EPA’s Improving Environmental Rulemaking

Public Meeting

March 14, 2011

Summary  
Table of Contents

Plenary Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 

Purpose..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

Opening Presentation......................................................................................................................................... 1 

Comments Received During Focused Comment Period ...................................................................... 3 

Comments Received During Open Comment Period ............................................................................ 6 

Overview of Breakout Sessions .......................................................................................................................... 8 

Observations from Breakout Sessions ........................................................................................................ 8 

Compilation of Suggested Candidate Regulations or Actions for Review ................................... 9 

List of Participants ................................................................................................................................................ 11 

Air Breakout Summary – Round 1 ................................................................................................................. 12 

Public Comments Regarding Specific Regulations and Agency Actions ................................... 12 

Highlight of Comments by Impact and Issue Areas ........................................................................... 16

List of Attendees ................................................................................................................................................ 19 

EPA Participants ................................................................................................................................................ 19 

Air Breakout Summary – Round 2 ................................................................................................................. 19 

Public Statements Regarding Specific Regulations and Agency Actions .................................. 19 

Highlight of Comments by Impact and Issue Areas ........................................................................... 21

List of Attendees ................................................................................................................................................ 23 

EPA Participants ................................................................................................................................................ 23 

Pesticides Breakout Summary – Round 1 ................................................................................................... 24 

Public Comments Regarding Specific Regulations and Agency Actions ................................... 24 

Highlight of Comments by Impact and Issue Areas ........................................................................... 26

List of Attendees ........................................................................................................................................... 27 

EPA Participants ........................................................................................................................................... 27 

Pesticides Breakout Summary – Round 2 ................................................................................................... 27 

Solid Waste Breakout Summary – Round 1 ............................................................................................... 28 

Public Comments Regarding Specific Regulations and Agency Actions ................................... 28 

Highlight of Comments by Impact and Issue Areas ........................................................................... 29
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

ii 

Suggested Data Sources.................................................................................................................................. 30 

List of Attendees ................................................................................................................................................ 30 

EPA Participants ................................................................................................................................................ 30 

Solid Waste Breakout Summary – Round 2 ............................................................................................... 30 

Public Comments Regarding Specific Regulations and Agency Actions ................................... 30 

Highlight of Comments by Impact and Issue Areas ........................................................................... 33

List of Attendees ................................................................................................................................................ 34 

EPA Participants ................................................................................................................................................ 34 

Toxics Breakout Summary – Round 1 .......................................................................................................... 35 

General Comments ........................................................................................................................................... 35 

Public Comments on Specific Regulations Organized by Impact and Issue Areas ............... 35 

List of Attendees ................................................................................................................................................ 40 

List of Attendees ................................................................................................................................................ 40 

Toxics Breakout Summary – Round 2 .......................................................................................................... 40 

Comments Regarding EPA’s Regulatory or Regulatory Review Process .................................. 41 

Public Comments on Specific Regulations Organized by Impact and Issue Areas ............... 42 

List of Attendees ................................................................................................................................................ 42 

EPA Participants ................................................................................................................................................ 43 

Water Breakout Summary – Round 1 – Surface Water ......................................................................... 44 

Public Comments Regarding Specific Regulations and Agency Actions ................................... 44 

Specific Questions and Discussion ............................................................................................................. 46 

Highlight of Comments by Impact and Issue Areas ........................................................................... 49

List of Attendees ................................................................................................................................................ 50 

EPA Participants ................................................................................................................................................ 50 

Water Breakout Summary – Round 2 – Drinking Water ...................................................................... 50 

Opening Comments .......................................................................................................................................... 51 

Public Comments Regarding Specific Regulations and Agency Actions ................................... 51 

Specific Questions and Discussion ............................................................................................................. 52 

Specific Comments About Regulations .................................................................................................... 53 

List of Attendees ................................................................................................................................................ 54 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

iii 

EPA Participants ................................................................................................................................................ 54 

General Breakout Summary – Round 1 ....................................................................................................... 55 

General Breakout Summary – Round 2 ....................................................................................................... 55 

General Comments ........................................................................................................................................... 55 

Comments by Impact and Issue Areas ..................................................................................................... 55 

Additional Discussion Questions ................................................................................................................ 58 

General Comments ........................................................................................................................................... 60 

List of Attendees ................................................................................................................................................ 61 

EPA Participants ................................................................................................................................................ 61 
Plenary Summary

Purpose

EPA is beginning a new periodic retrospective review of its existing significant regulations 

to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or 

repealed. One of the primary goals of this effort is to make the Agency's regulatory program 

more effective or less burdensome in achieving its environmental mission and regulatory 

objectives. As called for by President Obama in Executive Order (EO) 13563, EPA is 

developing a plan for how to conduct this retrospective review process.  For more 

information, please see the Executive Order at: 

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2011/pdf/2011‐1385.pdf

On March 14, 2011, EPA held a public meeting to receive input on the plan and ideas about 

regulations that should be considered as candidates for review.   

Opening Presentation

Michael Goo (Associate Administrator for EPA Office of Policy) provided the opening 

presentation. He emphasized that protecting public health and the environment is a 

collaborative effort between EPA and stakeholders and that the Agency is always looking 

for ways to achieve its mission in a cost effective manner. Although the Agency already 

conducts periodic reviews of regulations based on statutory requirements and judicial 

challenges, the Administration is requiring all agencies under EO 13563 to develop a plan 

for retrospective review of significant regulations.  The Plan is due to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) by May 18, 2011 and will include a list of regulations 

targeted for review.   

On February 18, 2011, EPA launched a website to inform stakeholders of the process and to 

give them the opportunity to submit comments.  EPA is particularly interested in 

information and data that might support the justification for rule changes. Michael Goo 

encouraged stakeholders to consider the following types of issues and impacts: 

technological changes, different approaches to adopt (e.g., place‐based), and job creation.  

The last one is of particular interest/importance given the current state of the economy.   

Mr. Goo noted that this is a national listening session but that EPA media offices and 

Regional offices are also holding meetings specific to their program or region.  

Participants had the opportunity to ask questions about what was presented. 

• Given that EPA wants detailed comments and data, why are we being given such a short 

timeframe for submitting comments? 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

2 

o Mr. Goo noted that the timeframe is based upon meeting deadlines set by the 

President and OMB. 

• When you come up with the initial plan, are the regulations that will be listed the ones 

that will be addressed first? Or, is the preliminary plan just a mechanism by which EPA 

can show that it’s started the process? 

o Mr. Goo noted that the priority of regulations to be addressed has not yet been 

established. The time frame and priority will be established after comments have 

been received. 

• Can you confirm that OMB has given guidance that this review does not have to be 

limited to only large regulations and can include Information Collection Requests and 

other types of rules and documents? 

o EPA responded that Executive Order (EO) 13563 clearly focuses on existing 

significant regulations with significant being defined by EO 12866. However, 

OMB has noted that agencies are not precluded from including other types of 

rules and documents, as appropriate. 

• Could you explain the condensed process for this review? 

o The time for this review was provided by EO 13563 which requires agencies to 

submit a plan to OMB within 120 days from the day the EO was issued. OMB 

subsequently requested that draft plans be submitted by April 29. Our timeline is 

based upon meeting these deadlines. 

After hearing the public’s concerns about the tight time frame for responding with 

comments, Mr. Goo extended the deadline for submitting comments to April 4, 2011.

Tracey Westfield (EPA) provided a demonstration of the Web site

(http://www.epa.gov/improvingregulations) that had been established for posting 

information about and gathering information on EO 13563 for EPA’s regulations. It 

contains 14 different dockets categorized by media office and issue/impact areas. There is 

also a fifteenth docket for general comments.  Those commenters that cannot easily apply 

their comments to one issue/impact or media office can use the general docket to submit 

their comments.  The public may also use the following email address to submit comments: 

ImprovingRegulations.SuggestionBox@epa.gov.  

• Could you give some guidance on how to submit comments that are relevant to multiple 

dockets? 

o Ms. Westfield recommended just submitting the comment to the most relevant 

docket, or into the general docket if there was not another docket that seemed 

more appropriate. Comments will be reviewed by EPA staff and distributed to the 

appropriate experts within EPA even if comments do not appear in every docket 

to which they may apply. 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

3 

Comments Received During Focused Comment Period

Before addressing the pre‐identified questions that were posted in the Federal Register 

Notice, participants posed the following additional questions to EPA regarding the schedule 

for developing the Plan: 

o James Cooper, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association – Is the May 

18th deadline for a draft plan or final plan?  In a multi‐stakeholder process 

such as this, EPA gathers a lot of information very quickly.  It could be 

beneficial to form a task‐oriented multi‐stakeholder group to help define this 

process over a longer period of time. 

 EPA Response: The draft preliminary plan will be produced by end of 

April and the final preliminary document will be submitted on May 

18th. 

o Tyrone Wilson, Portland Cement Association – Will the draft plan be open 

for public comment before finalization? 

 EPA Response: EPA is considering opening the draft plan for public 

comment. 

o Howard Feldman, American Petroleum Institute – Should we be 

commenting on the existing review process and the development of future 

review processes? 

 EPA Response: Yes. 

During the remainder of the focused comment period, the facilitator asked participants the 

questions posted in the Federal Register Notice intended to help provide direction to EPA 

in its development of the Plan.  Below are the questions and participant responses. 

1) How should we identify candidate regulations for periodic retrospective

review?

o Andrea Field, Hunton & Williams LLP– Where there is a consensus that a 

regulation needs to be changed, it should be done quickly (e.g., less than 5 

years). 

o Susan Ferenc, Chemical Producers & Distributors Association – How are you 

defining what is a significant regulation?  How are you handling the existing 

regulatory review process cycle? 

 EPA Response: The EO and OMB guidance originally defined 

“significant regulations” as those regulations that had been reviewed 

by OMB.  EPA felt that this definition was too strict and has opened up 

the review to all regulations. 

 EPA Response: The review cycle varies by statute and EO.  EPA is still 

working out how existing review cycles should be considered with 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

4 

retrospective review required under the EO.  We would like advice on 

this matter. 

2) What criteria should we use to prioritize regulations for review?

o Julie Becker, Alliance of Automobile Manufactures – Regulations and rules 

that are coming out soon should be given priority (e.g. Labeling Rule for 

vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions).  EPA and National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration coordinate fairly well on their labeling 

regulations, but the California Air Resources Board and Federal Trade 

Commission are not as well coordinated.  We should get things right from the 

beginning, rather than have to go back and make changes once regulations 

are already in effect. 

o Daren Coppock, Agricultural Retailers Association – Priority should be given 

to those regulations that are duplicated among EPA branches or between 

EPA and other federal agencies.  Also, if there has been significant changes in 

the technology or the underlying science on which a rule or regulation has 

been based, the regulation should be subject to review. 

o Nick Goldstein, American Road & Transportation Builders Association – At 

what point will there be coordination between the various agencies that are 

reviewing their regulations?  Priority should be given to those regulations 

that conflict with other regulations from other agencies. 

o Cordell Burton, Pella Corporation – Recently issued regulations present 

great opportunities to review their expected versus actual impacts. 

o Keith Onsdorff, Liquid Fence – Under the pesticides regime, there is no 

preemption of state regulations.  There is a need for statutory reform in this 

case because the current landscape of state regulations is a patchwork and 

causes great inconsistencies in labeling requirements.  Congressional 

intervention is needed to reduce the burden on industry.  

o David Baron, Earthjustice – EPA should consider a series of steps for 

addressing those regulations that are required by statute to be reviewed.  

EPA is already behind schedule on these reviews. A second area for 

consideration should be those regulations that do the most to protect human 

health. EPA is already behind schedule on these reviews. 

o James Cooper, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association – It is 

important for EPA to understand the cumulative effect of reporting rules that 

require reporting to multiple agencies.  The information is often very similar. 

o Julie Becker, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers – Regulations that are 

impacted by significant scientific changes or depend on consumer uptake to 

adopt new behaviors or understand new information should be a priority. 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

5 

o Jennifer Cleary, Association of Home Appliance Manufactures – The Agency 

should more closely scrutinize the costs and benefits of regulations. 

Regulations that have a low benefit‐to‐cost ratio should be identified and 

given priority for review. 

o Greg Weatherman, Aerosolver – Regulations that get caught up in litigation 

on a regular basis should be prioritized, because this is a good indication of 

where problems exist and clarity is needed. 

3) How should our review plan be integrated with our existing requirements to

conduct retrospective reviews?

o Julie Becker, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers – Reviews should be 

timed so that the Agency can fully assess the statutory benchmarks that the 

regulation was meant to bring about.  Alternatively, the Agency should set 

statutory timeframes to guide their reviews—for example, Clean Air Act 

(CAA) 5‐year reviews and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and Maximum Achievable

Control Technology (MACT) standards. 

o Jonathan Gledhill, Policy Navigation Group – EPA should look prospectively 

at reviews anticipated over the next decade and build other reviews into 

those timetables. It should use OMB to help coordinate review of related 

regulations between agencies. 

o David Baron, Earthjustice – We would be very concerned if existing review 

processes were to be slowed down by this broader retrospective review 

process.  EPA is already behind on some of the existing reviews that are 

required by statute.  

4) How should we solicit input from the public on the plan?

o Susan Ferenc, Chemical Producers & Distributors Association – If you are 

going to be conducting a rule‐by‐rule review, open the docket as soon as EPA 

receives a date for review and not just 30 days before. 

o Christopher Dana, Pella Corp – Please be more realistic with the timeframe 

for public involvement, particularly in listening sessions, that require 

business owners to step away from the day‐to‐day operations of their 

companies. 

o Cordell Burton, Pella Corp – The utilization of social media (e.g., Facebook 

or Twitter) would greatly help small business owners to comment and stay 

involved in the public input process.  Many small business owners cannot 

take a day off work to come to a meeting like this. 

o David Baron, Earthjustice – Another EO (EO 12898: Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low‐Income 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

6 

Populations, 1994) is relevant to public outreach. EPA needs to make a 

special effort to get meaningful input from those communities that are 

directly impacted by these rules and regulations but are generally left out of 

the review process. 

5) What should be the timing of any given regulatory review (e.g., should a

regulation be in effect for a certain amount of time before it is reviewed)?

o Howard Feldman, American Petroleum Institute – In terms of timing, 

reviews should be conducted initially and should be done in all cases.  A 

trigger for the review process could be looking at projected outcomes vs. 

achievements. 

o David Baron, Earthjustice – For the CAA standards, a review is required 

every 5 years.  EPA has often asserted that the 5‐year window is not enough 

time to collect adequate data for a meaningful review. 

o James Cooper, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association – A lot of 

reviews are required by statute.  A cookie‐cutter approach is probably not 

the best option.  Regulations could be categorized and then addressed in 

more specific terms.  The trigger for review could be milestones, thresholds, 

or specific timeframes 

o Susan Ferenc, Chemical Producers & Distributors Association – Information 

Collection Requests (ICRs) under the Paperwork Reduction Act contain an 

evaluation of the costs and benefits of regulations, including a timeframe for 

which of the costs/benefits are to be realized.  This would seem to be a 

natural trigger and timeframe for reviewing those regulations. 

o Christopher Dana, Pella Corporation – Regulations impacting workplace 

standards should be reviewed within two years of going into effect and the 

results should be ground‐truthed against the actual burden within that 

timeframe. 

  

Comments Received During Open Comment Period

During this portion of the comment period, the facilitator opened up the discussion to 

additional comments and questions not addressed above.   

• James Cooper, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association – Commends EPA for 

holding this type of meeting.  EPA should hold similar public meetings for every rule 

under development and review.  He provided the following comments: 

o Rules should be reviewed every 3‐5 years and efforts should be coordinated 

within and among agencies. 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

7 

o Consider conducting reviews when new and valid science has been

established. 

o Reviews and adjustments of regulations should consider the impact on 

stakeholders. 

o Reporting rules should be reviewed more often because of their cumulative 

impact on businesses. 

o Timing for reviews should vary. 

o EPA should not attempt to influence the market place through their 

regulations. 

• Nick Goldstein, American Road & Transportation Builders Association –  

o All federal agencies should coordinate with each other during their 

regulatory review process. 

o The most recent data should be utilized during the review process. 

o When tackling larger issues, EPA should solicit as much public involvement 

as possible. 

o With permitting issues, EPA should set deadlines where they can to give 

affected businesses a timeline. 

o EPA should consider the costs and impact of a regulatory scheme, 

particularly when determining the human health impacts of materials.   

• Howard Feldman, American Petroleum Institute – EPA should be sure to utilize a

cost estimate.  EPA also needs to be careful to not double count costs or benefits. 

EPA should also avoid using guidance in lieu of regulation, as regulation requires 

more extensive public involvement. 

• David Baron, Earthjustice – EPA’s top priority should be to meet legally defined 

responsibilities and to address those reviews that are overdue.  There is a long 

backlog of reviews that are required by statute.  Many of these statutes are 

important in protecting human health. 

• Jeff Hannapel, Policy Group – Developing a rule is a time consuming and expensive 

process.  The Agency’s budget is getting slashed and it is important that EPA ensure 

that it is taking on a manageable workload.  The Agency should also be careful in 

setting up retrospective reviews not to create more process and bureaucracy that 

costs more and produces less.   

• Tyrone Wilson, Portland Cement Association – EPA should consider opening the 

draft plan for public comment. 

o The number of dockets open for public response is a little overwhelming and 

confusing. 

o EPA’s principal focus should initially be on the development of its 

preliminary plan for conducting a pragmatic retrospective review of its 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

8 

existing regulations and not simply an effort to compile a list of regulations to 

review. 

o EPA’s criteria for prioritizing regulations for review should include final rules 

adopted with less than a 60‐day public comment period. 

o EPA should make public the scientific research and other copyrighted 

materials on which it relies for the rulemaking process.  These documents 

should be added in a timely manner. 

o The combined and cumulative effects of regulations should be considered. 

Overview of Breakout Sessions

Following the morning plenary discussion, which was primarily focused on the 

development of the Plan for Retrospective Regulatory Review, participants moved to 

breakout sessions in the afternoon. The goal of these sessions was to provide participants 

with the opportunity to identify specific regulations and Agency actions that they felt 

should be candidates for review. The sessions were structured primarily along 

programmatic lines – Air, Water (Surface Water and Drinking Water), Solid Waste, Toxics, 

and Pesticides. There was an additional “General” breakout session offered to capture 

broader comments that participants may have had that were not media or program 

specific. Common themes from these breakout sessions are included below. Full summaries 

are included in subsequent sections of this document.  

Observations from Breakout Sessions  

Although suggestions about specific regulations differed from session to session due to the 

programmatic focus, there were some overarching observations about the sessions that 

may be important for the Agency to consider as part of the its efforts to develop its plan or 

to identify candidate regulations. These observations include: 

• Heavy participation by businesses, industry groups, and their affiliates –

Although environmental groups also participated in the meeting, most sessions 

were dominated by industry representatives. For example, of the total 58 

participants, only about 5 represented environmental interests.  

• Most comments focused on regulatory burden and costs and benefits of

regulations – There was very little focus across the sessions on impacts to 

vulnerable communities and burden on state/local/tribal governments. This could 

be a result of the predominance of industry representatives. 

• There is a cumulative burden to reporting and regulatory compliance –

Participants across sessions expressed concern about the cumulative burden that 

multiple reporting requirements have on industry, especially small businesses.  The 

need to respond to multiple requirements often falls on one individual or one part of 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

9 

the organization and can result in significant burden when reporting deadlines are 

not spread out. For example, some participants noted the need to provide similar 

information to comply with Toxics Release Inventory Form R requirements, the 

Greenhouse Gas Inventory, and the Refinery Information Collection. 

• There appear to be diminishing returns from regulatory actions or reporting

requirements –Many participants felt that EPA should keep in mind the law of 

diminishing returns and should focus their regulatory efforts where the most 

environmental benefits can be gained.  For example, participants cited examples of 

reporting requirements related to greenhouse gases on small appliances that do not 

have any emissions and tightening regulation on dust releases below the level that 

occurs naturally in some parts of the country.  

• There seems to be information that is being collected that has little or no

utility – Participants expressed concern about the utility of some information being 

collected by EPA. Given the burden to industry to supply the information, the 

Agency should ensure that it needs and will use what it is requesting and is not 

already getting the same or similar information through other mechanisms. For 

example, the Inventory Update Rule (IUR) has made data publically available at a 

cost to industry, but there is a perception that this has not been used for regulatory 

or risk management. 

Compilation of Suggested Candidate Regulations or Actions for Review

Below is a consolidated list of regulations or agency actions that participants suggested 

should be candidates for review. Context for these suggestions is included in the full 

breakout session summaries that follow. 

Air

• Clean Air Act (Subpart 812, National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Maximum 

Available Control Technology, Particulate Matter Reductions) 

• Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (Subparts QQ and MM) 

• Light Duty Vehicle – LEV 3 Tier 3 Emissions Standards 

• Regional Haze Program 

• Transportation Conformity Determinations 

Pesticides

• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (40 CFR 152.10, 152.15, and 

25(b)) 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

10 

Solid Waste

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Subtitles C & D, Universal Waste 

Regulations, Definition of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Determinations, 

Unexploded Ordinance Requirements) 

• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Update Rule 

• Non‐hazardous Secondary Material Rule 

Toxics

• TSCA sections on Export Notification 

• TSCA Section 402 – Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) rules 

• Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rules 

Water

• Clean Water Act (Fill Rule, Section 404, Section 208, Blending)

• FIFRA and NPDES overlap 

• Phosphate Standards for Florida 

• Safe Drinking Water Act (Maximum Contaminant Level) 

• Underground Injection Control 

• Consumer Confidence Report 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

11 

List of Participants
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

12 

Air Breakout Summary – Round 1

The summary below represents feedback received during this breakout session. It is not 

intended to be a transcript of participants’ statements. Participants were encouraged to 

also provide written comments to the docket to ensure that their suggestions are fully 

captured. 

Public Comments Regarding Specific Regulations and Agency Actions

Julie Becker, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

• There is a redundancy between National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) and EPA in fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions compliance 

and certification processes. These processes should be harmonized across 

agencies so as not to result in duplicate or conflicting data. 

• There are redundancies in the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Labeling Rules. There are 

labeling requirements put forth by the California Air Resource Board (CARB), 

Federal Trade Commission (FTC), NHTSA, and EPA. Each organization requires 

its own label. We would want a single national label if possible. 

• Future Regulation of Criteria Pollutants – Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) 3 Tier 3, 

Light Duty Vehicles 

o CARB is developing new LEV standards for Light Duty Trucks that will 

emissions essentially to ZERO, so that average emissions from these 

vehicles will be less than the cleanest vehicle today. 

o There are non‐essential and duplicative compliance and certification 

requirements for auto emissions. Automakers report 400 different 

parameters in two different databases.  Different requirements are a 

waste of resources. 

Jennifer Cleary, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

• Under the GHG Reporting Rule, Subpart QQ, there is a reporting requirement for 

equipment that contain fluorine refrigerants. These pieces of equipment are pre‐

charged when they are imported or exported. They do not emit any GHGs, but 

manufacturers are still required to report under Subpart QQ. This is a costly 

reporting burden for industry, especially small businesses, without any 

environmental benefit. There should be a de minimis level below which less 

onerous data collection and reporting are permitted. 

David Friedman, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association 

• The NAAQS regulatory review time frame in the Clean Air Act Amendments is 

five years. This is hard to meet already. There should be a moratorium on new or 

revised NAAQS until the full benefits of compliance with current standards are 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

13 

realized.  What happens if this new process is in conflict with that required 5‐

year review cycle?   

• For refineries, it is energy intensive to make fuel cleaner and no credit is given to 

refineries for the reductions that result from these cleaner fuels. In fact, they are 

penalized at the refinery level because their GHG emissions increase as a result 

of the additional energy it takes to make the fuel cleaner.  

• Conflicting Regulations: 

o Ethanol has a negative impact on ozone, although it helps us achieve 

energy independence. 

o If there is a lowering of standards NAAQS, then there is a significant 

energy expenditure – lots of money and energy is spent to make more 

reformulated fuels (pull out sulfur), and a refinery’s carbon footprint will 

increase (increase GHGs). 

• The Office of Policy and Program Evaluation (OPPE) was a former office within 

EPA. It served a good purpose.  We would like the EPA to reinstate that office to 

serve as an internal “watch dog” to provide more insight and oversight when 

writing new regulations. 

Howard Feldman, American Petroleum Institute 

• Regulatory impacts are not fully calculated. Specifically, the economic impacts on 

stationary sources for recent GHG regulations were never calculated as part of 

the regulatory development process. This should be addressed during a review 

process sooner rather than later. 

• Guidance and ICRs are not going through the regulatory review process. This is 

problematic because an ICR on refinery data that was estimated at $30 million is 

actually costing close to $70 million to comply. There is no apparent benefit to 

the data and no one appears to be reviewing it. 

• There appears to be double counting under Section 812 of the Clean Air Act that 

requires benefit‐cost analysis.  Specifically, the Agency is double counting 

benefits from Particulate Matter reductions (in the form of lives saved) from 

direct PM emissions reductions and from reductions under other rules (e.g., 

ground‐level ozone standards) that also result in PM reductions (from 

precursors). It would be best to separate the sets of populations that benefit 

from each of these regulations and have a goal of meeting PM standards across 

all regulations.  There is no indication that EPA is counting these benefits in an 

incremental fashion. This sort of double counting also happens when EPA 

estimates reductions in criteria pollutants from both stationary and mobile 

sources. There is an overall lack of clarity. 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

14 

o Andrea Field, Hunton and Williams LLP – Another example is that 

reducing SO2 reduces sulfates, and it is unclear if these particulate 

reductions are being counted under the PM regulation as well as part of 

the SO2 regulations. 

• NAAQS Process needs to be reviewed. There is a great deal of effort spent on 

reviewing NAAQS standards every five years. There is now marginal benefit to 

further tightening of the standard, because the Agency initially picked low 

hanging fruit. Unless the Agency sees compelling new science that indicates that 

the additional 5‐10% in reductions that can be achieved is feasible, it should 

spend its resources trying to achieve the existing standards and work on 

attainment plans. It should specifically look at the review process and determine 

if benefits are possible as well as the environmental engineering/equipment 

aspects to determine what reductions are feasible before undergoing a review.   

• The regulatory impact analysis does not include all costs.  For ozone, the analysis 

left out areas of California that were in attainment from the analysis, so the 

Agency did not catch all the costs in these areas.  This would dramatically change 

cost estimates. 

Andrea Field, Hunton and Williams LLP 

• Information Collection Request Process 

o The utility industry is in the midst of responding to an information 

collection request for the Utility MACT standards. The deadline is too 

short to complete the data collection.  There is not enough time to figure 

out what is being asked and to analyze the data being requested.  The 

estimated cost to respond to the ICR was estimated at $70 million, but 

closer to $100 million has been spent.  

o The ICR process overall is broken. People that do not have the technical 

expertise drive the process. Agencies should put all the people that are 

involved in an ICR together in one room to bring all of their relevant 

expertise to bear.  

• Congress generated a request for a snapshot of GHG emissions from large 

sources over a three‐year period.  The three years have expired and this data 

collection should not continue.  Other programs are collecting these data.   

o Howard Feldman – The data should help inform the regulatory process 

but the regulatory process charges ahead before getting the data. 

o David Friedman – This data is for policy makers and not to trade carbon.  

The EIA (from DOE) is already collecting this information on petroleum 

products under Subpart MM. My suggestion is to look cross agencies for 

the same information. 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

15 

• Before consent decrees are put into motion, all interested parties should be 

brought together rather than allowing them to comment after the agreement is 

reached.  This would reduce unrealistic schedules or the need to rush through a 

regulation without sufficient data. Examples where this has occurred include: 

Industrial Boiler MACT, ozone ambient air quality standards, and GHG New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS).   

• There appears to be a movement to use modeling data instead of monitoring 

data in the regulatory process. If there needs to be a reliance on models, then 

there needs to be a better process to improve the inputs into those models. An 

example is the CALPUFF model. This model was not created by EPA but by a 

consultant, and the Agency has stopped incorporating the improvements made 

to the model as the improvements are developed.  After meeting with Agency’s 

modelers, they have said that they have no resources to include the 

improvements and a rulemaking to include these changes would take 3‐5 years.  

The Agency needs the best models for rulemaking.  This would be a great 

opportunity to create public‐private partnerships to move the process along 

more quickly and to stay current with the technology. 

• The Agency needs to do a better job quantifying the benefits and risks of 

regulations, especially in regard to the EPA nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide 

ambient air quality standards.  Currently, the Agency looks at risk to public 

health if the air quality degrades, not if it stays the same based on the current 

standards. Then, they look at the potential risk to public health under the new 

proposed standards, which creates an artificial comparison. The Agency should 

look at the difference between the current and the proposed standards.  

Joe Kubsh, Manufactures of Emission Controls Association 

• Ensure that available technologies match the regulations on “the books”.  I have 

been talking to Office of Transportation about aftermarket catalytic converters, 

and the 25 year old policy and technology is long surpassed.  There are new 

technologies available providing additional benefits, and there should be a new 

policy that mirrors the policy in California.  This is low on EPA’s list of priorities. 

Right now there are two different levels of performance and the public always 

chooses the cheaper options (the reconditioned converter) to pass emissions.  

Changing this policy to recognize the benefits of the new catalytic converter 

technology would result in benefits for the environment and the consumer.  

Arline Seeger, National Lime Association 

• There is a lot of data being submitted under the GHG Reporting Rule that raises 

concerns about confidential business information. Competitors can look to see 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

16 

product formulations and use this information to unfairly adjust their own 

prices.  The EPA should accept the information but not make it available to the 

public until they understand ramifications, which may be very bad.  The Federal 

Trade Commission recognizes this problem. 

• In the Preamble to the Hourly NO2 and SO2 NAAQS Final Standards, there is some 

confusing language that appears to compel states to modeling data to determine 

exceedences.  Later guidance did not appear to make this same requirement, but 

it was not widely communicated. Please offer clarification to the preamble 

statements and related guidance. 

• Under the Regional Haze Program, there is an incremental assessment of 

affordability and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) based on the 

distance of facilities from National Parks. We are not finished with the first phase 

of data collection and assessment, but we are already moving on with the second 

phase.  The first reviews took place and found an insufficient reduction to submit 

to EPA.  The next wave of information is being collected under a 114 Letter.  This 

letter implies there is “foot‐dragging,” and it is a heavy‐handed approach to get 

the new data. The Agency should look at what was collected initially and then 

use this data to inform decisions moving forward. 

Highlight of Comments by Impact and Issue Areas

The section below highlights some of the key points raised during the comment period 

summarized in the previous section but groups these points according to the impact and 

issue areas that were posted in the Federal Register Notice prior to the meeting. These 

points are not re‐attributed to the person who provided them.  Any new comments or 

statements that may have been provided during the specific review of these impact and 

issue areas in the breakout are provided below along with attribution. 

Regulatory Burden and Small Business

• GHG reporting requirements for small businesses who manufacture, import or 

export small appliances that have fully contained fluorinated refrigerants are 

overly burdened by the requirement that has no environmental benefit. 

• Jonathon Gledhill – Small businesses and local utilities are being discouraged 

from using backup generators that are vital in emergencies, because too much 

use can violate permit requirements. 

• David Friedman – In regard to the Refinery ICR, small refineries usually have

one person that does all their reporting. This ICR requirement is particularly 

burdensome for these small facilities, especially because of the tight deadline. 

There is just no time to do it with available resources. 

Benefits and Costs
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

17 

• Reductions of particulate matter from different regulatory requirements where 

benefits such as lives saved may be double counted and thus EPA may be 

overestimating the benefits of particular regulations.  

• Some ozone regulations had been developed without full cost information. 

• Some of the incremental benefits gained from tightening ambient air quality 

standards may not be justified by the cost to achieve reductions. 

• Jonathon Gledhill, Policy Navigation Group – Ozone NAAQs should stop after a 

certain point.  Some parts of country can’t comply with the ozone NAAQs (Blue 

Ridge Mountains, southern areas). As a result of this situation, cost estimates are 

incomplete, because there are no affordable ideas to include. The Agency talks 

about the benefits of the standard without a full accounting of the cost (e.g. 

California data missing in one example). 

o Howard Feldman – Reminded the group about the example where the 

California data was missing from the cost estimate.  

Science Obsolete/Technology Outdated

• If the Agency is going to rely more heavily on modeling to inform regulatory 

processes, it must invest in the most up‐to‐date models. It also needs to be clear 

when models need to be used versus monitoring data. 

• Catalytic converter technology has changed since the standards were developed 

on sale of these units 25 years ago. These standards need to be revisited. 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments

• Andrea Field – States have motivation to meet the sulfur dioxide ambient 

standard, but the short turn around in the regulatory review cycle causes them 

to reassess frequently. EPA should have discussions with states before changing 

standards. 

• Howard Feldman– States complain about NSPS and GHG requirements, and 

they need resources to meet these mandates. 

Least Burden/Flexible Approaches

• Howard Feldman – Previously asked EPA to allow petroleum facilities to use 

infrared technology to spot leaking valves. The current requirement is to use 

“sniffers,” which are labor intensive. Infrared technology would provide nearly 

the same result at much less cost.  

• Julie Becker – Under the Vehicle GHG rule, the approval process for off‐cycle 

credits is a cumbersome and it would be nice to have a more streamlined 

process. 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

18 

• Howard Feldman – Under the NSPS for GHGs, while there are flexibilities, the 

proposed date becomes the effective date for the rule (required under Clean Air 

Act) for utilities in July and refineries in December.  This process of making the 

applicability date the date of proposal discourages efficiency and improvement. 

Please take advantage of the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking approach 

that gives people more notice about compliance time frames.  

• Howard Feldman  

o The Preconstruction Permitting under the Clean Air Act is cumbersome.  

It takes years to get a permit, and the review process goes through 

several courts. Financing is unattainable until the permitting process and 

review process are completed.  Furthermore, the appeals process is no 

less than a year and mostly more than a year. 

o Many rules are developed in an unreasonable time frame because EPA 

misses deadlines and a ruling is issued with a time frame. Industry tried 

to work with EPA to extend the Boiler NAAQS rulemaking and EPA did 

not present the facts on resources spent on the rule. EPA should specify 

the resources (more than just FTE, typically the same group of people 

responding to multiple rulemakings/reviews) devoted to meeting the 

deadline obligations so that the public can comment on these resources.   

• Joe Kubsh – Before developing the geologic sequestration rule, a technical 

workshop was held beforehand and invitations were sent to all stakeholders.  

Then there were several rulemaking workshops to solicit ideas, bringing 

stakeholders into the process.  This was an effective way to proceed and these 

steps ultimately led to the rule not being challenged.  

Integration & Innovation

• EPA should be looking across agencies and other EPA programs to eliminate 

redundancies in areas such as fuel efficiency labeling and GHG emissions 

standards. 

• Better integration is needed to eliminate conflicting standards that require 

cleaner fuels to reduce GHG emissions and penalties due to increases in GHG 

emissions at facilities that are working to make these fuels cleaner because of 

the increased energy that is required to implement these new cleaning 

processes.  

• Joe Kubsh – EPA should look across the UIC program and the Air program’s GHG 

reporting requirements at the requirements related to injection of CO2. It should 

consider looking at a flexible approach that may just defer reporting of CO2

injections to the programs at the state or regional levels that manage these 

programs to avoid duplication. 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

19 

• Jonathan Gledhill, Policy Navigation Group – EPA does a good job with subpart 

812 retrospective analyses and could use that as a road map.  Lessons can be 

learned from the review process.  Are we optimizing across media? 

List of Attendees

Julie Becker, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, represent 12 manufactures 

Jennifer Cleary, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

Howard Feldman, American Petroleum Institute 

Andrea Field, Hunton & Williams LL (On behalf of the Utility Air Regulatory Group) 

David Friedman, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association 

Dale Kardos, Dale Kardos & Associates, Inc. 

Joseph Kubsh, Manufactures of Emissions Controls Association 

Arling Seeger, National Lime Association 

Jonathon Gledhill, Policy Navigation Group  

Bob Van Voorheese, Bryan Cave 

Thomas Traceski, DOE 

Einik Daniella, Jones Day 

EPA Participants

Lori Stewart, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Dennis, O’Conner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Glynis Hill, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Jeremy Arling, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Stewart Miles, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Alex Cristofaro, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Eric Ginsberg, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Air Breakout Summary – Round 2

The summary below represents feedback received during this breakout session. It is not 

intended to be a transcript of participants’ statements. Participants were encouraged to 

also provide written comments to the docket to ensure that their suggestions are fully 

captured. 

Public Statements Regarding Specific Regulations and Agency Actions

Daren Coppock, Agricultural Retailers Association  

• There is no way that certain areas of the country can attain zero dust emissions, 

especially in the West.  EPA is proposing to lower dust standards to an 

unachievable level.  If this is evaluated on cost/benefit approach, then the cost 

would approach an infinite value.  What is the EPA’s science behind its 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

20 

recommendation? What is the EPA’s approach? When are the economic impacts 

considered?  I recommend setting a standard with consideration of how 

achievable the standard is and the cost as the standard is developed.  

o EPA Response – Cost is typically evaluated when assessing 

implementation and not when a standard is being developed. The 

standard would go through a public comment period in the proposed rule 

phase.  NAAQS standards are also peer reviewed and there are multiple 

opportunities for public review and comment during multiple stages of 

the standard development process. 

Nick Goldstein, American Road & Transportation Builders Association 

• Transportation Conformity Determination:   

o This is not an exact science. The Air Quality Multi‐Pollutant (AQMP) 

process uses the most current data, not future data generated through a 

model. Model data is not current or realistic because they are prediction 

based. These processes should use the most current and most accurate 

information. 

o Emissions Budget should have a built‐in flexibility of 10‐15% because a 

county may experience a temporary increase in emissions based on a 

number of different events for a momentary period of time.   

o Hot Spot conformity should be repealed.  There may be temporary

construction taking place that may actually contribute to an overall 

reduction in emissions (e.g., new public transportation or infrastructure 

that eases congestion). Stress the predictability of future standards (e.g. 

ozone standard). 

• The NAAQS standard setting process changes too frequently. It is difficult for 

local communities to make changes to meet NAAQS standards before the 

standards are up for review. Local governments need predictability in order to 

achieve the standards. EPA should consider progress being made toward a 

particular standard before they consider changing it.  

• The State Implementation Program process under the Clean Air Act is broken. 

There are lots of discussions about the unyielding process and about how it may 

not be accomplishing its goals. The Agency should look for alternatives such as 

the ones being proposed by siptransformation.org. 

• It seems like standards are set in a vacuum. The Agency should consider other 

regulations that may be taking effect when they consider modifying or changing 

related regulations. Data from those other efforts will show reductions in 

emissions when they come on line.  The Agency should look broadly across its 

programs to evaluate emissions reductions.  
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

21 

Beth Graves, Environmental Council of States 

• When a new rule is promulgated, EPA should concurrently issue implementation 

plan guidance to states and local governments instead of states and local 

governments trying to guess about implementation. 

• EPA should develop a web‐based tool similar to the Regulation Gateway that 

shows existing rules that are going through this review or retrospective analysis 

process. 

Burleson Smith, PNG 

• Under the Clean Air Act statutory 5‐year review cycle deadline, EPA should 

incorporate the results that were achieved during that period into the next 

review process to determine if changes are needed. The Agency should also 

consider aligning the review timeframe with the CAA reauthorization process. 

• Will EPA have a Master Calendar across the Agency to identify those regulations 

under review?  

Highlight of Comments by Impact and Issue Areas

The section below highlights some of the key points raised during the comment period 

summarized in the previous section but groups these points according to the impact and 

issue areas that were posted in the Federal Register Notice prior to the meeting. These 

points are not re‐attributed to the person who provided them.  Any new comments or 

statements that may have been provided during the specific review of these impact and 

issue areas in the breakout are provided below along with attribution. 

State/Local/Tribal Governments

• State, local and tribal governments would benefit from having implementation 

plans when regulations are issued.  

• Local governments in particular have longer planning timelines and this needs to 

be factored in when looking at results of regulations.  

Regulatory Burden and Small Business

• Nick Goldstein – See trickle‐down effect when things are not working (cost 

impact, dust, fuel emissions standards).  Small businesses are impacted 

significantly by nonattainment designations. 

• Daren Coppock – Proposed GHG (standard set for carbon emissions) may raise 

price of fertilizer and price of fuel (not far enough down the track yet to know), 

which could significantly impact small businesses. 

Benefits and Costs
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

22 

• Daren Coppock – Costs are limited to state and local governments and 

manufactures. They should be evaluated across the spectrum of impacted 

parties. 

Compliance

• Compliance is difficult if the background value is above the threshold (e.g., for 

dust). 

• A temporary increase in emissions (i.e. during a construction phase) may lead to 

lower emissions in the future and overall, although it impacts a local 

government’s compliance in the near term. 

Science Obsolete/Technology Outdated

• Ensure that the Agency is using the most appropriate data in its processes, 

including the best modeling data or, if more appropriate, monitoring data. 

• Daren Coppock – The Agency should consider whether there is a market that 

can supply or purchase the technology that would be recommended as part of a 

standard. What complies may not be there on the market yet, or it may be 

prohibitively expensive, especially for small businesses.  

• Nick Goldstein – How well is our air quality monitoring doing at giving us an

accurate picture of air quality? How often is it pulled and what geographic area 

does it apply to? Is it giving you representative information? 

o Explain the process to the public more clearly as far as the information 

EPA uses to make choices.  Public wants to comply but just don’t 

understand – look across the whole regulatory review! 

o Show people where the monitors are and where the data is coming from, 

communicate the assumptions, and account for flexibility if pulling from a 

small data set. 

o Factor how to extrapolate air quality based on limited data sets into 

decisions on NAAQS implementation and base flexibility on the levels of 

certainty or uncertainty. 

Least Burden/Flexible Approaches

• There should be more flexibility in the emissions budgets for local governments 

related to transportation conformity determinations. 

Economic Conditions/Market

• Daren Coppock – The best role for the government to play is to keep a fair and 

level playing field not to encourage markets or pick winners.  The Agency should 

do more to encourage the private sector to innovate. EPA should set the rules 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

23 

and make goals more outcome‐based and give industry the flexibility to meet 

those outcomes.   The Agency should not interfere or compete with private‐

sector enterprises. 

• Nick Goldstein – The Diesel Collaborative is an example of a successful venture 

to help the public get funds to meet regulatory objectives, but it’s a non‐

regulatory program. 

Integration & Innovation

• Look across programs and agencies to avoid duplication and redundancy and to 

see what other regulations may be having an impact on the emissions being 

targeted by a particular regulation under review (e.g., how are transportation 

regulations impacting NAAQS levels that could impact decisions to change the 

standard?). 

• Create a master EPA calendar for rules, reviews, and retroactive reviews. 

• Daren Coppock – Different states will have different emissions readings – get 

away from “one size fits all” and allow the states to fix the problem. Give States 

more flexibility to manage within their borders, but do more to share 

information on successes – create a repository of State strategies and 

achievements. 

List of Attendees

Daren Coppock, Agricultural Retailers Association 

Dan Newton, Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) 

Nick Goldstein, American Road & Transportation Builders Association 

Beth Graves, ECOS 

Aaron Lovell, Inside EPA 

Burleson Smith, PNG 

EPA Participants

Lori Stewart, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Dennis, O’Conner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Glynis Hill, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Jeremy Arling, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Eric Ginsberg, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

24 

Pesticides Breakout Summary – Round 1

The summary below represents feedback received during this breakout session. It is not 

intended to be a transcript of participants’ statements. Participants were encouraged to 

also provide written comments to the docket to ensure that their suggestions are fully 

captured. 

Public Comments Regarding Specific Regulations and Agency Actions

Greg Weatherman, Aerosolver 

• The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) failed to define 

the word mitigate in relation to antimicrobials, which has allowed too much 

latitude.   

• 40 CFR 152.10 and 40 CFR 152.15 specifically exclude cleaners and deodorizers 

and bleach, but there is inconsistent interpretation and enforcement of these 

exclusions.  

• MSDS requirements should be applied to antimicrobials. Professionals need the 

toxicology information to justify use of an antimicrobial. The toxicology 

information should be on the products, not just the signal word.  

• Bacteria can be structurally similar. Pesticides that work by structural impact 

can work on an entire suite of bacteria that share a particular structure.  It does 

not make sense that EPA should require pesticide retesting on a bacteria of the 

same structure just to show that it is effective.  For example, how many forms of 

Type A influenza do you really need to test to make sure the product works? 

• The treated article exemption clause is not being applied in a practical way.  For 

example, HVAC cooling coils are coated in copper to prevent the growth of mold; 

however, they cannot be called antimicrobial.   

Daren Coppock, Agricultural Retailers Association 

• EPA should be commended for the regulations under FIFRA as scientifically 

rigorous, comprehensive, and generally predictable. 

• One area of concern for the Agricultural Retailers Association is the proposed 

change to the spray drift regulations that would remove language about causing 

“no unreasonable adverse effect” and change the language to say “cause no 

harm.”  Without a specific and comprehensive definition of “harm,” the proposed 

language change increases the potential for liability.  There is a lengthy case 

history to define unreasonable adverse affect, but this does not exist for harm. 

• There is too much duplication of effort when trying to respond to multiple 

regulatory programs—such as under the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES)—one entity has to meet multiple reporting and 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

25 

permitting requirements under FIFRA and the Clean Water Act (CWA).  These 

programs should be coordinated.  The NPDES requirement resulting from the 

court case is costly, burdensome, and duplicative. 

• The program to distribute legal labels via the Internet that is currently being 

piloted leads to the label being separated from the actual container.  This 

situation would open up additional liability if there were issues with a label 

being updated while a container was in storage and then used for an unapproved 

use.  EPA should keep the labels affixed to the container and designate the 

affixed label as the only legal label. Updates and changes to the data on the label 

could then be distributed via the Internet. 

• EPA should not spend time reviewing and deliberating over regulations where 

the science has not changed.  An example of this is that EPA is reviewing atrazine 

for the sixth time, and the science has not changed.  These regulations should not 

be a priority for the Agency to review and update.   

• It is inappropriate for EPA to be regulating to create an adverse effect on a 

market, technologies, or jobs. 

• EPA should work with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and 

Wildlife service to get reasonable counterpart regulations in place. 

Keith Onsdorff, Liquid Fence 

• A statutory amendment to FIFRA is needed to address dilemmas in labeling. States 

maintain individual requirements for label content and a business must then answer 

to 50 different sets of requirements when labeling a single product. EPA should 

mandate a standard for label review.  

• We support local authority to ban products if harmful to a locale, but not 

inconsistent standards for having the label approved.  We are not advocating total 

preemption but consider mandating some national clearinghouse for label reviews 

so that we can have access to the market with a single label.  

• Some states will not approve a label from another state, precluding products from 

the market unless they develop a new label.  This hurts interstate commerce and 

makes national distribution of the regulated product impossible. A specific labeling 

requirement may be appropriate, if there is a special environmental condition or 

situation that is unique to a particular area, but just crossing the state line doesn’t 

necessarily change the environment. 

• We support the existing FIFRA 25(b) program.  In response to a 2006 petition to 

evaluate mosquito and tick repellents, EPA may propose to require regulation of 

25(b) products.  This could unwind the entire program. The original petition had a 

narrow scope, and EPA is going way beyond what was requested.  This reaction is 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

26 

counter to the White House mandate to streamline regulations and reduce the 

burden. 

• EPA is considering toxicity studies on 25(b) products, but the products have already 

been deemed non‐toxic.  Our products are efficacious, and we have data to support 

that.  There is concern that there is a broader array of regulations to be imposed on 

25(b) products. 

• We are not aware of any enforcement cases for insect repellants where repellant 

claim was not true. 

• In the context of providing data to show an existing need for regulation, EPA should 

also consider the absence of data and not increase economic burdens when there 

are no data to show a need. 

Susan Ferenc, Chemical Producers & Distributors Association 

• EPA should include significant guidance in this review process, not just significant 

rulemakings.  Guidance can greatly impact the burden on the regulated community, 

yet does not receive the same level of scrutiny.  EPA underestimates the costs of 

guidance.  Guidance becomes so institutionalized that it is impossible to change, but 

it can drive decision‐making and data collection. 

• EPA should not use market manipulation as a mandate for regulation.  EPA should 

not attempt to influence market inefficiencies through regulation. 

Highlight of Comments by Impact and Issue Areas

The section below highlights some of the key points raised during the comment period 

summarized in the previous section but groups these points according to the impact and 

issue areas that were posted in the Federal Register Notice prior to the meeting.  

Regulatory Burden and Small Business

• There is lack of definition about the limitations of the regulations. For example, 

what is meant by “mitigate” for antimicrobials and the definition of “harm” in the 

proposed new language for the spray drift regulations?

• An absence of data on detrimental impacts may indicate that there is no need for 

regulation and imposing an undue burden.  Only regulate where there is a 

demonstrated need and a scientific basis. 

• Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program is one example of a program where the 

Agency has underestimated the cost of the program. There is a good basis to 

evaluate the practical utility of the program, and the strength of the science is 

not there.   
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

27 

Compliance

• EPA should mandate a standard for label review and requirements so that there 

is less disparity among state labeling requirements. 

• There is inconsistent interpretation and enforcement of 40 CFR 152.10 and 40 

CFR 152.15. 

List of Attendees

Daren Coppock, Agricultural Retailers Association 

Tim Creger, Nebraska Department of Agriculture 

Susan Ferenc, Chemical Producers and Distributors Association 

Keith Onsdorff, Liquid Fence 

Larry Pearl, Agra Informa 

Kate Rosenfeld, DC Legislative & Regulatory Services 

Greg Weatherman, Aerosolver 

Michael Wenk, m4 Consulting 

Burleson Smith, Policy Navigation Group 

EPA Participants

Bill Diamond, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Martha Shimikin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Deborah Hartman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Cameo Smoot, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Angela Hofmann, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Pesticides Breakout Summary – Round 2

No participants attended the second Pesticides Breakout, so no summary is provided. 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

28 

Solid Waste Breakout Summary – Round 1

The summary below represents feedback received during this breakout session. It is not 

intended to be a transcript of participants’ statements. Participants were encouraged to 

also provide written comments to the docket to ensure that their suggestions are fully 

captured. 

Public Comments Regarding Specific Regulations and Agency Actions

Raymond Ludwiszewski, Gibson, Dunn and Cruthcher 

• The retail industry finds Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

regulations significantly burdensome as many products in the store are viewed 

as hazardous wastes under RCRA. This is converse to the same product disposed 

of by homeowners classified as household hazardous waste exempt.  

• EPA should revive consideration of RCRA regulations as they pertain to 

consumer products contained in consumer packaging including pharmaceuticals. 

This may include revising the Universal Waste Regulations. About three to four 

years ago, the Agency had this issue on the regulatory agenda and there was 

some activity; however, no changes have been made to date relieving the retail 

industry of making RCRA waste determinations. 

• Retailers are challenged by not knowing what is in a product due to trade 

secrets. This makes it difficult to make hazardous waste determinations.  

• The RCRA program centers around one paradigm focused on waste that legally 

cross‐cuts into the area of products—ultimately the issue is how to determine a 

product versus a waste. 

• Best source of data include the Retail Industry Leaders Association. EPA can also 

contact Ray Ludwiszewski at rludwiszewski@gibsondunn.com that can help 

obtain additional information.  

Jonathan Gledhill, Policy Navigation Group 

• In the past, EPA has thrown out consideration of comparable fuels and issues 

surrounding the Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) that has impacted munitions 

and metal recycling. Public entities such as DOD and DOE deal with challenges of 

munitions disposal as do private entities such as blasting ranges and the mining 

sector.  These challenges are specific to unexploded munitions—what should be 

done with what is left in place? When left in place, these devices present a 

hazard.  

• Metals contained in unexploded ordinance waste include lead, titanium, 

chromium and others. 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

29 

• If unexploded munitions are picked up to be addressed, the entity could be 

considered a generator.  

• Thermal oxidizing enclosed box technology currently exists and could alleviate 

these issues. This technology would facilitate explosion of the unexploded 

ordnance allowing recovery and recycling of metals such as lead, chromium, and 

titanium. 

• Aggregation is a big hurdle that prevents efficient recycling. Solutions to these 

issues could make disposal more efficient while recovering valuable metals. 

Aggregation does not occur now because of the DSW Rule. 

• EPA could develop solutions that could be win/win for EPA and other agencies 

without throwing issues out during the rulemaking.  

• EPA can use the military to test potential solutions. We would like to see EPA 

consider DSW reforms and continue the flexibility the courts have given to these 

issues.  

• The Navy and DOD’s Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) are good sources of 

data. The Navy is the lead doing the majority of the work. 

Highlight of Comments by Impact and Issue Areas

The section below highlights some of the key points raised during the comment period 

summarized in the previous section but groups these points according to the impact and 

issue areas that were posted in the Federal Register Notice prior to the meeting. No new 

comments or statements are included. 

Regulatory Burden and Small Business

• EPA should revive consideration of RCRA regulations as they pertain to 

consumer products in consumer packaging including pharmaceuticals. Products 

are being characterized incorrectly as hazardous wastes under RCRA presenting 

significant burden to the retail industry and pharmaceuticals. 

Compliance

• Potentially revise the Universal Waste Regulations clarifying and defining a 

product versus hazardous waste. Retailers are challenged by the difficulty in 

making hazardous waste determinations. 

Least Burden/Flexible Approaches

• EPA should consider issues related to comparable fuels and the DSW Rule as it 

relates to the handling of munitions. 

• Unexploded ordinance pose a hazard, but if they are picked up to be addressed, 

the entity could be considered a generator. Thermal oxidizing enclosed box 

technology currently exists and could alleviate this issue.  
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

30 

• Aggregation is a big hurdle that prevents efficient recycling and should be 

considered to increase the efficiency of disposal and allowing recovery of metals. 

EPA should consider DSW reforms and continue the flexibility the courts have 

given to these issues. 

Suggested Data Sources

• Gather data from the Retail Industry Leaders Association. EPA can also contact 

Ray Ludwiszewski at rludwiszewski@gibsondunn.com who can help obtain 

additional information.  

• The Navy and DOD’s Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) are good sources of 

data. The Navy is the lead doing the majority of the work. 

List of Attendees

Raymond Ludwiszewski, Gibson, Dunn and Cruthcher 

Jonathan Gledhill, Policy Navigation Group 

EPA Participants

David Nicholas, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Betsy Devlin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Lucinda Power, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  

Kathy Lett, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Gerain Perry, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Charlotte Mooney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Jim O’Leary, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Solid Waste Breakout Summary – Round 2

The summary below represents feedback received during this breakout session. It is not 

intended to be a transcript of participants’ statements. Participants were encouraged to 

also provide written comments to the docket to ensure that their suggestions are fully 

captured. 

Public Comments Regarding Specific Regulations and Agency Actions

Mike Stephenson, Wal‐Mart Stores, Inc. 

• The retail sector can be hampered by RCRA regulations that consider in‐store 

products as hazardous wastes. RCRA works when applied to its original 

paradigm—chemical hazardous waste. Retailers struggle in the application of 

RCRA regulations to consumer products. The burden outweighs the benefits.  

• Retailers do not have a cost‐effective way to make hazardous waste 

determinations. Products are made across the globe and contain ingredients that 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

31 

are trade secrets. MSDS sheets do not provide sufficient information to make a 

determination. 

• EPA should create a RCRA exemption to consumer products and packaging. 

Homeowners can dispose of products under the household hazardous waste 

exemption; however, retailers struggle to deal with these same products that are 

considered hazardous waste under RCRA.  

• Products that should be exempt include: 

o Multi‐vitamins (considered hazardous waste because of selenium and 

chromium). 

o Aerosol cans that make up a large percentage of the waste stream 

because they are ignitable and uncertainty exists with reactivity. Many 

times, the disposal costs are more that the product itself. 

o Consumer electronics such as cell phones. EPA has exempted CRT’s; 

however, there are ambiguous guidelines pertaining to small consumer 

electronics presenting significant risk to the retailer. 

• EPA should expand the definition of Universal Waste. EPA previously considered 

this and found potential changes were appropriate. This could give the Agency a 

greater level of regulatory authority and limit environmental risk.  

• EPA should expand the finalized Pharmaceutical Universal Waste Rule. Most 

retail pharmacies deal with challenges associated with this rule and could be 

considered large quantity generators under RCRA. Generating as few as 65 pill 

bottles could bring this determination to retail pharmacies.  

Stephanie Castorina, IPC‐Association Connecting Electronics Industries 

• EPA offices should communicate more. For example, EPA’s Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Update Rule is being updated to be significantly 

more stringent; however other EPA programs conflict with this. A chemical 

considered a RCRA hazardous waste is considered a new chemical under OPPT’s 

New Chemical Program. These conflicts cause confusion and cause people to ask 

if chemicals need to be reported.  

• There is a need for EPA’s Office of Policy to review regulations from different 

offices to avoid conflicts.  

David Wagger, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries 

• EPA should include an exclusion under RCRA for all scrap metal.

• EPA needs to reconsider the definition of “discard” under RCRA. For example, if 

the intent is to refurbish more or less of a product or use parts of one product in 

other products, this does not fit the definition of “discard”. However, if waste 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

32 

goes to a landfill, there is no intent to recover value, and it fits the current 

definition. 

• Including reclamation in the definition of “discard” impedes sustainability.  

• Variations in state regulations and the issues of crossing state boundaries add 

further difficulties and confusion. Waste is handled one way in one state and 

another as it crosses state boundaries.  

• There are also conflicts between RCRA Subtitle C and RCRA Subtitle D. Scrap 

metal is exempt under Subtitle C; however, states can regulate scrap metal under 

Subtitle D. Also, state regulations under Subtitle C may be more stringent. 

• There is conflict among EPA regulations, and it is important for EPA to review 

regulations to ensure consistency and avoid confusion.  

Fern Abrams, IPC 

• Substances currently listed as a hazardous waste under RCRA are obsolete and 

need to be revised. This can be seen in the bath plating processes that produce 

sludge byproducts that are hazardous wastes by RCRA definition.  

• Sludge listed as hazardous waste from these processes tended to contain 

hexavalent chromium and cyanide, and when the process is changed so that the 

electroplating sludge no longer contain those toxics, they remain listed and must 

be managed as hazardous waste. 

• Listings that are retained even when processes change is a disincentive for 

companies from getting toxics out of listed wastes. Ultimately, the delisting 

process has a reputation for being difficult, which is why the electroplaters have 

not gone that route. 

• Reviewing the list of hazardous wastes and updating information can provide 

benefits without loss of environmental protection.  

Amanda Aspatore, National Mining Association 

• There are concerns that cost/benefit analyses do no not take into consideration 

cumulative economic impacts. When multiple EPA rules are released at once, the 

impact is significant. There is no current mechanism in place taking into account 

all Agency actions to decrease the economic burden.  

Kevin Bromberg, Small Business Administration 

• There is confusion as to the reasoning behind EPA’s legitimacy criteria under the 

Non‐Hazardous Secondary Material Rule.  

• There are concerns related to the determination of tires, urban wood, and used 

oil as secondary waste material. 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

33 

Highlight of Comments by Impact and Issue Areas

The section below highlights some of the key points raised during the comment period 

summarized in the previous section but groups these points according to the impact and 

issue areas that were posted in the Federal Register Notice prior to the meeting. No new 

comments or statements are included. 

Integration & Innovation

• EPA should review the areas of conflict between RCRA Subtitle C and RCRA 

Subtitle D. For example, scrap metal is exempt under Subtitle C; however, states 

can regulate scrap metal under Subtitle D.  

• There is conflict among EPA regulations, and it is important for EPA’s Office of 

Policy to review regulations to ensure consistency and avoid confusion. 

• Reviewing and updating the list of hazardous wastes and removing those 

substances no longer considered hazardous.  

Least Burden/Flexible Approaches

• EPA should create a RCRA exemption to consumer products and packaging. 

Homeowners can dispose of products under the household hazardous waste 

exemption; however, retailers struggle to deal with products that are considered 

hazardous waste under RCRA. Products that should be exempt include: multi‐

vitamins, aerosol cans, and consumer electronics such as cell phones.  

• EPA should expand the definition of Universal Waste. EPA previously considered 

this and found potential changes appropriate. This could give the Agency a 

greater level of regulatory authority and limit environmental risk.  

• Reconsider the definition of “discard” under RCRA, and include an exclusion 

under RCRA for all scrap metal. 

• Including reclamation in the definition of “discard” impedes sustainability. 

• Listings that are retained even when processes change is a disincentive for 

companies from getting toxics out of listed wastes. Ultimately, the delisting 

process has a reputation for being difficult and that is why the electroplaters 

have not gone that route. 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments

• There is variety in how State governments implement RCRA regulations 

including requirements under Subtitles C and D. In some instances, State 

government regulations are more stringent causing issues when waste is 

transported across state boundaries.  

Benefits and Costs
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

34 

• There are concerns that cost/benefit analyses do not take into consideration 

cumulative economic impacts. When multiple EPA rules are released at once, the 

impact is significant. There is no current mechanism in place taking into account 

all Agency actions to decrease the economic burden. 

Regulatory Burden and Small Business

• EPA should expand the finalized Pharmaceutical Universal Waste Rule. Most 

retail pharmacies deal with challenges associated with this rule and could be 

considered large quantity generators under RCRA. Generating as few as 65 pill 

bottles could bring this determination to retail pharmacies.  

• There is confusion as to the reasoning behind EPA’s legitimacy criteria under the 

Non Hazardous Secondary Material Rule.  

• There are concerns related to the determination of tires, urban wood, and used 

oil as secondary waste material. 

List of Attendees

Raymond Ludwiszewski, Gibson, Dunn and Cruthcher 

Mike Stephenson, Wal‐Mart Stores, Inc. 

David Wagger, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries 

Amanda Aspatore, National Mining Association 

Stephanie Castorina, IPC‐Association Connecting Electronics Industries 

Fern Abrams, IPC 

Kevin Bromberg, Small Business Administration 

EPA Participants

Anne Bavuso, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Betsy Devlin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Kathy Lett, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Charlotte Mooney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

David Nicholas, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Gerain Perry, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Tracey Westfield, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

35 

Toxics Breakout Summary – Round 1

The summary below represents feedback received during this breakout session. It is not 

intended to be a transcript of participants’ statements. Participants were encouraged to 

also provide written comments to the docket to ensure that their suggestions are fully 

captured. 

General Comments

The comments below pertain broadly to EPA’s regulatory or regulatory review process.  

Fern Abrams, IPC 

• There is an implicit assumption that information made publicly available, via 

regulatory reporting requirements, is invaluable, but rarely is there an adequate 

cost‐benefit analysis.  It is difficult to assign value to publically available 

information because it is free for the public yet costly to small business.  

However, these costs are passed on to consumers in the price of products or 

services.  The value of this publically available information needs to be assessed 

in a cost‐benefit analysis – what is the public willing to pay?

• The EPA Office of Policy could have a stronger role in coordinating regulations 

within the agency.  This would be easier for industry and provide stronger 

regulations for the EPA.  

James Cooper, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association 

• EPA has been working on a zero tolerance premise for lead exposure even while 

toxicologists are still debating safe exposure levels.  Additionally, EPA needs to 

consider the law of diminishing returns.  Eliminating small percentages of lead 

will cost disproportionately more than eliminating the large, easily addressed 

areas of lead exposure.  EPA needs to convene a public debate on the costs and 

benefits of this approach.   

Public Comments on Specific Regulations Organized by Impact and Issue Areas

The section below highlights comments provided by session participants on specific 

regulations organized according to the impact and issue areas that were posted in the 

Federal Register Notice prior to the meeting.  

Environmental Justice/Children’s Health/Elderly

Cordell Burton, Pella Corporation 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

36 

• It is likely that vulnerable populations will forgo installing new windows, which 

is dangerous to their health, because of the added costs of the Lead Safe 

program. 

  

Regulatory Burden and Small Business

Cordell Burton, Pella Corporation  

• Contractors, of which many qualify as small businesses, lose business to those 

who are not compliant with the Lead Safe regulations.  There is a need for 

enforcement to ensure those who are following regulations are not inadvertently 

being punished. 

Chris Dana, Pella Corporation 

• Contractors following Lead Safe regulations have lost out, because of price, to 

contractors who do not carry the cost burden of complying with the Lead 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) rule.  

• The EPA recommends that businesses maintain records for three years when 

contractors are working on a job that falls under the Lead RRP rule.  However, 

litigation often covers time periods that are longer than three years.  Thus, 

businesses are advised to keep records for much longer.  This additional record 

keeping, beyond the mandated three years, is burdensome and costly to small 

businesses.  Therefore, when developing regulations, EPA should take into 

account the accumulated cost of all necessary record keeping.  

James Cooper, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association 

• In general, small businesses are disproportionately affected by basic regulatory 

reporting rules – those that are considered record keeping or data reporting and 

found in all EPA programs.  The impact of reporting requirements on small 

businesses is due to the cumulative effect, not a single regulation.  Cost‐benefit 

analysis on a per‐rule basis does not capture this, and there is only piecemeal 

data available to demonstrate it.  The EPA should consider the burden of 

cumulative effects that their regulations have on small business.  

David Wagger, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries 

• Statistically, the cumulative environmental impacts of small businesses are not 

significant.  To maximize effectiveness, reporting requirements should capture 

the large percentage of businesses that have the most impact, which are the 

larger businesses.  The greenhouse gas rule employed this technique.  

• The definition of a small business needs to be consistent and reasonable. 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

37 

• With regard to the TSCA Inventory Update Rule (IUR), the proposed amendment 

to move the reporting threshold from 300,000 lbs to 25,000 lbs essentially 

means all the scrap recyclers will need to report on every shipment.  Due to its 

nature, scrap metal is often shipped at weight much higher than 25,000 lbs, thus 

inadvertently triggering this regulation.  Since TSCA includes inorganic 

substances, this places a large regulatory burden on small businesses that are 

shipping non‐toxic metals. 

Benefits and Costs

James Cooper, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association 

• Publically available industry information – via regulatory reporting 

requirements – comes at a cost to the economy and it is not clear the public is 

deriving great benefit from that information.  The TSCA IUR, for example, has 

made data publically available at a cost to industry but has not been used for 

regulatory or risk management.  It is “nice to know” not “need to know” 

information.  Likewise, the Clean Air Act Risk Management Program, 112r, is 

redundant with an OSHA program, and that data has not been used for any 

benefit.  A stakeholder group would be able to quickly identify the reporting 

requirements that are redundant or “nice to know.”  While much publically 

available information is important, there needs to be a discussion about the 

balance between the benefit of publically available information and the costs to 

businesses that provide it.   

Compliance

Chris Dana, Pella Corporation 

• The following comments concern Toxics Substance Control Act (TSCA) Section 

402 – the lead‐based paint Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) Rule. 

o Pella agrees with the intent of this regulation, which requires the use of 

lead‐safe work practices and certification by EPA in these practices, but 

believes it is unnecessarily burdensome to the construction industry.  

Even so, Pella has encouraged its over 1,000 independent contractors to 

comply with lead certification and Lead Safe work practices provisions.  

o The results of the regulation have included wasted energy – by keeping 

old windows and doors from being replaced – and a loss of business for 

construction workers during difficult economic times.  

o Even though older windows often contain lead‐based paints, the costs of 

complying with RRP rules are passed onto homeowners who avoid 

replacing older windows and doors containing lead‐based paint with 

newer, energy‐efficient windows and doors because of the added costs.  
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

38 

o Contractors who do not comply with RRP rules are less expensive to 

consumers and outcompeting contractors who do comply.  Work done by 

uncertified contractors puts people at risk.  EPA should levy fines against 

firms who do not attempt to follow the Lead Safe program.  

o Pella asks EPA to reconsider the opt‐out clause that was eliminated July 6, 

2010.  This clause allowed homeowners to decline Lead Safe work

practices if 1) no children were present; 2) the home is not a childcare 

facility; and 3) no pregnant women are present.  

o Even with the opt‐out clause, properly educated contractors still employ 

work safe practices, but not to the unnecessary extent that the regulation 

requires.  

o Those in or related to the building renovation industry feel singled out by 

the RRP rule, particularly the window manufacturers.  Projects that 

disturb a window automatically trigger the RRP rule.  However, federal 

and state enforcement is nonexistent, putting those who comply at a 

disadvantage compared to those who do not.  Because states see minimal 

enforcement at the federal level, they do not set aside the necessary 

funding to enforce the rule.

Fern Abrams, IPC 

• With regard to the TSCA IUR inclusion of inorganic substances, solutions 

containing metal are considered chemical stock when they should be considered 

by‐product.  Thus, they are treated as hazardous waste and must be reported as 

a new chemical.  This discourages and confuses the recycling industry and acts 

as a disincentive.  

Dan Newton, Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates 

• The TSCA IUR proposed amendment to move the reporting threshold from 

300,000 lbs to 25,000 lbs greatly expands the range of chemicals that must be 

reported and is unnecessarily burdensome.  

Least Burden/Flexible Approaches

James Cooper, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association 

• EPA could avoid litigation if they used Section 8 IUR data gathering, Section 8 

PAIR reporting, and Section 4 test rules as Congress intended and in a proper 

order.  IUR was intended for compiling and keeping current a list of chemicals in 

commerce, not for exposure data.  This could be used as a tool to prioritize which 

chemicals in commerce need to be looked at further.  Then, EPA would use the 

Section 8 PAIR rule to find more exposure information and, lastly, the Section 4 

test rule.  This streamlined order would allow flexibility and be more efficient.  
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

39 

• EPA is to be commended on their creativity and flexibility in their use of 

enforceable consent agreements that will get information in a timely manner 

while avoiding litigation and angst.   

Chris Dana, Pella Corporation 

• Pella appreciates how good EPA has been to work with on the innovative work 

standards with regard to the RRP regulations that were issued last April, as 

exemplified by the FAQs on the regulations.  They would like to see this continue 

and would like to continue the conversation on innovative work practices.   

Economic Conditions/Market

James Cooper, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association 

• EPA should never have a role in the marketplace, specifically with incentives 

because of the danger in picking winners and losers.  The Pollution Prevention 

Act of 1990 (P2 Act) is an effective way to solve problems by working 

collectively with the regulatory program down the supply chain – this should be 

looked at as an example. 

Matthew Watkins, NAHB, and James Cooper, National Petrochemical & Refiners 

Association 

• Regulations unintentionally pick winners and losers. 

Fern Abrams, IPC 

• The Design for the Environment program gets this right by looking at substitutes 

rather than banning particular substances – this should be looked at as an 

example. 

Chris Dana, Pella Corporation 

• Lead safe work regulations of RRP affect job growth because higher costs of 

renovation translates into homeowners spending less on windows and doors, 

which impacts the manufacturers of those products.  

Integration & Innovation

Greg Weatherman, Aerosolver 

• The Lead RRP rule should have followed the example of asbestos and 

responsibility should be shifted to OSHA to avoid conflicts between EPA and 

OSHA programs.   

• According to EPA regulations, contractors must test for lead, which violates state 

law that states only lead inspectors may conduct lead tests.  Furthermore, a paint 

chip lab sample is relatively cheap and holds up in court.  
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

40 

• Inconsistent action levels among federal agencies create risk to contractors in 

the form of litigation, lawsuits, and attorney costs. 

Matthew Watkins, NAHB 

• Historically, there have been some inconsistencies between agencies.  CDC 

action levels are different than the levels EPA is using in their public relations 

campaign.  This should be explained or reconciled. 

James Cooper, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association 

• There seems to be significant overlap between OSHA and EPA regulations and 

there needs to be coordination.   

Fern Abrams, IPC 

• The proposed TSCA IUR rule on recycled material ventures into domain covered 

by OSHA. 

List of Attendees

James Cooper, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association 

Cordell Burton, Pella Corporation 

Chris Dana, Pella Corporation 

Aaron Lovell, Inside EPA 

Dan Newton, Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates 

David Wagger, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries 

Stephanie Castorina, IPC 

Fern Abrams, IPC 

Matthew Watkins, NAHB 

Greg Weatherman, Aerosolver 

List of Attendees

Anne Bavuso, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Wendy Cleland‐Hamnett, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Bicky Corman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Emily Dougherty, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Marc Edmonds, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

David Giamporcaro, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Lindsay Moose, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Tracey Westfield, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Toxics Breakout Summary – Round 2

The summary below represents feedback received during this breakout session. It is not 

intended to be a transcript of participants’ statements. Participants were encouraged to 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

41 

also provide written comments to the docket to ensure that their suggestions are fully 

captured. 

Comments Regarding EPA’s Regulatory or Regulatory Review Process

Matthew Watkins, National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) 

• There needs to be an accountability process – approximately five years after 

implementation – that reviews how well regulations are meeting their intended 

goals and the lessons learned.  This would be particularly important for lead 

regulations.  Data from large manufacturers could be part of this review and is 

trusted enough that small businesses would not need to be burdened with 

gathering and submitting data for a regulatory review process.   

Cordell Burton, Pella Corporation 

• In the review of a regulation, the cost‐benefit analysis should include data from 

blood lead testing to determine if the regulations are resulting in lower lead 

levels in children.  

• Industry uses “continual improvement processes,” which convene the day‐to‐

day users of a policy or process to determine its effectiveness and lessons 

learned.  The same review process could be used on the lead rules in five years 

and industry would be able to help EPA implement such a method.   

• Enforcement is critical because those who comply are competing against those 

who are not compliant.  Often, windows are replaced at the point of sale, either 

when buying a property and seeking to renovate or when selling to enhance the 

property.  This is the critical time for enforcement.  This scenario should be part 

of EPA’s analysis.   

Greg Weatherman, Aerosolver

• A five‐year review of regulations should consider separately the effects on 

upper‐ and lower‐income brackets, since those in the lower‐income bracket are 

more likely to spend less money on renovations and thus risk hiring a contractor 

who does not follow Lead Safe practices.  

• EPA needs to consider the impact of diet, outlier factors, and synergistic effects 

on chemical exposure with regard to endocrine disruptors.   

• There may be a loophole in the regulations with regard to some cleaning 

products that allows the use of harmful chemicals in the ingredients.   

Howard Feldman, American Petroleum Institute 

• There needs to be greater opportunity for stakeholder input into the Integrated 

Risk Information System (IRIS) given its significance for regulations.  
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

42 

Public Comments on Specific Regulations Organized by Impact and Issue Areas

Environmental Justice/Children’s Health/Elderly

Matthew Watkins, NAHB 

• The lead rule, which is supposed to benefit children ages six and under, is mostly 

focused on adults rather the vulnerable populations it was intended to protect.  

Small Business

Greg Weatherman, Aerosolver 

• It is increasingly difficult to fulfill the requirements of the lead program 

reporting as profit margins for small business continue to shrink.  EPA needs to 

study the industries involved in renovations when developing lead regulations in 

order to understand their needs and constraints.   

Least Burden/Flexible Approaches

Matthew Watkins, NAHB 

• The lead RRP should be segregated into two sector tracks if possible: homeowners 

and property managers.   

Compliance

Howard Feldman, American Petroleum Institute 

• TSCA section 12B, which covers export reporting, creates a regulatory burden 

but does not provide any benefits, to public health or otherwise.   

Greg Weatherman, Aerosolver 

• Enforcement should be the responsibility of the states and, as a result, there 

should be incentives for the states to engage in enforcement actions.  The fines 

EPA collects should be given to states. 

Cordell Burton, Pella Corporation 

• EPA regulations should focus on testing the results rather than dictating the 

process – performance‐based regulation vs. specification.  Testing standards, as 

opposed to specifications, will speed up innovation.   

Integration & Innovation

Greg Weatherman, Aerosolver 

• EPA needs more agility and to have a process for quickly testing and 

implementing innovative techniques, e.g., the quick turnaround that was needed 

for testing and implementing innovative dispersants during the Gulf oil spill.   

List of Attendees

Cordell Burton, Pella Corporation 

Howard Feldman, American Petroleum Institute 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

43 

Larry Pearl, Agra Informa 

Greg Weatherman, Aerosolver 

Matthew Watkins, NAHB 

Kate Rosenfeld, DC Legislative & Regulatory Services, Inc.  

EPA Participants

Lucinda Power, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  

Angela Hofmann, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  

Tobias Schroeder, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Marc Edmonds, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  

Wendy Cleland‐Hamnett, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

David Giamporcaro, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Lindsay Moose, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

44 

Water Breakout Summary – Round 1 – Surface Water

The summary below represents feedback received during this breakout session. It is not 

intended to be a transcript of participants’ statements. Participants were encouraged to 

also provide written comments to the docket to ensure that their suggestions are fully 

captured. 

Before the public was asked to comment, EPA reminded participants that there will be an 

additional opportunity from Office of Water (OW), in the form of a webinar, for public 

comment and involvement on March 17, 2011. 

Public Comments Regarding Specific Regulations and Agency Actions

Kate Rooth, Alliance for Appalachia 

• The Clean Water Act (CWA) for a long time successfully regulated the surface 

water bodies (e.g., rivers, streams, creeks, etc.) in the Appalachian community.   

• In 2002, a court illegally ruled that mining waste could be used as a fill material 

(aka. the Fill Rule).  This rule change was never approved by Congress, yet 

mining waste was/is used as fill material.  Over 2,000 miles of streams have 

been buried, impacting critical headwaters for the East Coast.  Even though in 

the past 2 years EPA has done more to protect against the negative impacts of 

mountain‐top mining, as long as the integrity of the CWA is not fully restored, 

the waters and health of the Appalachian community are still at risk.   

• EPA’s Environmental Justice (EJ) program has become extensively involved, but 

we would like to see greater coordination between EJ and OW staff on this issue.  

For instance, the Alliance’s constituency was not well informed about this 

particular public meeting, even though they would have wanted to attend.   

• Our constituency also has little trust in their states’ environmental departments.  

Compliance offices at the state level are understaffed and cannot respond to the 

number of complaints and reported violations that occur. 

• The ability for citizen enforcement and compliance officers to handle the scale of 

the issue needs to be addressed. 

o The public needs better transparency in the enforcement process and 

with complaints to EPA. 

o The recently found 12,000 violations in Kentucky against one company 

and filed a citizen lawsuit. 

o EPA needs to strengthen enforcement. 

• Thank you for the webinar session on March 17th. 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

45 

Nick Goldstein, American Road & Transportation Builders Association  

• When considering a technology‐based standard, the availability of that 

technology being prescribed by EPA (e.g., stormwater treatment systems) can 

have a significant impact on the market for those technologies (e.g., cost, 

availability, etc.).  If the technology is not readily available, it becomes a barrier 

for entities to comply with the standards set by EPA. 

Steve Via, American Water Works Association 

• A specific example of an opportunity for EPA to work across silos is the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting for pesticides under 

the CWA.  A similar regulation already exists under the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).  These two regulations are almost 

identical and EPA should not go down the path of duplicative regulations due to 

a court’s ruling. 

• There are simpler solutions like writing the general permit in such as fashion 

that compliance with FIFRA labeling would have been sufficient.  This would 

have avoided the court case that has prompted the creation of the NPDES permit. 

• EPA continues to heavily regulate point source pollution, which it has been doing 

for a long time, when it should be focusing on how best to regulate non‐point 

source pollution. 

• Do not utilize the NPDES permitting structure for non‐point source pollution 

reductions. 

• One way of approaching non‐point source pollution regulation could be to 

structure it as a place‐based regulatory scheme for farms and other similar types 

of areas. 

Cynthia Finely, National Associations of Clean Water Agencies 

• EPA should consider the cumulative economic impacts on business and more 

holistic approaches to measuring the costs and benefits of regulations.  Instead 

of simply focusing on one particular type of pollutant (e.g., nutrients), the entire 

system should be considered. 

Nick Goldstein, American Road & Transportation Builders Association 

• The jurisdiction of the CWA should be clarified without being expanded.  

• EPA should use the formal rule making process rather than agency guidance if it 

is intending to expand the jurisdiction of the CWA, because the process requires 

EPA to engage the public in a formal, complete, and understandable fashion.  

This is in contrast to guidance documents that do not require public comment 

and should be used to clarify CWA jurisdiction. 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

46 

• Reforming the CWA 404 wetlands permitting process (e.g., wetlands permitting) 

is an opportunity to reduce project delays.  These reforms should include: firm 

deadlines for permitting decisions, the creation of a wetlands classification 

system, and not retroactively vetoing CWA permits unless the law has been 

broken. 

• Stormwater regulations should allow for enough flexibility for the individual 

projects to be successful.  The issues of cost and liability need to be considered to 

ensure projects are not delayed. 

Colin Enssle, GE Water & Process Technologies  

• EPA should consider using incentives, such as an investment tax credit incentive. 

Patrick Bradley, LimnoTech 

• Since this retrospective review is driven by an Executive Order (EO), why not get 

the EO changed so that this can be a real dialogue instead of a one‐way listening 

session? 

Steve Via, American Water Works Association 

• When looking at benefits and costs, Environmental Assessments (EA) generally 

only look at national averages and not how the local community is impacted.  

The disadvantaged community’s ability to handle the rates that generally follow 

from the implementation of regulations does not seem to be given priority in 

decision making. 

• EJ communities are considered in the EA process but they do not generally get 

wrapped into the decision making process. 

• There needs to be clear policy objectives where EPA picks the top 2 or 3 issues 

that are pursued and completed.  These issues should be decided upon through 

broad‐based stakeholder engagement. 

Specific Questions and Discussion

What are your thoughts on cumulative impacts?  How do you define that term?   

Kate Rooth, Alliance for Appalachia  

• Cumulative impact on public health needs to be considered but without 

appropriate and accurate data, a baseline cannot be established. Water quality 

data is outdated (2002 at best), so regional water quality measures are a big 

focus for communities.  These communities try to take it upon themselves to 

measure water quality, but this is a costly course of action and EPA is not 

guaranteed to accept the data that is produced through these steps.   
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

47 

Cynthia Finely, National Associations of Clean Water Agencies  

• Utilities need more flexibility to handle peak weather flows, especially if they are 

meeting their permit limits.  Blending should be allowed to reduce economic 

impacts on industry. 

Patrick Bradley, LimnoTech 

• Cumulative impacts must take into consideration hydrologic changes as well as 

the number and type of pollutants.  However, the CWA and existing regulations 

are not designed to handle hydrological changes. 

The cost­benefit analysis (CBA) and a community’s ability to implement regulations

are considered during the decision­making process. In doing CBA and looking at

national statistics and data sub­sets, at what level does regulation get implemented?  

In other words, is the level of environmental protection that a

distressed/disadvantaged community can afford the level that everyone else gets?  Is it

the lowest economic denominator?   

Steve Via, American Water Works Association 

• Once it is determined that there is an opportunity to make a health risk 

reduction, the rule must be structured to allow that community to implement the 

regulation. 

• Practically speaking, costs do inform the level of protection. 

Patrick Bradley, LimnoTech 

• There is an assumption that there is always a CBA, but that is not necessarily the 

case. 

o Jim Hanlon, EPA 

 When EPA promulgates Water Quality Standards, a cost analysis is 

conducted. 

Beth Graves, ECOS – Specific Question and Response 

• Can you talk a little about what areas work well and what needs to be improved 

during EPA’s retroactive reviews of regulations? 

o Jim Hanlon, EPA  

 The management of stormwater is a good example of this process.  

The National Academy of Sciences put out a report in 2006, there 

have been listening sessions, there was a notice out in the Federal 

Register, and are now working towards the development of a 

regulatory proposal.  EPA participates in monthly work group 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

48 

meetings with states.  The proposal is to be published in 

September. 

 The nature of this process is that more time and more money are

always wanted, but you work within the resource constraints that 

are available. 

 In many watersheds, the loads are weighted in favor of non‐point 

source rather than point source, yet point sources are generally 

more regulated.   Given the structure of the CWA, what is the 

alternative?   

 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) indicate what the waste load 

limitations have aggressive permit limits. 

Darren Coppock, Agricultural Retailers Association 

• Standards for phosphates proposed by EPA for Florida would require some 

communities to reduce the phosphate level to below pristine levels.  This is 

particularly an issue for those communities that mine phosphate and have a 

higher background level than normal. 

o Jim Hanlon, EPA 

 The promulgation of the Inland Water Quality Standard does 

include several different eco‐regions in the State of Florida.  If it is 

a specific question of nutrient levels in these specific eco‐regions, 

it would be best to contact Region 4 staff or the EPA staff here can 

take your name and pass along your question. 

Given the statutory authority in CWA, what are the suggestions for addressing nonpoint sources?

Steve Via, American Water Works Association 

• EPA is putting the regulations in place that force the point sources to negotiate 

on the local level.  This creates a challenging local situation.  If EPA needs more 

authority to act, this regulatory review is a perfect opportunity. 

• If EPA needs more authority, then they should ask [Congress]. 

• There is a long history of place‐based community building in USDA, which 

suggests that there are other options besides NPDES permits to achieve water 

quality standards. 

Cynthia Finely, National Associations of Clean Water Agencies 

• There is some room in the CWA to think creatively about non‐point source 

regulations.  For instance, Section 208 planning. 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

49 

What are your feelings that EPA is putting out information that the public can

understand and utilize? We need a well­informed public to get the type of results in

water quality.  There are tipping points in terms of pollutants and nutrients, so how

does the national waters program educate and inform the public so they act

responsibly?

Darren Coppock, Agricultural Retailers Association 

• Communication is a challenge for all of us and we just have to keeping hitting the 

point home through as many avenues as possible. 

• Agencies ought to favor empirical data versus model output. 

• There are practice‐based regulatory options that can reduce the amount of 

nutrient run‐off that could be implemented and suggested. 

• The duplication of regulations on pesticides under FIFRA and NPDES permits is a 

regulatory issue that will add to the cost of doing business.  The implementation 

process needs to be streamlined. 

Highlight of Comments by Impact and Issue Areas

The section below highlights some of the key points raised during the comment period 

summarized in the previous section but groups these points according to the impact and 

issue areas that were posted in the Federal Register Notice prior to the meeting. No new 

comments or statements are included. 

Integration & Innovation

• Alternative regulatory schemes (e.g., place‐based, practice‐based, etc.) could be 

used to address non‐point source pollution regulation issues. 

• Considering cumulative impacts and designing regulatory systems in a holistic, 

systematic manner can help to address concerns about human health, the impact 

of regulations on utilities and businesses, costs and benefits, and 

implementation.

Environmental Justice/Children’s Health/Elderly

• The use of mining waste as fill material has a huge impact on the water quality of 

Appalachian communities that have little or no recourse against the mining 

companies. 

Benefits and Costs

• The benefit to cost ratio needs to be maximized as much as possible, especially 

for communities that are disadvantaged. 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

50 

Compliance

• FIFRA and NPDES permitting for pesticide/herbicide use in surface water should 

be considered an area for working across federal statutes.  This issue is 

complicated by the federal court rulings and the nature of permitting for the use 

of pesticides/herbicides. 

List of Attendees

Amanda Aspastore, National Mining Association 

Patrick Bradley, LimnoTech 

Colin Enssle, GE Water & Process Technologies 

Cynthia Finley, National Associations of Clean Water Agencies 

Susan Gilson, NAFSMA 

Nick Goldstein, American Road & Transportation Builders Association 

Beth Graves, ECOS 

Daniel Heady, DCLRS 

Andrea Lamartin, URS 

Kate Rooth, Alliance for Appalachia 

Steve Via, American Water Works Association 

Matthew Watkins, NAHB 

EPA Participants

Keith Bartlett, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Sandy Evalenko, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Jim Hanlon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Andrew Hanson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Macara Lousberg, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Tobias Schroeder, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Elizabeth Skane, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Water Breakout Summary – Round 2 – Drinking Water

The summary below represents feedback received during this breakout session. It is not 

intended to be a transcript of participants’ statements. Participants were encouraged to 

also provide written comments to the docket to ensure that their suggestions are fully 

captured. 

Before the public was asked to comment, EPA reminded participants that there will be an 

additional opportunity from Office of Water (OW), in the form of a webinar, for public 

comment and involvement on March 17, 2011. 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

51 

Opening Comments

Mike Shapiro, EPA

• Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA implements two programs.  One 

is to work with states to ensure the implementation of protective standards for 

public water supplies.  Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) are established and 

promulgated, set at a level to be protective of human health.  The creation of 

MCLs takes into account costs and available technology.  MCLs are periodically 

reviewed. 

• The Underground Injection Control (UIC) program manages the injection of 

fluids into the earth.  Depending on the nature and size of an operation, 

permitting for this activity may be required.  In many cases this program is 

implemented by the states. 

• We are interested in two types of feedback:  

o Specific regulations (part or whole) and 

o How can we make our regulatory programs more effective? This is a 

broad question that can include better communication with our 

stakeholders, streamlining processes, etc. 

Ron Bergman, EPA 

• Every 6 years, EPA is required to review the primary drinking water regulations 

to see if have been any changes that would necessitate a change in regulations.  

EPA looks at occurrence, health effects, and changes in science. 

• The last time this review was done EPA performed a data call with the states on 

all the regulated contaminants.  Public comments were received.  This review 

resulted in a revision to the total coliform rule. 

Public Comments Regarding Specific Regulations and Agency Actions

Robert Van Voorhees, Underground Injection Technology Council 

• EPA did a good job of engaging stakeholders in the development of the geologic 

sequestration rule.  EPA started with technical workshops, then had rule making 

workshops, and gave an opportunity for stakeholders to give suggestions and 

feedback. 

• In the 1990s, the UIC program had an initiative called the Reinventing 

Government Program that was a good model for stakeholder engagement.  One 

of the major products of this program was “The Mailbag” that was recommended 

by the Ground Water Protection Council.  It served as a gathering mechanism for 

regulatory suggestions from industry and other stakeholders. 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

52 

Alan Roberson, American Water Works Association 

• The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) presents a difficult situation.  At risk 

populations (e.g., the elderly and children) are not necessarily the populations 

that are dealing with the cost burden of the regulations. 

• An interesting health study done by Scott Rueben, a lawyer in PA, shows that if 

there are increased rates for treatment of drinking water then low‐income 

populations will reduce their spending on preventative health care. 

o Mike Shapiro, EPA 

 The nature of the decision‐making process is that we strive to give 

everyone equal protection.  There are some tough societal 

problems when dealing with costs and providing these services. 

Alan Roberson, American Water Works Association  

• There have been 18 regulations under the SDWA.  Of those 18, 3 regulations 

cover about two‐thirds of costs associated with the regulatory program.  These 

cannot be changed without impacting human health and environmental 

protection.  However, looking at those regulations with the highest aggregate 

costs is one way to prioritize regulations for review. 

• Extending the timeframe for compliance (similar to what was done for the 

arsenic rule) so that those who are closer to new regulatory levels have more 

time to get into compliance. 

Specific Questions and Discussion

One of the limiting factors for approving new methods is that it takes time and

resources.  Are there changes that you would suggest to improve the data gathering,

approval, and regulatory processes?

Alan Roberson, American Water Works Association 

• The delivery of reports that are not statutorily required (e.g., the Consumer 

Confidence Report (CCR)), or any official document is something that should be 

taken into consideration.  The CCR was last published in 1998 and was delivered 

mainly via printed version.  With technology now, these documents need to be 

delivered electronically while ensuring that compliance is maintained. 

• There are analytical methods out there that are not fully vetted.  Also, approval 

of online monitoring methods will be needed because this method will become 

more prevalent.  

Robert Van Voorhees, Underground Injection Technology Council 

• Electronic submissions for the program are an area where the program can cut 

costs and make the program more efficient. 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

53 

• Within the UIC effort there has been a move to create a national database.  This 

has resulted in a shift in how data is collected.  Data reporting and collection 

regulations are quickly becoming out of date. 

• In the Class 6 Rule, a real effort was made to identify within the regulation a 

specific performance standard and not a methodology.  This was a successful 

effort.  This move from a practice standard to a performance standard would 

help the regulatory process.  This review could be a good opportunity to further 

make this shift. 

Steve Via, American Water Works Association 

• Environmental Justice is about community‐level costs and individuals’ ability to 

pay the rates.  This means that there are individuals out there who are focused 

on basic needs.   

• There needs to be checks somewhere early in the process that look at health risk 

reduction and how to maximize that reduction while minimizing costs.  The 

Office of Water should look at programs and opportunities to utilize non‐

regulatory mechanisms to affect health risk reduction.   

• It seems that there are substances that are regulated just to be regulated because 

of political pressure. 

Alan Roberson, American Water Works Association  

• An example of a substance that is regulated but does not offer a real health risk 

reduction is the active ingredient in Roundup.  This substance falls under the 

Phase 5 rule that came out in 1993, but there have been no violations.  Its testing 

method is expensive but the MCL is so high that there have not been any 

violations on file. 

Are there any thoughts on opportunities for better public health protection?

Robert Van Voorhees, Underground Injection Technology Council 

• Underground injection plays an important role in protecting the quality of 

underground water sources.  There are several examples where underground 

injection has proven to be a way to protect drinking water sources. 

Specific Comments About Regulations

The section below highlights some of the key points raised during the comment period 

summarized in the previous section but groups these points according to the impact and 

issue areas that were posted in the Federal Register Notice prior to the meeting. No new 

comments or statements are included. 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

54 

Integration & Innovation

• The use of electronic delivery systems for programmatic uses (e.g., reports, 

payments, etc.) is something that can help to make the program more cost 

effective and efficient. 

• The use of online monitoring methods and data collection methods need to be 

approved for use within the program. 

Environmental Justice/Children’s Health/Elderly

• Community‐level costs and impacts of regulations need to be considered when 

reviewing and implementing regulations.  Disadvantaged communities tend to 

bear a greater burden of the costs of regulations. 

List of Attendees

Daniel Heady, DCLRS 

Steve Via, American Water Works Association 

Alan Roberson, American Water Works Association 

Stacey Detwiler, American Rivers 

John Litynski, U.S. Department of Energy 

EPA Participants

Mike Shapiro, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  

Ron Bergman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Elizabeth Skane, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Macara Lousberg, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Sandy Evalenko, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Keith Bartlett, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

55 

General Breakout Summary – Round 1

No participants attended this session, so no summary is provided. 

General Breakout Summary – Round 2

The summary below represents feedback received during this breakout session. It is not 

intended to be a transcript of participants’ statements. Participants were encouraged to 

also provide written comments to the docket to ensure that their suggestions are fully 

captured. 

General Comments

David Friedman, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

• Until the mid‐1990s, the Office of Policy was the Office of Policy and Program 

Evaluation (OPPE).  The value of this office was lost when it was split.  It served a 

very good purpose in challenging and questioning what was being done.  It would be 

useful if there was a mechanism for bringing it back—it made for smarter 

regulations before they went out. 

• Asked if comments could be received by mail.  

 Nicole Owens (EPA) confirmed comments could be submitted in writing until 

April 4th. 

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

• It has been brought up in other sessions that programs have to talk to each other.  

Sometimes it takes someone outside the agency to do this.  This lack of 

communication across programs can result in disjointed regulations. 

Comments by Impact and Issue Areas

Environmental Justice/Children’s Health/Elderly

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

• Office of Toxics deals with this well.  Overall, EPA usually considers sensitive sub 

populations. 

State/Local/Tribal

David Freidman, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

• Has been hearing that at the state level, more money is needed.
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

56 

Regulatory Burden and Small Business

David Friedman, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

o The refining industry includes lots of small refiners.  There is a significant burden on 

these refiners related to Greenhouse Gas reporting, TRI, and the Refinery 

Information Collection Request.  Timelines for small refiners to do all the reporting 

within the deadlines are too short when they have limited resources and time. 

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

o Small businesses are disproportionally affected by the reporting, as they are also 

reporting to other agencies.  This leads to a cumulative burden. 

Benefits and Costs

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

o There is a diminishing cost‐benefit return.  A company may accomplish 95% of its 

goals, but what are companies going to have to do to reach 100%?  The burden can 

be high, but this is rarely discussed. 

o The Inventory Update Reporting requirement is now used as a vehicle to collect 

detailed exposure information.  EPA has tools to collect this information under 

Section 8 “reporting” and under Section 6 “actions”.  Considered it was a burden to 

ask businesses to go through the same mechanism as a consumer company.  EPA 

could, if they sequenced their regulations, use the IUR to collect this information.  If 

something is used in a consumer product, you collect more information under 

Section 8. Could report to the IUR on the general use and production volumes.  

David Friedman, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

o Regarding the GHG reporting rule, companies are chasing down the last 5% of 

information but spending 50% of their time doing this. 

Compliance  

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

• EPA compliance tools are doing a reasonably good job. 

Science Obsolete/Technology Outdated

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

• Commented that for toxics, new tests are in research and development that are 

subject to rigorous testing. 

• Electronic reporting makes things easier, but there are compatibility issues so it 

might be too much to make this happen in the next reporting cycles.  Not opposed to 

it, but suggested delaying implementation for one cycle to make sure it works.
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

57 

• When new science comes to light, the Agency revisits the regulations.  There is an 

assumption that discussions are taking place. 

• Field of toxicology is always dynamic, and there is always new testing going on.  

Decisions should stand on their own scientific merits.  How do you weigh different 

tests and science against each other? He questioned how these are weighted 

correctly and that the EPA process is not always transparent. 

David Friedman, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

• This area was not an issue as he felt science/technology was driven by the best 

technology. 

• The Ozone NAAQS is being reconsidered but there is no new science.  Also 

mentioned EPA is operating outside the five year standard in regard to the Ozone 

NAAQS. 

Least Burden/Flexible Approaches

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

• Sequencing is good if EPA uses the information that is collected.  EPA can use the 

information to justify getting more information. 

• The last time EPA changed the IPR, there were stakeholder meetings.  It was not the 

case this time, and meetings took place at OMB.  Time could have been saved if the 

discussion took place at an earlier stage. 

• Liked public meeting forums and appreciated today’s meeting but noted that he was 

expecting larger and more diverse attendance. 

David Friedman, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

• Considered ANPRM more useful than NSPS.  Under NSPS, the proposal date becomes 

the effective date, which is a problem. 

Economic Conditions/Market

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

• Agencies are using regulations to try and create market conditions.  There must be 

good information before this is done. He did not think it was a good idea for EPA to 

do this. 

• Acceptable to use programs as vehicles under the Pollution Prevention Act. 

• There are federal agencies already involved in matters that affect the economy.   He 

did not think EPA should do this but rather EPA should focus on protecting the 

environment and stay within their core tasks. 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

58 

• EPA’s approach should be as convener but not in a regulatory context.  EPA has an 

important role in convincing stakeholders to problem solve.  Innovative programs, 

some voluntary, can have significant results. 

Innovation/Integration

David Friedman, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

• Expressed concern about conflicting regulations.  He commented on problems with 

the NAAQS program.  GHG footprint vs. NAAQS.  Example: when pulling sulfur out of 

a fuel or stack, energy is used and the GHG footprint increases, creating inherent 

conflicts.  Use of ethanol is another example of inherent conflicts – which can result 

in ozone levels increasing in urban areas.  

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

• Regarding IUR reporting and new chemical reporting, these are items that are 

already covered by RCRA. There is a disincentive to recycle and there does not seem 

to be a mechanism to get these items resolved. 

• Informed the panel that he appreciated the deadline for comments being extended 

and that written comments could be submitted. 

Additional Discussion Questions

Should we explore place­based approaches to achieve our environmental goals?

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

• Asked EPA for clarification/definition of what a “place‐based” approach meant. 

o Alexander Cristofaro, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, noted that 

geographic‐based programs focus on cost‐effective approaches for a given 

geographic area. In the past, EPA has piloted these approaches in a few areas. 

Although experimental, these approaches have been carried out in addition 

to other traditional approaches.   

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

• EPA would face a debate on State vs. Federal intervention. Could see a role for EPA 

as a convener/resource provider.   

How can we intelligently incorporate the review required by this EO with the reviews

already required by law?

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

• Rules by law take precedence.  He was sympathetic to the Agency in taking on this 

job, but noted that this meeting is a good step. 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

59 

How can we improve the compliance of regulated facilities, while reducing the

administrative and financial burden they may bear? Specifically, how can rules be

improved to ensure that facilities that are out of compliance don’t get an economic

benefit over those that are in?

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

• Enforcement is key.  This exercise of reviewing regulations is going to make it 

easier.  Streamlining and simplification make regulations easier to comply with, 

especially for small businesses. 

Gerard Kraus, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

• Are regulations clear enough to be understood? 

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

• Small refiners may need to outsource reporting depending on the rules and their 

complexity, although there are hotlines for people to take advantage of.  Guidelines 

can be as complicated as the regulations and knows there are many small 

businesses that have to hire Washington DC lawyers to help with compliance. 

Matthew Watkins, National Association of Homebuilders 

• Regulations must have objectives. The question should always be asked “Does the 

regulation meet the objective? Does it meet the goal that is intended?” 

Nicole Owens, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

• Do you have examples? 

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

• Information collected should have a utility, not just be nice to have. Many databases 

at EPA are not used by many people. Practical utility should be revisited and 

balanced by the reporting burden.  Public information as a goal has to be discussed 

in the context of the cost when half of the compliance dollars are spent getting the 

last 5% of information.  It can be tough to pull information together in a short space 

of time, especially in a business area that is highly regulated. 

Matthew Watkins, National Association of Homebuilders 

• Questioned the cost‐benefit analysis and the process for developing and reviewing 

regulations. Thought it would be beneficial to bring Small Entity Representatives 

into a room and ask how they have been impacted, something beyond notice and 

comment. 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

60 

Andrew Hanson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

• Asked Matthew if he could elaborate. 

Matthew Watkins, National Association of Homebuilders 

• Bring regulatory community back to discuss and review.  Any rule under review 

should be discussed beyond the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Are there other options, such as self­monitoring by facilities or public disclosure of

their performance that could build an environment of minimizing costs while

maximizing compliance?

Matthew Watkins, National Association of Homebuilders 

• Suggested expanding TRI to other fields and to other stove pipes.   

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

• Thought that this was already happening. 

Alexander Cristofaro, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

• Ask participants to give an example where direct economic actors can have an effect 

on consumers.  For example:  labeling versus work practice standards. 

Stuart Miles­McLean, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

• Suggested the question be read more broadly to initiate more comments. 

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

• Could benefit in an EPA stamp of approval, for example the Energy Star label. They 

are good motivators and companies see value.  Saw benefit in a consumer 

manufacturing stamp (e.g. safety). 

Matthew Watkins, National Association of Homebuilders 

• The National Green Building Standard is a housing standard.   EPA could be involved 

to review these green standards from an environmental protection perspective.   

Suggested an “EPA Green meter”/ stamp / gauge/ label that could be used. 

General Comments

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

• Thought the Listening Sessions were a healthy exercise.  Got to hear what others 

were saying. 
EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

61 

Matthew Watkins, National Association of Homebuilders 

• Noted there are specific programs in the Agency that are behind, for example with 

statutes and/or court orders.  

• In addition, the EPA is dealing with budget cuts. 

• Commended the EPA for setting up the Listening Sessions. 

Alexander Cristofaro (EPA) thanked everyone for their time and comments.  Participant 

comments would be considered at the highest levels in the Agency. He encouraged 

participants to submit their comments online before the April 4th deadline. 

List of Attendees

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

David Friedman, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association 

Matthew Watkins, National Association of Homebuilders 

EPA Participants

Alexander Cristofaro, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Nate Folkemer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Andrew Hanson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Gerard Kraus, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Stuart Miles‐McLean, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Nicole Owens, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Richard Yost, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency