Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)
Amendment to Proposal
JUNE 18, 1996
TO: MARY ANN FROEHLICH
FROM: MICHAEL PHILLIPS
SUBJECT: CONCEPTUAL AMENDMENT TO FLORIDA'S
XL PROPOSAL
Amendment to include:
1) A Dual XL Program
a. An ongoing State "Common Sense Regulation"
Program with no limit as to the number of proposals the FDEP could entertain
- state rules and regulations only.
b. A pilot, 24 month program, limited to
6 proposals state-wide dealing with federal regulatory flexibility.
2) The selection process
Florida will retain control of the selection
process. Florida will make selections independent of EPA. All proposals
will be subject to the following "filters" or "screens" to be implemented
by Florida prior
to selection:
a. An environmental results filter. All
proposals must be very clear as to the environmental results that will
be accomplished in exchange for procedural flexibility. The lack of clear
environmental results prior to selection has contributed toward the resource
intensity issue surrounding most XL's today. Florida's program requires
clear environmental results prior to approval. Lack of clear environmental
benefits will initially result in deferral until results are identified.
Continued lack of clarity will lead to denial.
b. A filter to clarify the flexibility being
sought. An overview of the potential regulations that may be affected
must be prepared. The lack of clear flexibility being sought has also
been a downfall of XL to this point. Florida's program will require a
clear description of procedural flexibility prior to approval. Lack of
clear regulatory flexibility is ground for either deferral or rejection.
c. An enforcement filter. If an enforcement
case associated with either the EPA or the Florida DEP is unresolved in
that there has not been agreement as to the resolution of the case, then
the applicant will not be able to move forward in the selection process.
d. Criteria filters. All criteria associated
with the Federal EPA XL Program will be used in reviewing proposals. The
criteria include 1) feasibility; 2) environmental benefits; 3) cost savings
and paperwork reduction; 4) transferability; 5) stakeholder support; 6)
monitoring, reporting and evaluation; 7) innovative multimedia prevention;
and 8) shifting of risk burden.
Through use of the above "filters" or "screens,"
Florida will be able to streamline the process of Final Project Agreement
negotiations. Clarity on two primary criteria - environmental benefits
and specific regulatory flexibility - before proposal approval and agency
commitment will significantly reduce the amount of time later to process
an agreement. These two areas have been the stumbling blocks so far with
XL proposals.
Once Florida has made a selection, and the
proposal involves federal regulations, Florida will immediately send a
package to Region IV to include the proposal, all applicant information,
and clarity on environmental results and regulatory flexibility being
sought. Region IV will be asked to participate, from the beginning, with
the Final Project Agreement negotiations. EPA will be a signatory to all
projects that include federal regulations.
Florida's XL program, dealing with state
regulations only, (our on-going ecosystem management projects we have
been doing for 3 years now) will not involve EPA. EPA will not be burdened
with the review of state regulations and flexibility being sought from
the state.