## 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of EPA’s plan for Periodic Regulatory Reviews and suggestions of rules that should be modified, streamline, expanded or repealed; review prompt questions intended to elicit thoughts and comments; and answer questions regarding the process. Open ing 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 b e 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?

 Itdepends 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 vi a fax or hard copies?

 Fax number and physi cal 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 release s , 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. Comment s 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. Wh en 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 Ka y Morrison US EPA Orville Green Idaho DEQ Charles Hardy Boeing Shane Finlay SAP Paul Noe Am erican Forest & Paper Association Valerie Lagen BP Jam es Norman ODOT Elizabeth Ellis Wa shington 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 Clem ent 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 R10Bradley Wo lfinger Idaho Transportation Department Don Lee Idaho DEQ
-Water Division Kelly Bickers Am erican Forest & Paper Association Ti m Shaw SOA
- DMVA/FMD
- EV Dana Vawter IDEQ
- Wa ste Gregg Bishop UniSea Inc. linda dorn SRCSD Kim berly 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.