Document ID: EPA-HQ-OEI-2003-0001-0261
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-09-20T04:00Z

1
RESOLVE
EPA­
Record
Keeping
Rule
1/
31/
02,
Irving,
TX
Tape
3
[
Side
A]

Mel
Swoboda
[
continued
from
side
B,
tape
two]:
 
now
we're
going
back
to
slide
rules.

Unidentified
Female
Speaker:
I
have
a
question.
If
80
percent
of
the
information
that
EPA
is
getting
is
coming
from
states,
then
are
there
not
some
states
out
there
who
are
getting
data
electronically
from
their
industries?
And
if
that's
the
case,
do
we
have
some
success
stories?
I
think
from
the
gentleman
sitting
there
we
did.

Bill
Yancey:
This
is
Bill
Yancey
with
BP.
Yes,
we
have
been
very
successful
with
the
states,
specifically
California
and
Washington,
in
which
we
submit
electronic
waste
water
reporting
as
well
as
several
air
reports,
and
we've
had
good
luck,
and
of
course
that's
one
of
the
more
expeditious
forms
of
communicating
the
data
and
getting
it
into
the
system.

Unidentified
Female
Speaker:
And
what
you
have
negotiated,
it
wouldn't
meet
these
regulations?

Bill
Yancey:
No
it
would
not.
2
Unidentified
Female
Speaker:
That's
why
you're
here,
so
did
EPA
talk
to
California
or
any
of
the
other
states?

Joe
Retzer:
We've
talked
to
35
or
so.
By
the
way,
one
of
the
recent,
Florida
is
doing
electronic
DMRs.
We've
been
talking
with
John
Coates
for
a
long
time.

Unidentified
Female
Speaker:
Right,
and
he
and
I
are
working
on
drinking
water
data
from
the
labs,
which
is
a
little
bit
different,
because
it
can
come
to
us
from
a
lab,
and
not
from
somebody
we
regulate
directly.

Joe
Retzer:
And
it
doesn't
require
signatures,
so
it's
a
different
kind
of
issue.

Unidentified
Female
Speaker:
But
it
seems
to
me,
when
you
did
talk
to
the
other
states,
did
you
just
make
a
list
of
all
the
ways
that
they
did
them
instead
of
picking
the
best
parts,

or
what?

Joe
Retzer:
We
can
respond
to
that.
We've
been
working
with
states
for
two
or
three
years
on
this,
and
we've
had
a
dialogue
with
some
areas
where
we
agree
and
some
areas
where
we
don't
agree
so
much.
In
fact,
we
work
closely
with
this
National
Governors
Association
group
and
they
published
a
book
on
issues
to
consider
in
developing
electronic­
reporting
systems.
And
if
states
basically
address
the
issues
in
that
3
book,
they're
probably
going
to
be
very
close
to
meeting
the
CROMERRR
requirements.

I
think
we
probably
still
have
some
areas
in
the
recording
criteria
where
there
is
some
disagreement.
It's
my
belief
we're
going
to
work
those
out.
We're
going
to
have
another
meeting
with
states
coming
up
at
the
end
of
this
month.
I
don't
really
think
we're
that
far
apart
in
the
reporting
areas.

If
you
look
through
the
reporting
system
requirements
for
states,
there
are
a
few
areas
that
are
a
little
problematic
in
terms
of
the
electronic.
The
signature
scenario
for
electronic
signatures
[
is]
where
there's
some
disagreement
about
how
that
ought
to
work.
But
if
you
look
at
most
of
the
criteria,
I
really
don't
think
we're
that
far
apart,
especially
if
you
look
at
the
regulation
itself
as
opposed
to
some
of
the
issues
that
are
discussed
in
the
preamble.

For
example,
our
feeling
is
that
what
you
guys
are
doing
 
well,
what
John
is
doing,
I
don't
know
what
you're
doing
 
but
what
John
is
doing
in
Florida
will
meet
the
CROMERRR.

Unidentified
Female
Speaker:
I
guess
I
was
just
wondering
less
about
the
EPA­
state
relationship
and
more
about
using
the
example
of
the
industry
to
the
state,
that
maybe
California
or
Florida
has
to
some
degree.
4
Joe
Retzer:
Yeah,
I
think
the
main
concerns
that
we
really
have
on
what
state
reporting
systems
are
able
to
do
is
that
we
want
to
be
able
to
make
sure
that
an
electronic
signature
sort
of
carries
the
same
force
as
a
paper
signature.

So
we
want
people
to
be
able
to
certify,
when
they
sign,
that
they
understand
fully
the
penalty
for
committing
fraud
with
an
electronic
signature
is
the
same
as
with
a
paper
signature.
We
want
them
to
see
that
on
the
screen
somewhere.

We
want
 
and
I
don't
need
to
go
through
all
this
stuff
now,

but
those
are
the
kinds
of
things
that
we
have
concerns
about.

And
it's
different
for
signature­
related
things
than
it
is
for
non­
signature­
related
things.
We've
been
moving
ahead
of
the
regulation
on
drinking
water,
the
unregulated
contaminants
program,
where
we
have
that
sort
of
up
and
running.
Now
we're
getting
data
from
the
labs
using
basically
just
a
PIN
and
password
approach,
and
we
think
that
would
work
for
lots
of
reports
where
you
don't
require
signatures.

So
I
think
it
may
not
be
as
tough
as
some
people
think
on
the
state
recording
system.
I
think
the
difficult
thing
is
that
the
way
we
understand
the
rules
now,
is
that
because
of
the
requirements
related
to
individuals
in
electronic
reporting
 
that
is
people
have
to
register
and
so
on
 
that
it's
going
to
require
a
change
in
the
state
program
delegation
or
state
5
program
approval.
So
that
states
that
implement
this
for
these
programs
are
going
to
have
to
go
through
a
mod[
ification]
in
the
approval
process.

And
what
we're
proposing
is,
that
instead
of
states
having
to
come
through
and
do
that
for
each
one
of
their
many
programs
where
they're
doing
electronic
reporting,
we
do
sort
of
one
technical
review
for
what
approach
they're
using.
And
once
they've
done
that,
then
they
won't
have
to
come
back
and
do
that.
If
we
do
the
DMR
program
with
John
in
Florida
and
you're
following
basically
that
same
approach,
then
you
won't
have
to
come
in
for
review,
that's
the
idea.

Bill
Yancey:
Bill
Yancey,
BP.
I
just
wanted
to
further
elaborate
on
the
state
of
Florida's
experience
of
getting
absolution
on
having
to
comply
with
CROMERRR.
We
depend
a
lot
on
downloaded
forms,
calculations,
spreadsheets,
and
several
other
forms
of
data
reporting
from
state
websites
as
well
as
EPA's
website,
and
I'll
use
the
EPA
website
since
that's
more
of
a
universally
applicable
reporting
requirement
that
we
would
face,
because
we
currently
report
our
SARA
313
Toxic
Release
Inventories
electronically.

But
when
we
go
to
the
website
and
try
to
get
the
most
current,
acceptable
method
for
calculating,
I'll
use
this
example,
a
metals
treatment
emission
calculation,
which
a
few
6
years
ago
was
inadvertently
posted
on
the
website.
People
didn't
catch
it
until
later.
So
what
we
do,
we
download
these
calculation
bases,
or
the
reason
why
we
chose
a
calculation
method
to
report
as
we
did,
and
so
that
caused
a
problem,
and
we
did
get
an
extension
of
time
to
report.

But
more
recently
we
had
the
APRS
software,
which
had
failing
capabilities
to
detect
the
submittal
of
no
data.
And
again,
the
response
was,
we
got
an
extension
granted
to
correct
the
problem,
but
we'd
incorporated
that
into
a
report,
at
least
once,
that
was
going
to
be
submitted
electronically.

And
we
do
continue
to
rely
on
the
integrity
of
the
reporting
mechanisms
that
we
use
for
reports
like
SARA
313s,

and
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
comment,
that
it's
not,
that
is,

if
the
regulatory
community
bears
the
total
responsibility
for
making
sure
that
data
of
high
integrity
is
being
submitted,

you've
got
to
share
the
blame,
in
some
cases.
Thanks.

Robin
Roberts:
There's
one
more
last
comment
here,
and
then
I
want
to
take
a
quick
break,
we'll
come
back,
we'll
recap,
follow
up
on
any
other
concerns
that
you
may
have
briefly
about
other
subparts
of
the
rule
and
then
I'll
see
where
we
stand.

Unidentified
Male
Speaker:
I
just
wanted
a
clarification
from
you,
possibly.
The
states
or
local
agencies
don't
have
to
7
comply
with
any
aspects
of
CROMERRR
or
just
the
reporting
aspects?
Because
our
agency
has
a
lab
where
we
do
lab
analysis
using
the
same
kind
of
equipment
that's
been
talked
about
here.

We
have
air
monitoring
equipment
to
measure
pollutant
concentrations
in
the
ambient
air
that
need
to
be
reported
into
EPA's
air
emitter
programs,
etc.,
etc.
Is
all
that
record
keeping
that
we
do
outside
of
CROMERRR
as
well?

Joe
Retzer:
If
you're
doing
it
as
part
of
a
regulatory
requirement,
then
that
record
keeping
stuff
would
come
in.
I'm
not
sure
about
the
reporting
part.
If
you're
doing
it
as
an
air
emitter,
then
if
you're,
I
mean
if
you're .

Unidentified
Male
Speaker:
No,
but
I
mean
we
have
a
lot
of
responsibilities
to
report
our
ambient
air
data
into
our
compliance
activities
and
putting
activities
into
the
EPA's
ERRORS
[
phonetic]
database.
And
there's
that
reporting
into
ERRORS,
but
we
also
have
to
keep
a
lot
of
that
data
as
part
of
our
record
keeping.

Joe
Retzer:
You
know,
I'd
really
have
to
check
on
that,

but
my
sense
is
that
you're
doing
that,
not
under
a
regulatory
requirement,
but
as
part
of
some
other
relationship,
either
a
delegation
or
something
of
that
sort.

Robin
Roberts:
Other
questions
that
you
have
about
how
the
program
will
operate
vis­
à­
vis
states,
or
subpart
D,
for
8
instance,
of
the
rule,
or
subpart
D,
or
even
the
general
provisions,
we'll
take
after
we
come
back
form
the
break.
I
want
to
just
break
out
for
fifteen
minutes
and
let's
reconvene
here
at
five
to
three.

I'd
first
like
to
go
to
the
four
o'clock
piece
here
on
the
agenda,
which
is
about
new
products
or
technologies
that
will
help
companies
satisfy
the
CROMERRR
requirements,
and
you
might
even
want
to
think
about
what
are
new
technologies
that
will
help
you
satisfy
your
own
internal
archiving
problems
that
you
may
have.

How
do
you
go
about
deciding
which
piece
of
data
out
of
these
huge
data
streams
that
many
of
you
are
involved
in
compiling,
and
archive
it
and
preserve
some
kind
of
record
internally?

And
then
we'll
move
on
to
any
comments
that
you
might
have
about
the
other
parts
of
the
rule.
So
what
we
can
do
now
is
turn
to
this
new
technology
discussion,
the
new
process
discussion
and
just
ask,
have
you
run
across
any
new
products
or
technologies
that
help
you
do
what
you
do
now
but
also
archive
it
and
slice
and
dice
the
data,
freeze
it?
Any
new,

exciting
technologies
in
the
field?
We
need
a
vendor
in
here
to
tell
us
there's
something
that
you've
all
got
to
have
and
he's
got
a
show
for
it.
I
knew
there
was
a
part
missing.
9
Well,
then,
this
is
the
point,
then,
where
we'll
briefly
throw
the
floor
open
to
other
concerns,
other
comments
you
may
have
about
other
subparts
of
the
rule.

Jim
McFarland:
Jim
McFarland
with
IR4.
This
may
not
be
under
the
subparts,
it
probably
isn't,
it's
just
for
the
rule
in
general.
One
of
the
things
that
was
mentioned
early
on
was
a
desire
to
have
the
rule
be
compatible
with
what
[
the
Food
and
Drug
Administration]
did
for
their
Part
11.

You
may
not
know
the
answer
to
this
question,
but
based
on
what
I
see
here
and
the
bit
that
I
know
about
Part
11,
they're
very
similar,
and
that
was
probably
your
intent.
How
much
are
you
constrained
by
that
desire
for
compatibility
to
making
changes
to
what's
been
proposed?

Evi
Huffer:
I
don't
think
we're
constrained.

Joe
Retzer:
I'd
say
part
of
the
reason
that
it's
there
is
that
companies
we
were
originally
talking
to
about
this
said,

whatever
you
do
in
record
keeping,
don't
go
off
in
your
own
direction
and
do
something
entirely
different.
Try
and
be
consistent
with
what's
already
on
the
books.
And
probably
the
companies
we
were
talking
to
were
[
Good
Laboratory
Practices]

type
companies
who,
so
what
they
pointed
to
as
what's
on
the
books
was
the
[
the
Food
and
Drug
Administration]
rule.
10
But
obviously,
as
we've
heard
from
you
today
and
from
other
folks,
there's
a
lot
of
other
record
keeping
we
need
to
worry
about
other
than
[
Good
Laboratory
Practices]­
type
stuff,

where
that
approach
probably
isn't
that
appropriate.

Evi
Huffer:
And
I
think
to
the
extent
it's
feasible,
the
desire
is
to
be
compatible,
not
just
with
other
federal
agency
standards,
but
also
international
standards
that
could
affect
our
industry
and
this
country
as
well.
It's
been
mentioned
at
other
meetings
that
we
need
to
make
sure
that
our
standards
are
consistent
with
the
European
standards,
with
the
OECD
standards,
but
I
don't
think
that
that
will
constrain
our
decision
to
make
changes
to
this
rule.

Jim
McFarland:
In
the
idea
here
of
products
and
technologies,
if
CROMERRR
were
to
go
into
effect
as
it
stands
right
now,
the
discussions
within
IR4
about
something
as
simple
as
the
temperature
devices
or
data
scribes
or
whatever
data­
pod
type
device
we're
using,
because
we
feel
that
would
throw
us
directly
into
CROMERRR
with
all
its
associated
requirements,
we
would
probably
decide
to
go
back
to
min/
max
meters.
And
that's
not,
I
believe,
your
intent
for
this
regulation.

Paul
Barnes:
My
name
is
Paul
Barnes,
I'm
with
the
Pilot
Group
here
in
Dallas,
and
I've
worked
with
some
of
the
bigger
11
corporations
in
this
room,
but
we
also
work
with
smaller
businesses.

Some
of
the
smaller
businesses
have
record­
keeping
requirements
that
are
tied
to
their
material
purchases
or
their
inventory
group.
The
way
I
read
this
rule,
a
small
business
would
be
required
to
revamp
their
accounting
system,
in
order
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
an
air
permit,
for
example.
I
think
that
might
be
remedied
fairly
easily,
I
don't
think
it
was
the
intention
of
the
rule
writers,
but
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
this
is
so
general
that
one
could
interpret
the
rule
that
way
and
it
could
have
far­
reaching
consequences.

Mark
Carl:
My
name
is
Mark
Carl,
I'm
with
the
Interstate
Oil
and
Gas
Compact
Commission,
and
we
work
with
approximately
30
different
states
across
the
country.

And
in
my
discussions
with
several
people
in
different
state
regions,
EPA
regions,
I
have
found
out
that
a
lot
of
the
people
within
EPA
that
they
do
the
reporting
to,
don't
even
know
what
CROMERRR
is.
I
see
this
as
a
real
potential
problem
in
the
future,
because
your
telling
us
one
thing
right
now,

that
whenever
this
rule
is
implemented,
these
people
in
these
regional
offices
who
receive
this
data
aren't
here
to
understand
how
you
interpret
these
things.
12
Now
there's
a
potential
that
they're
going
to
interpret
it
totally
differently
and
put
some
different
requirements
on
it.

So
I
feel
like
there
ought
to
be
some
interaction
between
these
regional
offices
and
this
rule.
I
was
really
surprised
at
the
number
of
different
people
who
had
never
heard
of
CROMERRR.

Evi
Huffer:
That
is
an
internal
problem
that
we're
trying
to
deal
with
within
the
Agency.
The
work
group
that
was
created
for
this
role
does
include
regional
representatives;

unfortunately
we
do
not
have
all
of
the
regions
represented,

and
I
think
we're
going
to
have
to
be
insistent
on
that,
but
then
it's
also
going
to,
we're
going
to
have
to
come
up
with
some
plan
to
go
out
and
let
them
know
what's
going
on.
And
we've
been
batting
ideas
around
internally
about
how
to
do
that,
but
we
do
realize
it's
a
problem,
that
the
regions
aren't
in
the
loop
and
they
need
to
be.

Joe
Retzer:
There's
a
big
regional
meeting
in
March,
EPA
regional
and
[
EPA]
Office
of
[
Environmental]
Information
people
and
this
will
also
be
discussed
there.

Robin
Roberts:
I
heard
some
discussion
about
other
subparts.

Greg
Nutt:
The
TNRCC
has
already
submitted
our
comments
on
the
rule
and
we
did
a
chapter
and
verse,
issues,
and
13
suggested
corrections,
but
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
a
few
broad
points
today.
Greg
Nutt,
from
TNRCC
for
the
record.

First,
as
I
discussed
before,
the
rule
isn't
voluntary:

record­
keeping
systems
already
exist;
electronic
reporting
is
a
long­
established
way
of
doing
business
and
people
aren't
going
to
turn
back;
and
in
some
cases
it's
mandated.
It's
mandated
in
Texas.

The
other
major
point
is
that
TNRCC's
belief
is
that
the
EPA
is
overly
concerned
about
fraudulent
submissions
and
fraudulent
record
keeping
and
you
need
to
strike
a
balance
between
the
benefits
of
electronic
reporting
and
the
potential
risks
for
fraud,
and
I
think
that
EPA
has
been
a
little
too
conservative.
This
excessive
concern
has
led
to
overly
broad
requirements,
as
with
the
overly
scoped
record­
keeping
requirements,
and
some
things
that
just
aren't
possible,
like
data
systems
that
can't
be
changed
without
modification.

We
think
that
the
EPA
should
work
with
the
Department
of
Justice
and
state
[
Attorneys
General]
and
state
EPAs
to
come
up
with
some
compromises
to
address
this,
I
know
that
ECOS
[
the
Environmental
Council
of
the
States]
is
working
on
putting
together
a
meeting
to
address
that
in
February,
and
I
hope
that
we
can
get
some
[
U.
S.
Department
of
Justice]
participation
in
that,
because
I
don't
think
we're
going
to
make
a
whole
lot
of
14
progress
unless
we
have
[
Department
of
Justice]
participation
and
some
movement
on
behalf
of
[
Department
of
Justice]
on
some
of
the
issues.

TNRCC
thinks
this
rule
can
be
fixed.
We
would
like
to
see
an
EPA
electronic
reporting
rule,
but
some
major
changes
need
to
be
made.
The
rule
requirements
with
electronic
record
keeping
need
to
be
narrowed
significantly.
Perhaps
one
thing
we
could
do,
for
the
purpose
of
CROMERRR,
anyway,
narrow
the
record­
keeping
issues
to
only
record
keeping
associated
with
electronic
submittal
systems
themselves.
And
keep
the
broader
record­
keeping
issues
for
another
rule­
making
activity
after
EPA's
had
some
time
to
go
out
to
companies
and
talk
about
how
their
distributed
control
systems
feed
into
their
environmental
reporting
and
figure
out
where
we
need
to
draw
the
line
on
what
constitutes
records
that
need
to
be
stored
in
a
semi­
perfect
system
and
records
which
do
not.

The
electronic­
reporting
requirements
need
to
be
based
on
existing
standard
practices
in
the
electronic
commerce
industry.
And
EPA
is
exceeding
those
in
a
few
areas
in
the
proposed
rules
right
now,
and
they
need
to
be
backed
off,

because
the
states
really
aren't
in
the
position
to
go
out
and
create
new
technology.
15
If
the
technology
isn't
typically
used
in
e­
commerce
right
now,
it's
not
going
to
be
economically
feasible
for
the
states
to
implement
that
technology.

And
the
other
thing
we
have
a
very
big
concern
about
is
the
requirement
to
modify
delegation
agreements,
state
implementation
plans,
and
other
state­
EPA
agreements.
The
approach
that
the
state
would
like
to
see,
and
what
was
suggested
at
the
meeting
in
October,
is
one
where,
if
you
meet
the
requirements
of
CROMERRR,
and
you
don't
have
anything
in
your
existing
agreements
that
preclude
electronic
reporting,

then
there
should
be
no
need
to
go
back
and
change
those
existing
agreements.

If
that's
not
the
case,
then
we
need
to
have
an
extremely
expedited
procedure
to
change
these
things
where
the
only
thing
that
can
be
addressed
in
the
modification
of
a
delegation
agreement,
modification
of
the
SIP,
is
the
addition
of
electronic
reporting.

And
other
than
that,
I
just
want
to
thank
the
EPA
for
providing
a
forum,
and
I
think
this
has
been
a
useful
discussion.
My
experience
in
working
with
EPA
on
this
for
the
past
year
and
a
half
is
that
the
folks
at
EPA
are
genuinely
interested
in
making
this
work
and
I
think
we
can
work
out
a
reasonable
compromise.
16
Chris
Marlia:
Chris
Marlia
from
the
South
Coast
[
Air
Quality
Management
District].
We've
submitted
our
comments
as
well,
and
they're
pretty
much
on
the
record
reporting
and
not
the
record
keeping,
but
I
would
like
to
echo
the
same
concerns
that
Texas
has
for
the
record.
And
we've
provided
a
strikeout
underlined
version
of
things
that
we
think
would
make
the
records­
receiving
system
more
flexible
for
us
and
easier
to
implement
without
having
to
spend
lots
of
money
on
developing
software,
which
we
don't
think
is
needed.
We
think
the
infrastructure
is
widely
in
place,
associated
with
e­
commerce
that
is
available
for
use.

Other
than
that,
I
would
like
to
say
also
 
and
this
is
more
about
the
process
rather
than
the
rule
itself
 
California
has
an
economy,
which
is
probably
within
the
top
20
of
the
world
and
we
think
that
you
should
have
some
public
workshops
on
the
West
Coast.
This
is
the
furthest
west
that
you've
had
a
meeting,
and
there
are
lots
of
facilities
in
California
that
would
like
to
participate
if
you
would
have
a
workshop
out
there.
Thank
you.

Joe
Retzer:
There
California
goes
again.

Evi
Huffer:
They're
a
hard
sell.

Unidentified
Female
Speaker:
Could
you
comment
about
the
development
of
[
the
Central
Data
Exchange]
at
this
point?
17
Joe
Retzer:
You're
asking
us
where
it
stands?
[
The
Central
Data
Exchange]
is
working,
basically,
on
two
fronts:

one
is
on
direct
reporting
from
companies,
the
other
is
on
the
network
relationships
with
the
states.

Central
Data
Exchange
is
EPA's
web
portal
for
collecting
data.
The
goal
or
the
idea
behind
this
rule
is
that
basically,

all
electronic
reporting
to
EPA
and
electronic
sharing
of
data
with
states
will
be
coming
through
one
web
portal.
So
if
you
register
to
send
in
a
[
Toxic
Release
Inventory]
report
through
that
portal,
but
you
also
have
other
direct
EPA
reports,
you'll
be
registered.
If
you
register
once
for
any
reports
you
have,

you'll
be
interfacing
with
the
same
place.

On
the
terms
of
the
state
flows
with
the
network,
the
air,

it's
no
longer
the
air
emissions
inventory,
but
basically
the
air
emissions
report
from
states
to
EPA
came
through
Central
Data
Exchange
this
year,
we're
working
on
a
number
of
other
network
flows
right
now,
[
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act],
STORET
[
EPA's
STOrage
and
RETrieval
database],

we're
talking
with
the
drinking
water
people
above
moving
through
[
the
Central
Data
Exchange]
on
that
one.

In
terms
of
direct
reports,
we
had
many
people
send
their
[
Toxic
Release
Inventory]
reports
this
year
through
Central
Data
Exchange.
For
next
year's
reporting,
if
you
use
the
Try
18
Me
software,
Central
Data
Exchange
electronic
reporting
is
going
to
be
integrated
into
that
software
now,
so
when
you
finish
filling
the
stuff
out
and
you're
ready
to
send
it
in,

you
can
either
mail
in
your
diskette
like
you've
done
before,

or
you
can,
say
send
it
in
electronically
and
send
it
through
Central
Data
Exchange.

We
also,
for
the
Unregulated
Contaminants
[
Monitoring]

drinking
water
program,
where
laboratories
are
sending
that
data
directly
to
Central
Data
Exchange
now
and
states
and
the
local
communities
are
able
to
access
that
data
through
Central
Data
Exchange
and
approve
it
before
it
actually
goes
into
the
database.

We're
about
ready
to
go
for
a
couple
of
[
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act]
reports,
health
and
safety.
There's
a
couple
of
[
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act]
reports
that
we've
done
the
tests,
and
as
soon
as
they
put
out
their
Federal
Register
notices,
those
will
be
ready
to
go.

We're
working
toward
a
lot
of
different
areas
over
the
next
couple
of
years.
Also
we've
been
running
sort
of
an
interim
Central
Data
Exchange;
we
went
out
today,
I
believe,

with
our
request
for
proposals
for
a
contract
to
build
the
whole
Central
Data
Exchange.
That
will
be
ready,
starting,

like
in
the
fall.
So
we're
ramping
that
up
rather
quickly.
19
Now
one
of
the
reasons
that
we
were
trying
to
move
ahead
with
the
electronic
reporting
and
record­
keeping
rule
is
that
we
need
that
rule,
basically,
to
enable
us
to
get
paperless
electronic
reports.
What
we've
done,
for
example,
with
the
[
Toxic
Release
Inventory]
report,
at
this
point,
is
to
say
you
can
send
it
in
electronically
but
you
need
to
send
a
paper
certification
along
with
it.
We'll
be
able
to
get
rid
of
the
paper
certifications
when
we
get
the
rule
in.

Kenna
Study:
This
is
Kenna
from
Florida
again.
I
have
a
question
on
3.3000,
it
says
how
our
states
are
authorized
to
allow
electronic
record
keeping?
And
then
in
part
B
it
refers
back
to
part
3.100,
which
is
the
list
of
nine?

Joe
Retzer:
Right.

Kenna
Study:
So
do
I
understand
that
correctly,
the
record­
keeping
requirements
would
apply?

Joe
Retzer:
The
record­
keeping
requirements
would
apply.

Evi
Huffer:
For
the
delegated.
For
the
record­
keeping
that
is
being
done
by
industry
under
the
delegated
programs.

Joe
Retzer:
Right.

Kenna
Study:
I'm
sorry,
what
was
that?

Unidentified
Male
Speaker:
Not
only
that,
but
you'd
have
to
build
an
electronic
receiving
system
that
would
meet
EPA's
20
requirements,
so
basically
duplicate
[
the
Central
Data
Exchange].

Joe
Retzer:
But
that's
under
the
electronic
reporting
requirement,
not
record
keeping.
Although
I
would
say
you
keep
saying,
"
duplicate
[
Central
Data
Exchange]."
It
doesn't
have
to
duplicate
[
the
Central
Data
Exchange],
because
what
the
reporting
criteria
are
is
a
set
of
performance
requirements.

Okay,
what's
described
in
the
preamble
is
the
current
or
it's
not
really
current
now,
it's
last
year's
description
of
the
Central
Data
Exchange
design
for
how
we
would
meet
those
reporting
criteria.
There
are
other
ways
to
do
it.

Unidentified
Male
Speaker:
But
there's
quite
a
bit
of
that,
as
we
commented
in
our
comments
to
you,
there's
quite
a
bit
of
that
functionality
that
is
explicit
in
the
rule.

Joe
Retzer:
Right,
and
hopefully
you
will
comment
on
those
things
that
you
find
impractical
or
difficult.

Unidentified
Male
Speaker:
And
that's
what
our
comments
address.

Joe
Retzer:
Great,
good.

Richard
Wiard:
Richard
Wiard,
Process
Data
Control.
I'd
like
to
express
an
interest
in
going
to
your
California
meeting.
Where
is
it
you're
going
to
schedule
it?
Sure,

that'd
be
fun.
21
I'd
just
like
to
back
up.
Let
me
put
forth
something
that
everybody
takes
for
granted,
but
I
don't
know
if
it
should
be
taken
for
granted,
is
the
absolute
requirement
for
electronic
signatures.
I
just
want
to
toss
this
out
for
a
moment.

Again,
what
are
we
trying
to
prevent,
and
I'll
give
you
an
example.
For
fourteen
years,
Texas
has
received
encrypted
.
zip
files
that
the
sender
of
those
electronic
files
communicates
to
files
in
one
communication
and
then
communicates
with
the
state
his
password,
two
separate
transactions.
This
has
gone
on
with
hundreds
of
companies
for
fourteen
years.

I'm
not
aware
of
any
great,
significant
problem
as
a
result
of
that.
And
sometimes
when
I
watch
the
stringent
ideas
coming
forth
on
electronic
signature,
I
would
like
to
think
that
we're
going
to
ask
ourselves,
which
of
these
do
we
have
to
do
and
what's
the
risk?
What's
the
problem
if
we
did
it
another
way
and
not
so
detailed
in
the
electronic
signature?

And
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
that
question,
but
I
would
think
a
high
level
ought
to
be
addressed
to
say,
in
what
circumstances
is
this
appropriate,
and
in
what
other
circumstances
is
it
not,
maybe
required?

I'd
like
to
make
one
other
point
about
a
report
here
in
Texas
called
STEERS
[
phonetic],
which
is
annual
waste
summary
22
report
that's
been
electronic
for,
Greg,
how
many
years?
Eight
years.

The
very
good
thing
about
that
report
is
that
it
can
be
performed
with
software
provided
via
the
State
of
Texas.
But
it
can
also
be
submitted
in
a
format
which
is
generated
by
data
systems
owned
by
the
companies
which
means
that
somebody,
a
small
operator,
could
type
in
his
data
of
the
annual
answers
and
submit
it.
Or,
a
client
could
take
all
of
his
RECRA
waste
shipment,
[
hazardous]
waste
forms,
and
crank
those
numbers
out,

place
it
onto
a
file,
and
submit
it
to
Texas.

And
I
think
those
two
alternatives
need
to
be
considered
when
talking
about
electronic
forms.
We've
worked
with
EPA
interfaces
where
our
only
option
was
to
generate
our
outputs
onto
a
paper
copy
and
the
type
those
numbers
into
your
submittal.
Now
that's
easy
with
a
one­
page,
couple
of
items
report,
but
if
it's
really
intensive,
we
would
want
to
feed
it
from
the
database.
So
some
of
those
issues
and
concerns,
some
are
high
level,
some
are
mid­
level,
but
I'd
hope
that
they
would
get
reviewed
and
thought
through.

Joe
Retzer:
Can
I
respond
to
that?
I
think
those
are
both
excellent
points.
The
key,
on
the
first
one,
on
the
signature
issue,
what
we're
really
driven
by,
again,
is
the
requirement
in
the
underlying
regulation.
So
if
the
underlying
23
regulation
requires
you
to
sign
a
DMR
but
not
sign
a
drinking
water
lab
report,
then
we
treat
those
things
very
differently
in
our
system.

If
you
don't
require
electronic
signature,
just
register
and
get
a
password
and
send
stuff,
real
simple.
If
it
requires
a
signature,
then
it
typically
raises
those
fraudulent
kind
of
issues
and
we
need
to
address
it.
But
it
may
be
that
we
need
to
go
back
and
look,
or
someone
needs
to
go
back
and
look
at
those
underlying
regulations
to
see
if
a
signature
is
really
necessary
in
all
of
those
cases.

And
the
other
point
I
thought
was
also
good,
and
that's
something
that
we're
building
into
the
Central
Data
Exchange.

For
any
of
the
direct
reports
we're
doing,
like
the
drinking
water
laboratory
reports,
for
example,
we're
trying
to
provide
people
the
option
of
filling
in
a
web
form,
signing
that,
and
sending
it
in,
or
sending
us
a
file
that
includes
 
right,
right.

So,
and
we've
found
that
the
labs,
most
of
them
are
sending
us
huge
batches
of
files
rather
than
individual
things,
but
there
is
an
option
there
for
them
to
fill
out
a
web
form.

Robin
Roberts:
Other
concerns
about
parts
of
the
rule
that
we
didn't
have
a
chance
to
really
focus
in
on
because
we
were
concentrating
on
Subpart
C
today?
24
With
that
I'll
just
note,
some
of
the
things
that
I
have,

recapping:
a
lot
of
concerns
here
about
contractor
liability;

issues
with
data
migration
and
loss
across
various
generations
of
the
software
and
hardware
that
you
use;
the
notion
of
the
difference
between
data
that's
recorded
versus
data
that
is
stored;
and
this
whole
notion
that
we're
really
talking
about
electronic
record­
keeping
archiving,
not
information
technology
and
record
management
and
that's
a
whole
different
discipline
there.

There
are
also
some
[
confidential
business
information]

concerns,
out
of
this
massive
data
stream
that
you've
got,

you're
being
asked
to
report
on
specific
data
points,
and
if,

under
the
conservative
interpretation
that
some
are
likely
to
have
of
this
rule,
you
have
to
reveal
or
record
entire
data
streams,
[
confidential
business
information]
issues
come
in
to
play
there.

Someone
suggested,
the
gentleman
from
Texas
suggested
that
maybe
one
way
to
do
this
is
to
certify
which
data
points
should
be
subject
to
the
regulation.
Make
it
explicit,
that
not
the
entire
data
stream
is
something
that
we're
looking
for
everyone
to
record.

Under
general
criteria,
there
were
concerns
about
a
lack
of
a
risk
analysis.
Some
thought
that
the
burden
that
some
25
records
would
have
to
meet
under
this
rule
weren't
commensurate
with
their
weight,
either
in
terms
of
protection
they
afford
to
the
environment,
or
rather
if
they
really
had
to
have
something
like
an
electronic
signature
attached
to
them,
maybe
a
PINbased
type
of
certification
would
be
more
workable.

There
was
also
a
mention
about
how
is
raw
data
and
original
data
defined.
How
do
you
make
the
cut
or
distinction
there?
And
then
long­
term
archiving
issues,
we
had
this
issue
of
the
conservative
interpretation
of
records
by
the
predicate
regulations,
meaning
that
under
this
rule,
you'd
have
to
think
that
all
of
the
rules
would
be
subject
to
electronic
records,

all
of
the
records
would
be
subject
to
this
record­
keeping
rule,
and
that
could
be
burdensome.

And
then
migration
came
up
again
as
an
issue,
and
some
of
you
decided,
or
thought,
that
one
solution
could
be
that
you
want
to
look
at
where
is
this
data
really
needed,
what
are
these
record­
retention
periods
all
about?
Maybe
it's
time
to
reassess
some
of
those
kinds
of
criteria.

And
then
this
last
piece
here,
talk
about
more
coordination
with
the
regional
offices
that
don't
seem
to
be
as
apprised
of
this
situation
as
maybe
they
should.
And
then
underscoring
the
notion
of
many
of
you,
that
this
doesn't
appear
to
be
as
voluntary
as
it
may
seem
to
be,
that
electronic
26
record
keeping
and
reporting
is
business
already,
it's
already
mandated
in
some
states.
And
that
there
should
again
be
an
attempt
to
balance
the
risk
of
fraud
versus
the
weight
of
the
record­
keeping
requirements.

I
would
just
like
to
turn
it
over
to
Joe,
and
David,
are
you
there
David?

David:
Yeah,
I'm
still
here.

Robin
Roberts:
I
just
thought
that
I
would
turn
it
over
to
Evi,
Joe,
and
David
to
wrap
it
up
for
us
and
they'll
tell
you
what
they
heard
today.

Joe
Retzer:
David,
do
you
have
any
comments
that
you
want
to
make
after
a
day
of
remote
listening?

David
Schwarz:
Well,
just
to
thank
people
for
their
interesting
and
thoughtful
comments.
In
some
cases,
things
faded
in
and
out,
and
of
course
I'll
look
forward
to
reading
the
transcript,
and
although
I
didn't
have
anything
to
say,
I
did
find
it
very
useful
hearing
people's
comments
as
with
the
previous
meetings.

And
I
would
like
to
say,
we'd
love
to
come
to
California.

We'll
have
to
figure
out
how
to
do
that,
but
it
will
probably
not
be
before
the
end
of
the
comment
period,
but
maybe
after.

Evi
Huffer:
Thank
you
all
for
coming.
I
think
it
was
a
very
useful
discussion
that
we
had
here
today,
so
thank
you.
27
Joe
Retzer:
And
I
also
have
learned
a
lot,
we'll
go
back,

and
we're
having
a
meeting
with
the
states
later
in
February,

near
the
end
of
the
month,
to
address
some
of
the
reporting
and
state
approval
issues,
primarily.
We'll
also
be
going
back
and
taking
the
information
we
have
from
you,
and
from
the
meeting
we
had
a
while
ago,
and
going
back
and
talking
to
our
enforcement
folks
and
our
program
people
who
serve
on
our
broader
work
group,
and
sharing
with
them
your
concerns.
And
then
we
have
some
decisions
to
make
about
the
record­
keeping
part
of
this.

One
option
that
we're
going
to
seriously
be
looking
at,

and
we
invite
comment
on,
is
basically
de­
coupling
that
part
of
the
rule
from
the
reporting
part
and
trying
to
address
that
on
sort
of
a
longer­
term
basis,
going
back
and
taking
a
look,
kind
of
a
deeper
look
at
some
of
these
issues,
seeing
if
maybe
we
can
distinguish
between
types
of
records.
We've
heard
the
idea
that
we
ought
to
do
some
kind
of
a
risk
analysis
on
different
kinds
of
records
and
see
if
maybe
different
provisions
should
apply
for
different
kinds
of
records
that
we
need
to
address.

Looking
at
the
scope
issue,
seeing
if
there's
a
need
to
sort
of
exclude
some
kinds
of
records
from
these
provisions,
which
ones
should
be
in,
which
ones
should
not
be
in.
28
So
we've
heard
a
number
of
different
ideas
about
kinds
of
things
that
we
maybe
need
to
go
back
and
think
about,
and
if
we
were
to
substantially
change
this,
then
we
would
probably
need
to
re­
propose.
So
that's
an
option
that
we're
also
looking
at
doing
on
the
record­
keeping
piece.

There's
another
option
that
we
haven't
really
talked
about
 
it
didn't
really
come
out
of
this
group,
but
it
did
come
up
in
the
Washington
meeting
 
which
was
whether
it
would
be
useful
or
not
to
do
something
in
the
record­
keeping
area
that
would
be
relatively
brief
and
straightforward,
like
saying,
"
We
believe
that
the
E­
SIGN
criteria,
which
applies
to
commercial
records,
should
also,
at
a
minimum,
apply
to
these
kinds
of
records
that
are
considered
regulatory
required
records."

And
that's
through
basically
a
couple
of
criteria,
the
records
have
to
be
accurate,
and
they
have
to
be
accessible.

There's
not
a
lot
of
detail
on
that,
and
we
might
discuss
sort
of
what
we
thought
that
meant
in
the
preamble.
So
that's
another
kind
of
option
that,
a
couple
of
them
have
come
in
on
the
comments
to
us
and
was
raised
in
the
Washington
meeting,

and
that
some
of
the
enforcement
folks
have
done
some
thinking
about.

The
question
probably
there
is,
does
it
really
take
it
much
beyond
where
you
are
now,
it
does
at
least
say
that
it's
29
our
intention
that
those
kinds
of
things
that
are
covered
under
commercial
documents,
at
a
minimum,
ought
to
be
covered
here
as
well.

So
we're
going
to
look
at
all
those
kinds
of
options.

Please
get
your
comments
in.
We'll
read
them
all.
Thank
you.

Evi
Huffer:
Thank
you.

Sue­
Chi
Shin:
Very
quick
question.
Again,
this
is
Sue­

Chi
Shen,
Gustafson.
I
know
what
my
boss
is
going
to
ask
me
when
he
sees
me
tomorrow
morning.
He's
going
to
say,
"
What
did
you
learn?"
And
the
second
thing
is,
"
When
is
EPA
thinking
about
putting
in
this
rule?
When
will
the
final
rule
be
in
place?
What
is
the
proposed
timeline?"

Joe
Retzer:
That
might
depend
on
what
we
would
do.
If
we
do
not
re­
propose,
or
if
we
separate
out
the
record­
keeping
and
just
go
ahead
in
the
reporting,
probably
it
would
be
around
the
end
of
this
year,
the
winter
of
2002.

If,
in
fact,
we
re­
propose
or
address
the
record
keeping
on
a
separate
track,
then
we're
talking
a
much
longer
period
of
time.
We
would
have
to
come
out
with
another
proposal,
and
even
that
proposal
would
be
another
year
away
or
so.
So
the
rule
would
probably
be,
for
the
record­
keeping
part,
probably
would
be
a
couple
of
years
away.
30
These
decisions
are
made,
the
decisions
are
made
by
folks
a
couple
of
levels
up
beyond
us,
but
we
would
hope
that
before
too
long
after
the
comment
period,
within
a
month
or
so,
we
would
know
which
way
we're
going
to
go,
so
I
would
say
by
the
end
of
March,
April,
somewhere
in
there,
I'd
say
by
April
some
time.

Robin
Roberts:
Thank
you
all
for
coming.

[
end
of
side
A,
nothing
recorded
on
side
B,
end
of
transcript.]