EPA Improving Environmental Regulations

Public Meeting Summary Template

Wednesday, March 17, 2011 – Webinar via Region 10, Seattle, WA

Plenary Summary

Purpose

 Clarify the process regarding development of EPA’s plan for Periodic Regulatory

Reviews and suggestions of rules that should be modified, streamline, expanded or 

repealed; review prompt questions intended to elicit thoughts and comments; and answer 

questions regarding the process.

Opening Presentation

 Intent of EO 13563 is to “...consider how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules 

that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to 

modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.”

 March 20, 2011: Region 10-specific comments due to r10improvingregulations@epa.gov

 April 4, 2011: General, Program Area, Impact/Issue Area comments via EPA’s dockets 

 EPA’s plan will be available by late May/early June 2011

 Presentation reviewed the various avenues (HQ, R10) and categories (General, 

Issue/Impact, Program) to submit comments as well as prompt questions to consider.

 Questions and Answers from webinar:

o Questions: What is Region 10?

 Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington

o Can I submit comments to Region 10 after March 20?

 Prefer comments by March 20, but no later March 25

o How can we find out if other agencies are doing a retrospective review of their 

regulations?

 Regulations.gov

o Is there any way to get the implementation of MOVES moved back another year (new 

air quality computing software)?

 Make a suggestion through Program Area

o Can Alaska be made into its own Region?

 Speak to your Congressional Delegation

o For CERCLA comments, is it more beneficial to submit them through R10 or HQ? 

 It depends on the comment. If it is specific to R10 sites, go through R10. If it is 

broader, submit it through HQ. Comments could also be submitted through both 

R10 and HQ.

o Can comments be submitted via fax or hard copies?

 Fax number and physical address added to PowerPoint presentation.

o Will public get a response back for comments submitted?
 See response below.

o Can final report (Plan) be sent out to participants?

 We will work to make sure it is readily available via broadcast announcements, 

news releases, posted on EPA website.

o Will the report include responses received via this process?

 Report might not include all comments, rather a summary.

 Docket will include all formally submitted comments.

Comments Received During Focused Comment Period 

 EPA Region 10’s Emerging Leaders Network (ELN) (an group within EPA) submitted 

the following comments via Region 10’s designated e-mail address 

(r10improvingregulations@epa.gov):

a. How should we identify candidate regulations for periodic retrospective review?

i. EPA should review those regulations or programs that:

1. Require coordination among multiple federal and/or state agencies

2. Exhibit significant case law that diverts EPA resources from mission 

work

3. Place a high cost of compliance on regulated entities

4. Delay industry work

5. Could be used to stimulate innovation

6. Lack flexibility to integrate emerging preventative technologies

7. Articulate policies that are not explicitly authorized in the 

regulations (e.g. water quality training)

8. Integrate additional process steps that don’t necessarily affect the 

outcome

9. Could be scalable or situational

b. Would benefit from having more flexibility for regional differences (One size might 

not fit all)

i. n/a

c. What criteria should we use to prioritize regulations for review?

i. EPA should use the following criteria to prioritize regulations for review:

1. Age of the regulation

2. Thickness of case law

3. Work we’re not doing well ( because we can’t keep up with the 

workload or the resource cost is disproportional to the benefit 

achieved)

4. Programs that delay industry work

d. How should our review plan be integrated with our existing requirements to 

conduct retrospective reviews?

i. For those regulations with existing requirements to conduct retrospective 

review, fold in questions of burden to regulated entities and performance of 

the regulation into current assessments

ii. Add mandatory reviews for any rule that doesn’t currently require review
iii. When conducting reviews and revising regulations, integrate Lean 

Production principals to advance continuous improvement

e. How often should we solicit input from the public on the plan?

i. n/a

f. 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)?

i. n/a

Comments Received During Open Comment Period

 See attached

High-level Breakout Summary

Common Themes and Highlights 

 n/a

Compilation of Suggested Candidate Regulations for Review

 NSPS Subpart IIII and NESHAP 40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ (See attached)

Summary of Attendees (37 Total)

 Webinar Participants:

First Name Last Name Organization

Kay Morrison US EPA

Orville Green Idaho DEQ

Charles Hardy Boeing

Shane Finlay SAP

Paul Noe American Forest & Paper Association

Valerie Lagen BP

James Norman ODOT

Elizabeth Ellis Washington Department of Natural Resources

Jack DiMarchi SOA/DNR

Martin Bauer Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

Rick Rowland Sunaq Tribe of Kodiak

Brian Oakey Idaho State Department of Agriculture

Heidi Zamzow Monterey Bay Aquarium

Shirley Kelly Economic Development Administration

sara longan SOA DOG

Bob Spencer Idaho State Dept. of Agriculture

Toni Hardesty Idaho Dept. of Environmental Quality

Curt Clement MSA

David Shanks The Boeing Company

Theda Braddock Mission Markets

Edward Harrington University of Idaho

Laura Peggs Environmental Law

Katie Gauthier US Senator Jeff Merkley

Gabriela Carvalho EPA R10
Bradley Wolfinger Idaho Transportation Department

Don Lee Idaho DEQ-Water Division

Kelly Bickers American Forest & Paper Association

Tim Shaw SOA-DMVA/FMD-EV

Dana Vawter IDEQ - Waste

Gregg Bishop UniSea Inc.

linda dorn SRCSD

Kimberly Gupta Portland Water Bureau

April Catan City of Newberg

Gloria Collins State of Alaska DEC

Pat Barclay Idaho Council on Industry & Environment

35 Webinar Participants

 Two additional individuals requested information about the process, outside of the 

webinar.