Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094-0171
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2007-07-31T04:00Z

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Meeting with Portland Cement Association et al. Regarding EPA
Proposal to Change the Policy Known as “Once In, Always In”

TO:  		Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094

Date: 		July 17, 2007

Location: 	Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Ariel Rios North

Washington, DC

Attendees: 	Industry Representatives:

Andy O’Hare, Portland Cement Association

		Phil Wakelyn, National Cotton Council of America

		Dave Ailor, National Oilseed Producers Association

		EPA Representatives in DC:

Robert Meyers, EPA Office of Air and Radiation

		Don Zinger, EPA Office of Air and Radiation

		Robert Brenner, EPA Office of Air and Radiation OPAR

		Tamara Saltman, EPA Office of Air and Radiation OPAR

		EPA Representatives via phone in Research Triangle Park:

		Steve Page, EPA Office of Air and Radiation OAQPS

		Peter Tsirigotis, EPA Office of Air and Radiation OAQPS

		Penny Lassiter, EPA Office of Air and Radiation OAQPS

		Fred Thompson, EPA Office of Air and Radiation OAQPS

		Michael Regan, EPA Office of Air and Radiation OAQPS

		Eric Ginsburg, EPA Office of Air and Radiation OAQPS

		Rick Colyer, EPA Office of Air and Radiation OAQPS

Mr. O’Hare, Mr. Wakelyn, and Mr. Ailor requested a meeting with EPA to
discuss EPA’s January 3, 2007 proposal to replace the “Once In,
Always In” policy.  Mr. O’Hare explained that they were part of a
formal coalition of industry trade groups that was following progress of
the proposal.  They expressed interest in the status of the changes to
the policy and the process and timing for completion of a final rule. 
They asked if and how they could be of help to expedite the process, and
expressed concern over a pending amendment to a Congressional spending
bill funding EPA which would prohibit funds to be used to promulgate and
implement the final rule.

EPA responded that it was still reviewing the public comments received
on the proposal and was following the customary process for finalizing
rules.  EPA did not identify any expected date or timeline for
finalizing the proposed rule.  EPA also explained that there was limited
staff time to work on this proposal, due to the need to complete
numerous rules with mandatory court deadlines in the near future.  EPA
was also aware of the spending bill amendment but noted that Congress
was going to do whatever it does and that EPA would comply with the
final outcome.

In addition, EPA noted that the potential for some sources to emit more
air toxics (known as “backsliding”) as a result of the proposal than
would have occurred under the existing Once In, Always In policy was a
concern to several commenters.  EPA explained that it does not currently
have sufficient information to indicate that backsliding is a
significant concern.  Mr. O’Hare responded that they believe
backsliding was not a concern in their industry coalition as a result of
EPA’s proposal but was unable to provide any specifics regarding
potential increases or decreases in emissions.  The industry
representatives reiterated to EPA that the proposal is important to them
and that they will continue to follow the rulemaking and work with EPA
and Congress to help facilitate finalizing the proposed changes to the
Once In, Always In policy.

 PAGE   

 PAGE   2