be subject to the rulemaking to offer substantive comments to the Federal Panel and the EPA project managers who develop the regulations.
My staff has reviewed both the preamble to the proposed rule and the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, and have informed me that, according to EPA analyses, of the 283 small firms that will be affected by this proposed rule, only nine percent are projected to suffer adverse financial impacts because of the incorporation of four of the five flexibility provisions developed by the Panel, and this nine percent (as well as other small firms, if necessary) will be able to apply for hardship relief, which was the fifth provision recommended by the Panel.
Mr. Chester J. France and his staff in the Office of Mobile Sources, Engine Programs and Compliance Division, are to be commended for their exemplary work during the entire Panel process. I was impressed by their knowledge of the subject matter being discussed, their always appropriate insights, and their level of preparedness.
The publication of this rulemaking is a landmark achievement. As the first proposal, it is a shining example of proof that the goals of mitigating adverse small business regulatory impacts and the protection of human health and the environment are not mutually exclusive.
Sincerely,
Jere W. Glover
Chief Counsel for Advocacy
cc: Carol Browner, EPA
Chester J. France, EPA
Thomas E. Kelly, EPA