Improving Our Regulations: 

A Preliminary Plan for 

Periodic Retrospective Reviews 

of Existing Regulations 

By: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

May 24, 2011 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 2 of 47 

Table of Contents

1 Overview .................................................................................................................................4

This overview describes broad initiatives to help EPA achieve a 21st century, efficient regulatory 

program, including replacing outdated paper-based reporting with electronic reporting, expanding 

information disclosure to improve transparency, and more. 

1.1 A 21st century approach to environmental protection 5

1.2 A more efficient approach to regulation 9

1.3 Conduct of reviews 10

2 Regulations We Plan to Review ............................................................................................13

EPA intends to undertake 31 regulatory reviews for this, our initial review period. These reviews 

are expected to lead to 16 concrete actions in 2011, with many more in subsequent years of the 

review period. This section describes each one. 

2.1 Early actions 14

2.2 Longer term actions 24

3 Public Involvement and Agency Input for this Plan ..............................................................33

In parallel efforts, EPA sought to learn how public and Agency stakeholders would recommend 

designing this plan. Both efforts are described in this section. 

3.1 Public involvement in developing this Plan 33

3.2 Agency input into this Plan 35

4 EPA’s Plan for Future Periodic Regulatory Reviews ............................................................36

This section defines a process that EPA intends to use for predictable, transparent future regulatory 

reviews, to be conducted every five years. 

4.1 Management and oversight of the Plan 36

4.2 Process for conducting retrospective reviews 36

4.3 Criteria for regulatory reviews 37

4.4 Public involvement in future review periods 40

4.5 Reporting on each review period 41

4.6 Frequency of review periods 41

5 Evaluation of the First Review Period ...................................................................................42
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 3 of 47 

6 Contact Information ...............................................................................................................43

Appendix: Questions offered during the public comment period to help the public formulate their 

comments ......................................................................................................................................44

General Questions 44

Questions Specific to an Issue or Impact 44
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 4 of 47 

Text Box 1: EPA to Undertake 

31 Priority Regulatory Reviews 

In this Plan, EPA defines 31 regulatory reviews for 

our initial review period. Sixteen of them fit into the 

category of “early actions,” meaning the Agency 

intends to propose or finalize an action to modify, 

streamline, expand, or repeal a regulation or related 

program during the 2011 calendar year. The other 15 

reviews are longer term actions, whereby we will 

review the regulations in question and assess whether 

revisions are needed. See section 2 of this Plan for 

details on each of the 31 reviews.

1 Overview 

EPA developed this Preliminary Plan for 

Periodic Retrospective Reviews of Existing 

Regulations (the Plan) in response to 

President Obama’s recent call in Executive 

Order 13563 for each federal agency to 

“develop...a preliminary plan, consistent 

with law and its resources and regulatory 

priorities, under which the agency will 

periodically review its existing significant 

regulations to determine whether any such 

regulations should be modified, streamlined, 

expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency’s regulatory program more effective or less 

burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.”1

 The Executive Order (EO) also 

enumerates a number of principles and directives to guide agencies as they work to improve the 

Nation’s regulatory system, which the Agency intends to use to guide regulatory reviews and 

related EPA activities. 

Though EPA and its partners have made great progress in protecting the environment, the 

Agency is committed to continual improvement. EPA has a long history of thoughtfully 

examining its existing regulations to make sure they are effectively and efficiently meeting the 

needs of the American people. Both statutory and judicial obligations have compelled some of 

our reviews. Others arise from independent EPA decisions to improve upon existing regulations. 

In fact, of EPA’s current regulatory workload, almost two-thirds of our activity is a review of an 

existing regulation; of the approximately 200 active actions that are expected to be listed in 

EPA’s soon-to-publish Spring 2011 Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, roughly 60% are reviews of 

existing regulations.2

 Just as EPA will apply the principles and directives of EO 13563 to the 

priority actions listed in section 2 of this Plan, we will likewise apply the EOs’ principles and 

directives to the regulatory reviews that will appear in the Regulatory Agenda. 

EO 13563 is an opportunity to take a fresh look at the Agency’s approach to protecting human 

health and the environment and an opportunity to modernize our regulatory program. What 

should a 21st century regulatory program look like? How can we better understand the impacts 

of existing regulations? How do we determine which regulations should be modified, 

streamlined, expanded, or repealed to be more effective and less burdensome? How can EPA 

improve collaborations with our partners such as state, local, and tribal governments? What new 

 

1

 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” Executive Order 13,563, 76 FR 3821 (January 21, 2011), 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-21/pdf/2011-1385.pdf. 2 This estimate is based on actions expected to be published in EPA’s forthcoming Spring 2011 Semiannual 

Regulatory Agenda, except for the actions in the "Completed" or "Long Term" rulemaking stages. These estimates 

may change slightly by the time the Spring 2011 Semiannual Regulatory Agenda publishes.
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 5 of 47 

tools should the Agency employ to improve environmental quality? The initiatives and 

regulatory reviews described in this Plan are intended to help us thoroughly modernize 

regulations that are priorities right now; regulations we intend to review as a matter of course 

because of statutory or judicial requirements; and regulations brought to our attention by the 

public. 

1.1 A 21st century approach to environmental protection 

During our 40-year history, EPA and our federal, state, local, tribal, and community partners 

have made enormous progress in protecting the Nation’s health and environment through its 

regulatory and stewardship programs. However, just as today’s economy is vastly different from 

that of 40 years before, EPA’s regulatory program must evolve to recognize the progress that has 

already been made in environmental protection and incorporate new technologies and 

approaches that allow us to accomplish our mission more efficiently and effectively. 

High-speed information technologies allow real-time reporting of emissions and provide 

unprecedented opportunities for transparency and public involvement in matters affecting 

people’s local environmental conditions. These technological advances allow us to better track 

environmental progress and apply innovative approaches to compliance. New emission control 

technologies allow greatly improved environmental performance. Citizens’ interest in living 

sustainably has grown, and the marketplace increasingly values green products. 

EPA’s regulatory program must evolve and build upon these nationwide trends, and 

improvements to our regulatory program should be made retrospectively and prospectively. 

Therefore, EPA intends to apply the principles and directives of EO 13563 to both retrospective 

reviews of existing regulations and the development of new regulations. While this Plan focuses 

on retrospective reviews, which are enumerated in section 2, it is important to understand the 

broader context within which the reviews are being conducted. During each retrospective 

review, EPA intends to seek ways to advance the following broad initiatives: 

• Electronic reporting, 

• Improved transparency, 

• Innovative compliance approaches, and 

• Systems approaches and integrated problem-solving. 

1.1.1 Electronic reporting 

First, EPA intends to replace outdated paper reporting with electronic reporting. Agency 

reporting requirements are still largely paper-based, which is inefficient and unnecessarily 

resource-intensive for reporting entities and states, and ineffective for compliance monitoring 

and assurance. To reduce these burdens, increase efficiency and effectiveness, improve 

compliance and reduce pollution over the long-term, the Agency needs a comprehensive plan to 

convert to 21st century electronic reporting technology while maintaining data security and 

confidentiality. This will require some short-term investments of time and technology 

development, but is expected to provide substantial long-term benefits for industry, states, EPA, 

and the public. Many of the specific regulatory reviews outlined in section 2 of this Plan contain 

as an essential element a shift to electronic submission of information. In addition to these 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 6 of 47 

specific proposals, EPA intends to move away from paper reporting and modernize EPA 

reporting processes as follows: 

• By conducting a targeted review to convert key existing paper reporting requirements to 

electronic reporting, perhaps through an omnibus rule. As part of this targeted review, 

EPA may identify some outdated paper reporting requirements that can be eliminated or 

streamlined once electronic reporting is in place. For example, we are developing a 

proposed rule for converting existing selected paper-based National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) reporting obligations to a national electronic reporting 

format. EPA could convert existing paper-based reporting by regulated facilities for 

other environmental programs to a nationally consistent electronic reporting format. The 

NPDES e-reporting rule will allow us to eliminate the current annual and quarterly 

reporting requirements from the states since this information will be generated by the 

NPDES data systems. The rule will also require the regulated community to submit their 

Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) electronically reducing the need for manual data 

entry. These changes represent a significant reduction in paper-based reporting required 

to be managed and reported by the states. 

Several program areas in EPA either have recently added electronic reporting 

requirements to their regulations or have recently proposed adding this requirement. 

EPA recently promulgated the following rules that require electronic reporting: Coal 

Preparation and Processing Plants rule (74 FR 51950, Oct. 8, 2009); the Portland Cement 

rule (75 FR 54970, Sept. 9, 2010); and the Gold Mine Ore rule (76 FR 9450, Feb. 17, 

2011). EPA is considering expanding the electronic reporting concept to existing rules in 

additional program areas under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), parts of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 

• By developing a strategy for ensuring that new rules incorporate the most efficient 

electronic reporting techniques. 

 

• By encouraging private sector development of reporting tools to drive innovation, reduce 

costs, and help regulated entities to comply. Based on the successful Internal Revenue 

Service model for enabling private vendors to build reporting tools, EPA intends to 

conduct a proof-of-concept pilot project to see if private vendors could create electronic 

tools for regulated entities to electronically report their environmental compliance data 

using an open platform approach. 

1.1.2 Improved Transparency 

Second, in order to enhance transparency, EPA will strive to expand public disclosure of 

pollution, compliance, and other regulatory information, and provide communities with 

information about their environmental quality in a cost-effective and efficient manner. 

Disclosure of pollution, compliance, and other regulatory information can drive better results for 

health and the environment, and provides communities with information they need about 

environmental problems that affect them. Improved transparency can help to level the playing 

field by helping facilities, governments, and the public know what is being accomplished or 

required in other locations. Both when reviewing existing regulations and when developing new 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 7 of 47 

Text Box 2: EPA Creatively Structures 

Regulations to Efficiently and 

Cost Effectively Increase Compliance 

EPA already has experience demonstrating that 

creative approaches can increase compliance while 

reducing cost. For example, we learned in the 

1970’s that the most effective way to ensure 

compliance with new unleaded gasoline 

requirements was not widespread inspections, but 

simply changing the size of the nozzle used to fill 

gas tanks. Following the 1996 Safe Drinking 

Water Act amendments, researchers found that the 

simple requirement of mailing Consumer 

Confidence Reports to consumers resulted in a 30-

50% increase in utilities’ compliance rates with 

drinking water requirements in Massachusetts. 

While we are aware that the provision of 

Consumer Confidence Reports is a means of 

increasing compliance, we are also aware that their 

production and distribution can be burdensome on 

water purveyors and states. EPA intends to review 

these reporting requirements to determine if 

burden may be reduced while compliance is 

maintained or increased; this review is described in 

detail later in the Plan.

regulations, EPA intends to seek ways to expand public disclosure of pollution, compliance, and 

other regulatory information. 

1.1.3 Innovative Compliance Approaches 

Third, the Agency intends to reduce pollution 

by improving compliance with EPA regulations 

in ways that are more effective and efficient 

while reducing burden. EPA will seek ways to 

achieve greater compliance both when 

reviewing existing regulations and when 

developing new regulations. Effective 

enforcement of environmental regulations 

promotes the welfare of Americans by 

protecting the air we breathe and the water we 

drink, and assuring that complying facilities are 

not at a competitive disadvantage with those 

that violate the law. However, due to the sheer 

number of regulated facilities, the increasing 

contributions of large numbers of smaller 

sources to important environmental problems, 

and federal and state budget constraints, we can 

no longer rely primarily on the traditional single 

facility inspection and enforcement approach to 

ensure compliance across the country. EPA 

needs to embed innovative mechanisms in the 

structure of its rules to do a better job of 

encouraging compliance on a wide scale. (See 

text box 2.) 

To supplement traditional compliance approaches, EPA plans to routinely structure federal 

regulations and permits as effectively as possible to achieve compliance, through adequate 

monitoring requirements, public disclosure, economic incentives, information and reporting 

mechanisms and other structural incentives, including self-certification, third-party verification, 

and ambient monitoring in the community. 

1.1.4 Systems Approaches and Integrated Problem-Solving 

And finally, the Agency intends to design a 21st century approach to environmental regulation 

by using systems approaches and integrated problem-solving strategies to accelerate pollution 

prevention and other beneficial environmental outcomes. A primary way to promote pollution 

prevention and sustainable outcomes is through broader adoption of problem-solving approaches 

that bring to bear all relevant tools – regulatory and non-regulatory – to provide integrated and 

comprehensive solutions to priority environmental problems. 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 8 of 47 

Text Box 3: Promoting the Green Economy 

and Innovation

Pollution prevention efforts across EPA have helped 

protect children and families in this country from exposure 

to harmful pollutants and has significantly reduced the 

amount of contaminants released into the environment. 

These ongoing efforts include Energy Star, WasteWise, 

Plug-In To eCycling, WaterSense, and our Green 

Electronics, Green Chemistry, Green Engineering, Design 

for the Environment (DfE), and Economy, Energy and 

Environment (E3) programs. EPA intends to improve 

coordination among these programs to maximize their 

effectivenss. 

EPA has also engaged the National Academy of Sciences 

(NAS) to convene national experts on the topic of 

sustainability science. While there have been over two 

decades of science focused on how to attain the goals of 

sustainability, this work has not translated into an 

operational framework. By the summer of 2011, the NAS 

will produce a document (the so called “green book”) that 

will provide a foundation of recommendations for EPA to 

consider in implementing the types of analysis,

assessments, and evaluations needed to institutionalize 

sustainability into all of the agency’s decisions.

Text Box 4: Integrated Problem Solving: 

A Drinking Water Example 

EPA is seeking a new approach to expand public health 

protection for drinking water by going beyond the 

traditional framework that addresses contaminants one at a 

time. The Agency has conducted a national conversation 

to identify better ways to address contaminants in groups, 

improve drinking water technology, and more effectively 

address potential risks to give Americans greater 

confidence in the quality of their drinking water. 

EPA is focused on four principles that will provide greater 

protection of drinking water. These are: 

• Address contaminants as groups rather than one 

at a time so that enhancement of drinking water 

protection can be achieved cost-effectively. 

• Foster development of new drinking water 

technologies to address health risks posed by a 

broad array of contaminants. 

• Use the authority of multiple statutes to help 

protect drinking water. 

• Partner with states to share more complete data 

from monitoring at public water systems (PWS). 

As EPA reviews existing regulations and 

related programs, we intend to promote 

system approaches and integrated solutions 

within EPA and with other federal 

agencies. For example, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, and EPA have formed an 

interagency workgroup of senior policy 

leaders to craft a multi-faceted strategy to 

address the challenge of the protection of 

endangered species and the administration 

of FIFRA. 

EPA’s research and development activities 

can help provide a strong scientific 

foundation for innovative solutions. 

Strategic sequencing of regulations as they 

are developed will allow us to consider the 

cumulative impacts of our rules and to 

regulate more efficiently. Use of systems 

and life cycle analyses allows us to pinpoint 

the most effective points for policy 

intervention. Applying the full spectrum of 

policy tools available to the Agency can 

maximize environmental results while 

reducing costs. (See text box 3.) 

Another example where the Agency has 

successfully applied this integrated 

approach is in the area source rule for auto 

body shops. A technology based control 

limit was complemented by a nonregulatory pollution prevention approach. 

The Design for Environment program 

developed an alternative solvent that does 

not require emissions control technology, 

thus providing industry a way to avoid the 

costs of installing pollution control 

equipment by using alternative chemicals. 

Another example is EPA’s current efforts to 

develop an integrated approach to drinking 

water protection. (See text box 4.) 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 9 of 47 

1.2 A more efficient approach to regulation 

EPA recognizes that there is potential for regulatory overlap and contradiction between various 

jurisdictional requirements. In this setting, regulations often appear to be excessive. Businesses 

are concerned with inconsistency and duplication across varying jurisdictions. The Agency is 

seeking ways to introduce greater efficiencies into our regulatory program and achieve greater 

harmonization among related regulations, 

both among EPA regulations and among 

the regulations of other federal, state, local, 

and tribal agencies. With the broad 

initiatives outlined previously, as well as 

the regulatory reviews described in section 

2, EPA will look for ways to protect human 

health and the environment more efficiently 

and effectively. 

As an example, EPA is examining ways to 

harmonize its vehicle regulations with those 

of California and other federal agencies in 

the following areas: 

1. Fuel economy labeling with the 

California Air Resources Control 

Board (CARB) and the Federal 

Trade Commission; 

2. Vehicle greenhouse gas standards 

and fuel-economy standards in 

conjunction with the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) and CARB; 

and 

3. Vehicle testing and compliance 

standards with CARB. 

Another example is described in the text 

box 5. By using a flexible systems 

approach to vehicle and fuel regulations, 

EPA has spurred a sustainable 

transportation market and given the 

industry the flexibility to design innovative 

technological responses to regulatory 

requirements. 

The technological advances of the 

Information Age also provide an 

opportunity to make environmental 

protection more data-driven and 

Text Box 5: Making Transportation More Sustainable: 

A Flexible Systems Approach 

The substantial emission reductions achieved through 

vehicle and fuel standards depends on extensive 

collaboration between EPA and vehicle, engine, and fuel 

manufacturers; state and local governments; 

transportation planners; and individual citizens. EPA 

takes a systems approach, setting standards for both 

vehicles and fuels. For example, the Vehicle Tier 2 

standards were combined with low sulfur gasoline 

standards to enable cleaner vehicle technologies. This 

results in greater emissions reductions at lower costs. 

Vehicle, engine, and fuel regulations include a number of 

flexibilities to help industry achieve the standards and 

reduce compliance costs, such as averaging, banking and 

trading, early credits, phase-in schedules, exemptions, and 

hardship relief.. Compliance reports by vehicle 

manufacturers, fuel producers and others are virtually all 

submitted electronically. This flexible approach to mobile 

source emission control is responsible for greatly reducing 

mobile source air pollution during the last 30 years. 

The transportation industry has responded to this flexible 

systems approach with improvements to engine and 

vehicle technologies that help to make transportation 

more sustainable. These improvements include: 

• Designing highly efficient combustion systems 

to minimize exhaust pollution. 

• Introducing vapor recovery systems to capture 

evaporating gasoline. 

• Using computer technologies to monitor and 

control engine performance. 

• Developing effective "after treatment" 

technologies, such as catalytic converters and 

particulate filters, that remove pollutants from 

the exhaust stream before they can escape into 

the atmosphere. 

• More recently, reducing greenhouse gases and 

improving fuel economy through engine 

improvements like gasoline direct injection and 

use of turbochargers, increased production of 

hybrids and initial commercialization of electric 

vehicles. 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 10 of 47 

analytically rigorous while still collecting 

data and analyzing performance in a more 

efficient way. (As an example, see text box 

6.) As the costs of acquiring, analyzing, 

and disseminating data is reduced, it 

becomes easier for EPA to cost-effectively 

achieve its mission. EPA is committed to 

moving the regulatory process into 

alignment with the opportunities presented 

by new information technology. 

1.3 Conduct of reviews 

On a predictable, transparent, five-year 

cycle, EPA intends to ask the public to 

nominate additional regulations for review 

and intends to commit to new reviews to 

supplement those described in this Plan. As 

explained in section 4 of this Plan, future 

review priorities will be determined by: 

• Comments gathered from the 

public, other federal agencies, and 

EPA experts; 

• The expertise of the EPA offices 

writing the regulations; 

• Priorities of the day, such as 

judicial rulings, emergencies, etc.; 

• The principles and directives of EO 

13563; and 

• Agency resources. 

EPA plans to use the Semiannual 

Regulatory Agenda and websites, such as 

EPA’s Open Government site and the 

Rulemaking Gateway, to regularly report 

on the reviews that are underway. 

With regard to EPA’s initial list of 

initiatives and retrospective reviews, and 

with regard to future reviews, the Agency 

intends to: 

• Maintain focus on EPA’s mission. First and foremost, EPA’s intends to focus our 

regulatory reviews on protecting human health and safeguarding the environment as 

efficiently and effectively as possible. 

Text Box 6: Technological Advances Lead to Cheaper 

and Cleaner Outcomes: Onboard Diagnostics

By capitalizing on advances in information technology for 

vehicle diagnostics, the Agency has helped to achieve 

cheaper and cleaner outcomes in our automotive 

emissions control program. Vehicles are equipped with a 

“Check Engine Light” that illuminates if a component 

failure could cause emission problems. The use of 

Onboard Diagnostic Systems (OBD) has resulted in 

dramatic improvements in the performance and operation 

of motor vehicles, reducing emissions significantly, 

reducing costs associated with emission control, and 

improving durability and maintenance. OBD systems set 

the dashboard light which is visible to the owner at the 

point in time either a malfunction of an emission related 

component or an actual emission problem occurs. This 

provides a vehicle owner the opportunity to fix the 

problem when it occurs shortening the amount of time the 

problem exists. In addition, in areas with inspection and 

maintenance programs vehicles with such a light on must 

be repaired prior to passing the inspection. In both cases 

OBD identifies potential emission problems prior to the 

point in time such problems would have been identified 

by prior testing technologies. It has also made it easier for 

motorists and repair technicians to identify and correct 

problems as they arise, before problems compound and 

develop into more serious and costly situations. 

A simple OBD scan tool can now determine if there are 

problems with the emission control system and can 

replace equipment costing 100 times more. 

Correspondingly, the cost of vehicle inspection has 

dropped from around $25 per vehicle to about $10 per 

vehicle in most areas doing only OBD testing, leading to 

major savings to motorists. Vehicle emissions inspections 

are also conducted much more quickly, saving time for 

motorists. 

EPA recently expanded the implementation of OBD to 

include heavy-duty vehicles. It is anticipated that OBD 

systems will reduce emissions from this segment of the 

vehicle fleet, reduce costs associated with controlling 

heavy-duty vehicle emissions, and improve the quality 

and longevity of emission related repairs on such vehicles. 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 11 of 47 

• Meet the Agency’s current commitments. This Plan recognizes the Agency’s existing 

statutory and judicial requirements for regulatory reviews. As EPA moves forward, we 

must ensure that resources continue to be available to meet these mandatory obligations 

while still addressing the many discretionary reviews identified in this Plan. As we 

conduct regulatory reviews, EPA will follow any statutory and/or judicial requirements 

that apply to the particular regulation(s) under review. Statutes may affirmatively require 

the Agency to consider specific factors in reviewing regulations or contain express 

limitations on the factors the Agency may take into account. 

• Make the Plan predictable. EPA managers, who are responsible for budgeting for the 

Plan, as well as EPA staff who implement it and external stakeholders who want to 

participate, need to be able to forecast and plan for the upcoming work. 

• Make the Plan flexible and responsive to priority needs. Despite the desire to keep to 

a predictable schedule, EPA retains the discretion to modify the schedule as new 

priorities, emergencies, resource constraints, and other considerations arise. 

• Follow statutorily mandated procedural requirements. This Plan establishes the 

means by which EPA intends to select candidates for regulatory review, but once a 

regulation is selected, the Agency intends to follow our established, comprehensive 

regulatory development process to discern what, if any, revisions are necessary and to 

develop the revisions. The Agency will follow the procedures set out in, and conduct the 

analyses required by, the Administrative Procedure Act, other applicable administrative 

statutes, applicable Executive Orders, and internal EPA rulemaking procedures that 

constitute the legal and policy framework for EPA’s rule development activities. In 

revising regulations, EPA intends to follow its established policies to provide meaningful 

opportunities for public involvement, evaluate direct and indirect public health 

implications, and analyze the benefits and costs of its rules. 

• Provide leadership regarding environmental justice issues. Consistent with EO 

12898 and the Administrator's priorities, EPA also intends to continue its leading role on 

environmental justice matters to ensure that, in the development of its regulations, EPA 

considers overburdened communities and vulnerable populations, as well as the potential 

for adverse disproportionate impacts to low income, minority, and tribal populations. 

Further EPA intends to continue advancing environmental justice across the federal 

government through the actions outlined in Plan EJ 2014’s draft implementation plans, 

the Agency’s overarching strategy for integrating environmental justice in its programs, 

policies and activities, as well as through its review of other federal EO 13563 plans. 

• Provide leadership regarding children’s health issues. Consistent with EO 13045, 

EPA’s Children’s Health Policy, EPA’s FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan, and the 

Administrator’s priorities, EPA will continue to lead efforts to protect children from 

environmental health risks. To accomplish this, EPA will use a variety of approaches, 

including regulation, enforcement, research, outreach, community-based programs, and 

partnerships to protect pregnant women, infants, children, and adolescents from 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 12 of 47 

environmental and human health hazards. The Agency’s strategy for integrating 

children’s health protection is described in EPA’s FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan, CrossCutting Fundamental Strategy, “Working for Environmental Justice and Children’s 

Health.” EPA utilizes the document, “Guide to Considering Children's Health When 

Developing EPA Actions,” to implement EO 13045 and EPA's Policy on Evaluating 

Health Risks to Children.3

 

 

3

 Access the “Guide to Considering Children’s Health When Developing EPA Actions”: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/ADPguide.htm/$File/EPA_ADP_Guide_508.pdf. 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 13 of 47 

Text Box 7: Meeting the Principles of EO 

13563: The Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule 

The SPCC amendments for the dairy industry 

are a good example of how the Agency strives to 

meet the principles of the EO, such as 

minimizing cumulative burden, maximizing net 

benefits, eliminating direct regulation when 

alternatives exist, and simplifying and 

harmonizing regulations across federal agencies. 

On January 15, 2009, EPA proposed 

amendments to the SPCC rule to tailor and 

streamline requirements for the dairy industry by 

excluding from the SPCC requirements milk 

containers and associated piping and 

appurtenances. The rule proposed to address 

concerns raised specifically by the dairy farm 

sector on the applicability of the SPCC 

requirements to milk containers. In April 2011, 

EPA finalized this action and excluded all milk 

and milk product containers, and associated 

piping and appurtenances, from the SPCC 

requirements, including an exclusion of the 

capacity of these milk and milk product 

containers from a facility's total oil storage 

capacity calculation to determine if the facility is 

subject to SPCC. EPA estimates that dairy 

farms and milk product manufacturing plants 

will incur savings of $146 million per year. 

For more information, see: 

• “Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention, 

Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) 

Rule— Amendments for Milk and Milk 

Product Containers; Final Rule,” 76 FR 74 

(18 April 2011), pp. 21652 – 21660, 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-04-

18/pdf/2011-9288.pdf. 

2 Regulations We Plan to Review 

EPA intends to undertake 31 regulatory reviews for this, our initial review period. Sixteen of 

them fit into the category of “early actions,” meaning the Agency intends to take a specific step 

which could lead to modifying, streamlining, expanding, or repealing a regulation or related 

program during the 2011 calendar year. The other 

15 reviews are longer term actions; the Agency 

intends to review the regulations in question and 

assess whether revisions are needed. Each action 

is described in this section, and the next milestone 

for each action is included where available. Note 

that this is only a preliminary list. Pursuant to 

guidance from the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), EPA intends to further consult 

with stakeholders in summer 2011. The 31 

reviews listed here may or may not change as a 

result of this additional consultation. 

Moreover, it is important to keep in mind that the 

31 reviews in this section are our priority 

activities for meeting the principles of EO 13563, 

but the Agency is undertaking many more reviews 

than this. Of the approximately 200 active actions 

that are expected to be listed in EPA’s soon-topublish Spring 2011 Semiannual Regulatory 

Agenda, roughly 60% are reviews of existing 

regulations.4 

Although many of these ongoing reviews already 

meet the spirit and principles of EO 13563, the 

Agency is also considering the thoughtful public 

comments we received during our public 

involvement process (described in section 3). 

Those, too, are serving to inform the reviews. 

EPA views EO 13563 as an opportunity to 

improve the way the Agency does business – to 

help create a more efficient, 21st century 

regulatory program. 

The Agency has recently completed a pair of 

actions that are illustrative of efforts we intend to 

 

4 This estimate is based on actions expected to be published in EPA’s forthcoming Spring 2011 Semiannual 

Regulatory Agenda, except for the actions in the "Completed" or "Long Term" rulemaking stages. These estimates 

may change slightly by the time the Spring 2011 Semiannual Regulatory Agenda publishes.
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 14 of 47 

pursue under this Plan: 

• The Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) amendments for the dairy 

industry are a good example of a review which met EO principles such as minimizing 

cumulative burden, maximizing net benefits, and simplifying and harmonizing 

regulations across federal agencies, while producing annual cost savings of $146 million. 

(See text box 7.) 

• On March 29, 2011, EPA finalized a regulation5

 pertaining to alternative fuel conversions 

of vehicles and engines. The regulation responded to concerns that the approval process 

for converting gasoline or diesel vehicles to operate on alternative fuels (e.g., natural gas, 

propane, alcohol, or electricity) is too costly and cumbersome. The Agency adopted a 

new approach that streamlines and simplifies the process by which manufacturers of 

clean alternative fuel conversion systems may qualify for exemption from the Clean Air 

Act prohibition against tampering. The new options reduce some economic and 

procedural impediments to clean alternative fuel conversions while maintaining 

environmental safeguards to ensure that acceptable emission levels from converted 

vehicles and engines are sustained. For light-duty engines, the broad average cost of 

compliance for one certificate prior to the issuance of this regulation was about $44,372; 

but as a result of EPA’s regulatory review, the estimated cost under the same assumed 

conversion scenario would be about $36,744 for new light-duty engines and $13,175 for 

intermediate-age and older light-duty engines. For heavy-duty engines, the cost savings 

are expected to be even greater. 

These sorts of efforts, where we worked with stakeholders and other agencies to achieve a 

positive outcome for the regulated community while protecting human health and the 

environment, is what the Agency will strive to replicate in the upcoming activities under the EO. 

2.1 Early actions 

Of the 31 priority regulatory reviews presented in this section, the following 16 are early actions 

that are intended to yield in 2011 a specific step toward modifying, streamlining, expanding, or 

repealing a regulation or related program. Asterisks (**) preceding the heading of a review 

indicate those reviews which were suggested in one or more public comments. 

1. ** Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program: considering new post-work 

requirements designed to ensure cleaning meets clearance standards 

2. ** Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) and peak flow wet weather discharges: clarifying 

permitting requirements 

3. Vehicle fuel vapor recovery systems: eliminating redundancy 

4. ** Gasoline and diesel regulations: reducing reporting and recordkeeping 

 

5

 “Clean Alternative Fuel Vehicle and Engine Conversions; Final Rule,” 76 FR 68 (08 April 2011), pp. 19830 – 19874, 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-04-08/pdf/2011-7910.pdf. 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 15 of 47 

5. Regulatory certainty for farmers: working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) and states 

6. ** Modern science and technology methods in the chemical regulation arena: reducing 

whole-animal testing, reducing costs and burdens, and improving efficiencies 

7. ** Electronic online reporting of health and safety data under the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); and 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA): reducing burden and improving 

efficiencies 

8. ** National Priorities List rules: improving transparency 

9. Quick changes to some TSCA reporting requirements: reducing burden 

10. Integrated pesticide registration reviews: reducing burden and improving efficiencies 

11. ** National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): coordinating permit 

requirements and removing outdated requirements 

12. ** Vehicle regulations: harmonizing requirements for: 

a. Fuel economy labels 

b. Greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards 

c. Vehicle emission standards 

13. Multiple air pollutants: coordinating emission reduction regulations and using innovative 

technologies 

14. ** New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) reviews and revisions: setting priorities 

to ensure updates to outdated technologies 

15. Innovative technology: seeking to spur new markets and utilize technological innovations 

16. ** The costs of regulations: improving cost estimates 

2.1.1 **6 Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program: 

considering new post-work requirements designed to ensure 

cleaning meets clearance standards 

Common renovation activities like sanding, cutting, and demolition can create hazardous lead 

dust and chips by disturbing lead-based paint, which can be harmful to adults and children. To 

protect against this risk, on April 22, 2008, EPA issued the Lead Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program rule (Lead RRP) requiring the use of lead-safe practices and other actions 

aimed at preventing lead poisoning. Under the rule, beginning April 22, 2010, contractors 

performing renovation, repair, and painting projects that disturb lead-based paint in homes, child 

care facilities, and schools built before 1978 must be certified and must follow specific work 

practices to prevent lead contamination. On May 6, 2010, EPA proposed additional 

requirements designed to ensure that renovation work areas are adequately cleaned after 

renovation work is finished and before the areas are re-occupied. These additional requirements 

included dust wipe testing after renovations and additional cleaning, if needed, designed to 

ensure that renovation work areas meet clearance standards before re-occupancy. The cost of 

EPA's proposed additional testing requirements were between $272 million to $290 million per 

year ($2008). EPA is now reviewing the efficacy of both its original testing requirements as well 

 

6

 Asterisks (**) preceding the heading of a review indicate those reviews which were suggested in one or more 

public comments.
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 16 of 47 

as those additional requirements proposed in 2010 and expects to issue a final rule in summer 

2011. 

2.1.2 ** Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) and peak flow wet weather 

discharges: clarifying permitting requirements 

During periods of wet weather, wastewater flows received by municipal sewage treatment plants 

can significantly increase, which can create operational challenges for sewage treatment 

facilities. Where peak flows approach or exceed the design capacity of a treatment plant they can 

seriously reduce treatment efficiency or damage treatment units. In addition to hydraulic 

concerns, wastewater associated with peak flows may have low organic strength, which can also 

decrease treatment efficiencies. One engineering practice that some facilities use to protect 

biological treatment units from damage and to prevent overflows and backups elsewhere in the 

system is referred to as wet weather blending. Wet weather blending occurs during peak wet 

weather flow events when flows that exceed the capacity of the biological units are routed 

around the biological units and blended with effluent from the biological units prior to discharge. 

Regulatory agencies, sewage treatment plant operators, and representatives of environmental 

advocacy groups have expressed uncertainty about National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) requirements addressing such situations. 

EPA intends to hold a workshop as a follow-up to the listening sessions that EPA held in June 

and July of 2010, concerning issues associated with Sanitary Sewer Overflows and Peak Flow 

wet weather discharges. EPA received extensive verbal and written comments during and as a 

result of these listening sessions. The objective of the follow-up workshop is to allow 

stakeholders to discuss these issues in greater detail. Following the workshop, EPA will evaluate 

options that are appropriate (rule or policy or neither) for addressing Separate Sanitary 

Overflows and Peak Flow wet weather discharges. 

2.1.3 Vehicle fuel vapor recovery systems: eliminating redundancy 

Onboard refueling vapor recovery technology on today’s gasoline-powered vehicles effectively 

controls harmful air emissions as cars and trucks refuel, thereby eliminating the need for controls 

at the gas pump. This ongoing review is intended to eliminate the gas dispenser-based vapor 

control requirements that have become redundant due to this onboard technology, and thereby 

relieve states of the obligation to require pump-based Stage II vapor recovery systems at gasoline 

stations. EPA expects to issue a proposed rulemaking, entitled "Widespread Use of Onboard 

Refueling Vapor Recovery," in summer 2011. Taking into consideration the costs associated 

with the removal of vapor recovery equipment and the use of less expensive conventional 

equipment on the gasoline dispensers, as well as the reductions in record-keeping requirements 

and other operating costs, EPA estimates the long term cost savings associated with this rule to 

be approximately $67 million per year ($2011). 

2.1.4 ** Gasoline and diesel regulations: reducing reporting and 

recordkeeping 

EPA intends to review existing gasoline and diesel regulations that apply to fuel producers, 

ethanol blenders, fuel distributors, and others for areas where recordkeeping and reporting 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 17 of 47 

obligations can be modified to reduce burden. This review is planned to be done in conjunction 

with the rulemaking on the next set of vehicle emission and fuel standards, known as “Tier 3 

motor vehicle emission and fuel standards,” informed by public comments received in the EO 

13563 public outreach process. EPA expects to propose modifications to gasoline and diesel 

regulations in late 2011. 

2.1.5 Regulatory certainty for farmers: working with the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) and states 

In conjunction with USDA and several states, EPA is exploring “certainty” mechanisms that 

encourage farmers to implement voluntary practices that reduce impacts on water quality. In 

particular, if farmers' actions result in quantifiable and verifiable improvements in water quality 

and resource conservation, EPA and USDA are working with states to develop programs that can 

provide assurances that the farmers' actions are consistent with state plans to improve water 

quality. EPA and USDA's efforts are intended to allow states flexibility to increase farmers’ and 

other landowners’ interest and willingness to adopt the most effective land stewardship practices 

by providing incentives that increase the pace and extent to which resource conservation and 

verifiable water quality improvements are achieved. EPA expects that the project will be up and 

running at the state level with USDA partners by the end of the calendar year. 

2.1.6 ** Modern science and technology methods in the chemical 

regulation arena: reducing whole-animal testing, reducing 

costs and burdens, and improving efficiencies 

The identification, evaluation, and regulation of chemicals to protect human health and the 

environment is the essence of EPA’s mandate. Given the increasing demands to assess more 

chemicals with greater speed and accuracy, and to do so using fewer resources and experimental 

animals, new approaches in biological and computational sciences are needed to ensure that 

relevant information is available to meet the challenges of prioritization, targeted testing, and 

risk assessment.7

Prioritization can focus resources on chemicals that are believed to pose the greatest risk to 

human health and/or the environment. There are also many chemicals for which a substantial 

amount of information is known about hazard and/or exposure. A more efficient science-based 

approach to determine testing needs for these chemicals can reduce the use of experimental 

animals and testing burdens, as well as facilitate the timely development of risk assessments and 

ultimately informed and timely regulatory decisions that are based on sound science. 

EPA is drafting a work plan to develop and move towards adoption of new science-based 

approaches like computational toxicology tools to: 

 

7

 See also the 2007 Report from the National Research Council entitled “Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A 

Vision and a Strategy.” http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11970. 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 18 of 47 

• Prioritize chemicals for risk assessment/management purposes. The objective is to 

identify chemicals or groups of chemicals with the highest potential for exposure and/or 

human health/environmental effects and focus resources on those chemicals. 

• Develop the tools to base chemical risk management decisions about potential human 

health and ecological risks on sufficient, credible data and on information that is tailored 

around the specific compound as well as the needs of the risk assessment and risk 

management decisions. 

This work plan will describe the major steps needed to develop and transition to the decision 

support tools (i.e., computational toxicology tools) for priority setting and targeted testing; and 

propose three case studies relevant to industrial chemicals, water contaminants, and pesticides. 

In addition, EPA is developing a work plan to identify the steps needed to satisfy the validation 

requirements related to regulatory acceptance of these new approaches for possible use in 

screening under the Endocrine Disruptors Screening Program (EDSP). In 2011, EPA is 

expanding its efforts to engage interested stakeholders in this project. 

2.1.7 ** Electronic online reporting of health and safety data under 

the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); and Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA): reducing burden and 

improving efficiencies 

EPA currently collects a variety of chemical-specific health and safety data under several 

different regulations issued pursuant to TSCA, FIFRA, and FFDCA. 

During the public involvement process, industry suggested that electronic online reporting could 

help to reduce overall reporting and recordkeeping burdens, although some also expressed 

concern that the information continue to be protected as statutorily required. EPA has already 

implemented efforts to incorporate online electronic reporting of information it collects under the 

TSCA regulations, and we intend to consider lessons learned from the electronic pilot initiated 

several years ago for accepting electronic copies of some pesticide information submitted under 

FIFRA and FFDCA. 

Online electronic reporting can reduce burden and costs for the regulated entities by eliminating 

the costs associated with printing and mailing this information to EPA. The regulated 

community has indicated that these savings could be substantial. At this time, EPA has not yet 

estimated the potential burden reduction or savings that might result from the improved 

efficiencies being considered. 

Later this year, the Agency expects to propose revisions to implement electronic reporting for the 

submission of health and safety data under TSCA. For the consideration of electronic reporting 

options for pesticide submissions, EPA intends to develop a workplan for completing this review 

effort within the next 12 months. The workplan is intended to identify a timeline and the process 

that EPA plans to use in expanding the existing effort that was initiated with stakeholders. 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 19 of 47 

2.1.8 ** National Priorities List rules: improving transparency 

EPA will ensure meaningful and substantial state involvement in decisions to place sites on the 

National Priorities List (NPL). During the public involvement process, the National Governors 

Association commented on the need for EPA to share information that we rely upon to determine 

whether sites should be placed on the NPL. The NPL is the list of national priorities among the 

sites with known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants throughout the United States and its territories. The NPL is intended primarily to 

guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation. EPA is working to improve 

state and other stakeholder involvement to ensure that information is available to support 

Superfund listing determinations or other state or federal cleanup options. Since state 

environmental agencies conduct roughly half of the Superfund site assessment reports completed 

each year, states’ environmental staff are generally aware of specific site conditions as sites 

move towards the NPL listing phase. For those reports not produced by states, EPA routinely 

makes them available to the state partners so that both parties have the information necessary to 

hold collaborative discussions on the need for potential NPL listing. EPA intends to redouble its 

effort to make sure states, tribes, and other stakeholders are fully informed regarding EPA’s NPL 

process. EPA intends to address this programmatic concern through the ongoing Integrated 

Cleanup Initiative during the third quarter of fiscal year 2011 and beyond. 

2.1.9 Quick changes to some TSCA reporting requirements: reducing 

burden 

EPA is developing a proposal to make a few quick changes to three existing reporting 

requirements under TSCA to reduce reporting burdens and to clarify reporting to provide for 

more efficient review of health and environmental data for more effective protection of public 

health and the environment. Specifically, the changes involve 40 CFR 790.5, entitled 

"Submission of Information;” 40 CFR 792.185, entitled "Reporting of Study Results;” and 40 

CFR 712.28, entitled "Forms and Instructions." The changes under consideration include the 

elimination of the requirement for 6 copies to be submitted; the addition of a requirement for 

including "Robust Summaries" of test results with the submission of test data; and the use of the 

Inventory Update Reporting Form to format the submission of preliminary assessment 

information in response to chemical information rules. 

These quick changes are expected to result in important efficiencies and burden reduction for 

industry and EPA, as well as improve the quality of information provided to the public. EPA 

expects to propose changes to reporting requirements by the end of 2011. 

2.1.10 Integrated pesticide registration reviews: reducing burden and 

improving efficiencies 

Under the FIFRA, EPA reviews all current pesticide registrations every 15 years to ensure they 

continue to meet the protective FIFRA standard in light of new information and evolving 

science. To efficiently manage this very large effort, we are bundling chemicals by classes of 

pesticides with similar modes of operation or uses (e.g., neonicitinoids, pyrethroids). This has 

significant efficiency benefits for registrants, the public, and EPA. For example, instead of EPA 

reviewing data and developing multiple independent risk assessments for individual chemicals, a 

number of similar chemicals can be cost-effectively evaluated at the same time. Registrants have 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 20 of 47 

greater certainty of a “level playing field” as the policies and state-of-the-science are the same at 

the time all of the pesticides in a class are evaluated. Registrants can form task forces to share 

the cost of producing data and to negotiate the design of any special studies required for a family 

of pesticides. It also promotes higher quality and more comprehensive assessment of cumulative 

impacts. By grouping classes of pesticides for consideration, it enhances our ability to meet our 

responsibilities in areas such as considering the impacts on endangered species and consulting 

with the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of the Interior, and National Marine 

Fisheries Service in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of 

Commerce. Because the Services could also consider a class of pesticides on a common 

timeframe, there is a greater likelihood that they would recommend consistent Reasonable and 

Prudent Alternatives in their Biological Opinions should consultation be required, which would 

provide benefits to pesticide registrants and users. 

Bundling chemicals for registration review can also ease the burden for registrants by 

minimizing redundant data submissions and allowing comprehensive discussion of issues and 

risk management approaches. For instance, a registrant task force could coordinate production 

of data for common degradates, and possibly demonstrate to the Agency how data for a subset of 

pesticides in a class could be bridged to provide sufficient information for the entire class of 

pesticides. This approach can also benefit public participation in the registration review process. 

Rather than tracking actions, providing data and providing input on individual chemicals, the 

public can more effectively engage on entire groups of chemicals. Finally, bundling chemicals 

for review makes it easier to adjust priorities if circumstances demand. If new information or 

risk concerns demonstrate the need for accelerated review, it is easier to adjust resources and 

schedules when similar chemicals are already grouped together for action. For instance, when 

California accelerated their re-evaluation of pyrethroid registrations after the publication of new 

stream sediment monitoring data, the Agency was in a position to coordinate data requirements 

and study designs with California because it had already scheduled the registration review of 

pyrethroids as a class for the near future. Some near-term examples of this chemical bundling 

include initiating registration reviews for the neonicotinoid insecticides and sulfonylurea 

herbicides in the next 12-18 months. 

2.1.11 ** National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): 

coordinating permit requirements and removing outdated 

requirements 

EPA plans to review the regulations that apply to the issuance of NPDES permits, which are the 

wastewater permits that facility operators must obtain before they discharge pollutants to any 

water of the United States. EPA plans to review NPDES permitting regulations in order to find 

provisions that are outdated or ineffective. EPA expects the review to most likely focus on: a) 

eliminating inconsistencies between regulations and application forms; b) improving the 

consistency between the application forms; c) updating the application forms to address current 

program practices; d) clarifying the existing regulations and modifying or repealing permitting, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements that have become obsolete or outdated due to 

programmatic and technical changes that have occurred over the past 20 years; and e) modifying 

permit documentation and objection procedures to improve the quality and transparency of 

permit development. As an example of an outdated regulation which could be changed to reduce 

burden, as well as improve transparency and public access to information, EPA is considering 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 21 of 47 

whether to revise the public notice requirements to allow a state to post notices and draft permits 

on their state agency websites in lieu of traditional newspaper posting. EPA expects to propose 

modifications to NPDES permit regulations by the end of 2011. 

2.1.12 ** Vehicle regulations: harmonizing requirements 

EPA intends to review existing vehicle regulations for areas where greater harmonization with 

California and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) can be achieved. Activities to be 

considered include: 

• Fuel Economy Label harmonization with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) – Working in coordination with DOT, EPA 

reviewed and proposed changes to the fuel economy label that consumers see on the 

window of every new vehicle in dealer showrooms. As the final fuel economy label rule 

is developed, EPA and DOT are working to harmonize the label with CARB and the FTC 

labels. This was recommended by an auto industry representative during the public 

comment process for this Plan. Final action is projected for June 2011. 

• Vehicle greenhouse gas and fuel-economy standards compliance harmonization with 

DOT and CARB – EPA and DOT’s National Highway Transportation Safety 

Administration are developing a joint rulemaking to propose greenhouse gas (GHG) and 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for model years 2017-2025 lightduty vehicles. As part of this process, EPA and DOT intend to take comment on 

opportunities to further harmonize compliance requirements of the two Agencies. This 

was recommended by an auto industry representative during the public comment process 

for this Plan. EPA expects to propose standards in September 2011. 

• Vehicle standards compliance harmonization with CARB – EPA plans to assess and take 

comment on opportunities to harmonize testing and compliance requirements with 

CARB’s vehicle emission standards. This review is expected to be done in conjunction 

with the rulemaking on the next set of vehicle and fuel standards, known as Tier 3 motor 

vehicle emission and fuel standards, informed by public comments received during the 

public outreach process. EPA expects to propose new vehicle and fuel standards in late 

2011. 

2.1.13 Multiple air pollutants: coordinating emission reduction 

regulations and using innovative technologies 

EPA intends to explore ways to reduce emissions of multiple pollutants through the use of 

technologies and practices that achieve multiple benefits, such as controlling hazardous air 

pollutant emissions while also controlling particulate matter and its precursor pollutants. Next 

steps include: 

• Issuance of a proposed rulemaking for the Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

(MACT) Risk and Technology Review for Pulp and Paper Industry (Subpart S) and 

Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources (Subpart MM), and New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) review for Kraft Pulp Mills. It is important that the 

Kraft NSPS and other MACT regulations for the pulp and paper industry (e.g., 

Subpart S and Subpart MM) be considered together to account for the interactions 

and collateral benefits or dis-benefits between the emitted criteria pollutants and 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 22 of 47 

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). This industry-specific “sector” approach will allow 

for the following: 

o Avoid “stranded” costs associated with piecemeal investment in control 

equipment for individual pollutants from multiple, successive rulemakings. 

o Tailor results based on source-specific fuel inputs (e.g., non-condensable 

gases, wastewater treatment residuals) versus general inputs (e.g., coal, wood, 

oil, gas). 

o Opportunity to consider industry-specific technology-based solutions (e.g., 

energy efficiency). 

o Model risk from most of the HAP-emitting processes at the facility. 

o Put most of the regulated processes on the same review cycle. 

o Flexibility in compliance alternatives. 

• Due to a court ordered deadline, the first step in executing this strategy will be the 

modification of Subpart S following the risk and technology review. A proposed rule 

is anticipated in summer 2011. The other actions will follow. 

2.1.14 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) reviews and 

revisions: setting priorities to ensure updates to outdated 

technologies 

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review and update NSPS every eight years for over 70 

different industrial source types. In conducting such reviews in the past, the usefulness of the 

reviews varied greatly across the different source types. For some source types, we have seen 

significant improvements in processes and emission control technologies, along with significant 

numbers of new sources. For others, we found little change in prevailing technologies and/or 

little growth in the industry. Accordingly, we intend to establish priorities for the review and 

revision of NSPS based on the opportunities for meaningful improvements in air quality and 

public health, giving lesser importance to those categories where little or no opportunity for such 

improvements realistically exists. In particular, EPA expects to issue an Advanced Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking projected for summer of 2011 that presents an approach that includes a 

streamlined process to consider whether an NSPS requires a review. If the standard remains 

effective in meeting the requirements of the CAA, then we will not conduct a review and redirect 

both public and private resources to the rules that provide the greatest public health protection 

and are most likely to warrant revision. This approach will allow the NSPS review process to be 

made more efficient, so that both public and private resources can be focused where it makes the 

most sense. 

2.1.15 Innovative technology: seeking to spur new markets and utilize 

technological innovations 

Available and affordable technology choices define the potential range of environmental 

solutions for many environmental problems. Moreover, technology innovation can lead not only 

to better environmental outcomes, but better economic opportunities and outcomes, too. EPA 

efforts in the past 40 years have spurred technology developments responsible for profound 

improvements in environmental protection through preventing, reducing, and sequestering 

pollutants, and monitoring environmental conditions. Yet, many perceive that technology 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 23 of 47 

choices can be inflexible and fixed through regulation, creating a disincentive for innovation as 

technology, markets, and other conditions change. 

During retrospective reviews and new rulemakings, EPA intends to assess innovative technology 

opportunities and market drivers, and implement a strategy to enhance the degree to which EPA's 

regulatory processes leverage market opportunities and encourage continued development of 

new sustainable technologies to achieve improved environmental results at lower costs. 

Likewise, monitoring and testing certification procedures and regulations are often codified and 

then, over time, can become outdated. Where feasible, EPA plans to continue to make changes 

to update monitoring and testing protocols through flexible approaches such as alternative 

method approval procedures, which can allow more immediate use of new methods based on 

new scientifically sound technology that meet legally supported criteria. In future rulemakings, 

EPA will continue to augment codified protocols by utilizing established requirements, such as 

the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act, to add by reference, methods developed by 

voluntary consensus organizations, where appropriate. 

EPA has taken steps already to support technological innovation in the water sector through 

cooperation with a newly formed regional water technology cluster. The water technology 

innovation cluster intends to develop and commercialize innovative technologies to solve 

environmental challenges and spur sustainable economic development and job growth through 

the expansion, creation, and attraction of water technology companies and investment. EPA cohosted a workshop with the regional Water Technology Innovation Cluster (WTIC) on May 23, 

2011, where the Agency worked to identify major challenges and technology needs faced by the 

different water sectors. 

The Agency also intends to move forward with other activities to support technological 

innovation. For example, EPA is participating in the California Technology Initiative, a 

technology demonstration partnership which includes the South Coast and San Joaquin Air 

Management Districts, the State of California, and the private sector. The Initiative is an 

opportunity for business to demonstrate and help bring to market new clean air and clean energy 

technologies that have the potential to reduce the costs of compliance with existing regulations, 

as well as create economic development and new jobs. Initial technology demonstrations are 

expected to be up and running by spring 2012. 

2.1.16 ** The costs of regulations: improving cost estimates 

EPA intends to evaluate the degree to which the following differ: 

• Costs estimates developed prior to the issuance of a regulation (ex-ante costs); and 

• Actual costs that are realized after regulated entities begin complying with the regulation 

(ex-post costs). 

EPA intends to explore, through an analysis initially focusing on 5 rules, possible sources of 

uncertainty and reasons why predictive cost estimates and estimates of actual costs diverge. One 

of the goals of the project is to determine if any systematic biases exist in EPA’s ex-ante cost 

estimates, and if so, why. One potentially important reason for the difference between ex-ante 

and ex-post costs is unanticipated technological innovation that occurs between the time a rule is 

promulgated and when the regulated community must begin complying with the regulation. The 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 24 of 47 

overall goal of this project is to identify ways EPA can improve our estimates of compliance 

costs to better predict what a regulation will cost. The Agency plans to complete a draft final 

report of our retrospective analysis of the first five rules by fall 2011. 

2.2 Longer term actions 

The 15 regulatory reviews listed here are part of EPA’s initial list of 31 priority regulatory 

reviews. These actions are on a longer term schedule relative to the early actions listed in the 

previous section. Descriptions for each follow. Asterisks (**) preceding the heading of a review 

indicate those reviews which were suggested in one or more public comments. 

1. ** E-Manifest: reducing burden 

2. Electronic hazardous waste Site ID form: reducing burden 

3. ** Consumer confidence reports for primary drinking water regulations: providing for the 

open exchange of information 

4. ** Reporting requirements under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA): 

reducing burden 

5. ** Export notification for chemicals and pesticides: reducing burden and improving 

efficiencies 

6. ** Water quality trading: improving approaches 

7. ** Water Quality Standard regulations: simplifying and clarifying requirements 

8. ** State Implementation Plan (SIP) process: reducing burden 

9. ** CAA Title V Permit programs: simplifying and clarifying requirements 

10. ** National primary drinking water regulations for lead and copper: simplifying and 

clarifying requirements 

11. Adjusting threshold planning quantities (TPQs) for solids in solution: reducing burden 

and relying on scientific objectivity 

12. ** Certification of pesticide applicators: eliminating uncertainties and improving 

efficiencies 

13. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) reforms: improving efficiencies and effectiveness 

14. Contaminants under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): coordinating regulatory 

requirements 

15. **Section 610 reviews: coordinating requirements 

2.2.1 **8 E-Manifest: reducing burden 

Currently, hazardous waste generators, transporters, and permitted waste management facilities 

must complete and carry a 6-ply paper manifest form as the means to comply with the “cradle-tograve” tracking requirements required for off-site hazardous waste shipments under section 

3002(a)(5) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) statute. EPA and our 

stakeholders advocate developing electronic hazardous waste manifesting services that EPA 

would host as a national system. This electronic system would allow stakeholders the option of 

 

8

 Asterisks (**) preceding the heading of a review indicate those reviews which were suggested in one or more 

public comments. 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 25 of 47 

using electronic manifests in lieu of the current 6-ply paper forms. Stakeholders recommended 

in 2004 that EPA develop a national electronic manifest system hosted by the Agency as a means 

to implement a consistent and secure approach to completing , submitting, and keeping records 

of hazardous waste manifests electronically. 

Electronic manifests could be downloaded to mobile devices, and tracking data distribution 

could be carried out electronically. Waste handlers could accomplish nearly real-time tracking 

of waste shipments, EPA and states could maintain more effective oversight of hazardous waste 

shipments, data quality and availability would be greatly improved, and the Agency could collect 

and manage manifest data and Biennial Reporting data much more efficiently. 

While the development of a national e-Manifest system would entail an IT investment of about 

$6 million for hardware and software needs, with total intramural and extramural system 

development costs ranging from $9.3M to $26.6M, EPA believes that such a system would 

produce annual savings to waste handlers and regulators of about $80 million. The hazardous 

waste industry is on record supporting a user fee funded approach to developing and operating 

the e-Manifest, and EPA is currently supporting legislative and regulatory efforts to establish the 

e-Manifest system. 

In the FY 2012 Congressional Budget Justification, EPA is requesting $2 million to begin the 

development of an electronic hazardous waste manifest system. The Agency intends to submit 

to Congress a legislative proposal to collect user fees to support the development and operation 

of this system. As part of the regulatory review plan, EPA proposes including the efforts to 

finalize the rule that will allow tracking of hazardous waste using the electronic manifest system. 

Were legislation to be enacted, EPA expects we would be able to finalize a rule within the 

milestones established in that legislation. 

2.2.2 Electronic hazardous waste Site ID form: reducing burden 

RCRA requires individuals who (1) generate or transport hazardous waste or (2) operate a 

facility for recycling, treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous waste, to notify EPA or their 

authorized state waste management agency of their regulated waste activities and obtain a RCRA 

Identification (ID) Number. The RCRA ID Number is a unique identification number, assigned 

by EPA or the authorized state waste management agency, to hazardous waste handlers (see 

categories described above) to enable tracking of basic site information and regulatory status. 

Currently, the Hazardous Waste Site ID form is an electronically-fillable PDF form. However, 

after a facility types in their information, the facility must print the form, sign it, and then mail it 

to the state or EPA Region. This is because the Site ID form requires a facility operator's wet 

signature. Similar to submitting tax forms online, this process can be streamlined if EPA can 

enable Site ID forms to be signed and submitted electronically. Electronically submitting Site ID 

forms would: 1) save in mailing costs; 2) enable better data quality as the data would be entered 

by the facility itself; 3) increase efficiency of the notification process as the facility could easily 

review its past submissions and submit updates to the Site ID form (rather than repeatedly filling 

out the form again and again); and 4) enable states and EPA to receive the updated data faster. 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 26 of 47 

As every Small Quantity Generator facility; Large Quantity Generator (LQG) facility; and 

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) facility is required to use the Site ID form to obtain an 

EPA ID number and to submit changes to facility information, electronically submitting Site ID 

forms could potentially impact 50,000-100,000 facilities nationwide. In 2010, there were 97,610 

submissions. As part of the Biennial Report, LQG and TSD facilities have to re-notify every two 

years. State renewals are state-specific, but it is noted that several states require annual renotifications. Online electronic reporting of the Site ID form can reduce burden and costs for 

the regulated entities by eliminating the costs associated with printing and mailing this 

information to EPA. The regulated community has indicated that these savings could be 

substantial; however, EPA has not done a formal burden/cost reduction analysis. EPA estimates 

an electronic Site ID form could be implemented within a year after the decision is made to 

move forward. 

2.2.3 ** Consumer confidence reports for primary drinking water 

regulations: providing for the open exchange of information 

Consumer Confidence Reports are a key part of public right-to-know in the SDWA. The 

Consumer Confidence Report, or CCR, is an annual water quality report that a community water 

system is required to provide to its customers. Community Water Systems (CWSs) serving more 

than 10,000 persons are required to mail or otherwise directly deliver these reports. States may 

allow CWSs serving fewer than 10,000 persons to provide these reports by other means. The 

report lists the regulated contaminants found in the drinking water, as well as health effects 

information related to violations of the drinking water standards. This helps consumers make 

informed decisions. As stakeholders discussed during the public involvement process for this 

Plan, there has been a major increase and diversity in communication tools since 1998. EPA will 

consider reviewing the Consumer Confidence Report Rule to look for opportunities to improve 

the effectiveness of communicating drinking water information to the public, while lowering the 

burden of water systems and states. One example suggested by water systems is to allow 

electronic delivery through e-mail, thereby reducing mailing charges. This may also improve the 

readership of CCRs. EPA estimates that a retrospective review of the CCR could be completed 

within 12-16 months after the review cycle begins in fiscal year 2012. 

2.2.4 ** Reporting requirements under Section 303(d) of the Clean 

Water Act (CWA): reducing burden 

On April 1 of every even numbered year, states report to EPA on the status of the nation’s waters 

to fulfill reporting requirements under CWA Sections 303(d) and 305(b). The requirement for 

states to report on the condition of their waterbodies every two years under Section 305(b) is 

statutory. However, the requirement for states to identify impaired waters every two years under 

Section 303(d) is regulatory. States have raised concerns that reporting this information every 

two years is a significant burden. EPA intends to work with the public and states to identify the 

impact of changing this reporting cycle. EPA plans to review this activity by June 2012. 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 27 of 47 

2.2.5 ** Export notification for chemicals and pesticides: reducing 

burden and improving efficiencies 

The regulations issued pursuant to section 12(b) of TSCA specify export notification 

requirements for certain chemicals subject to regulation under TSCA sections 4, 5, 6, and 7. The 

purpose of the export notification requirements of section 12(b) of TSCA is to ensure that 

foreign governments are alerted when EPA takes certain regulatory actions on chemical 

substances being exported from the United States to those foreign countries, and to communicate 

relevant information concerning the regulated chemicals. In addition, section 17(a) of FIFRA 

requires that the foreign purchaser of a pesticide that is not registered by EPA sign a statement, 

prior to export, acknowledging that the purchaser understands that the pesticide is not registered 

for use in the United States and cannot be sold in the United States. The purpose of the export 

notification requirements of section 17(a) is to ensure that foreign purchasers and the regulatory 

authorities in the importing country know these pesticides do not have an EPA registration; EPA 

registration carries a high degree of significance among other countries. Under both the TSCA 

and FIFRA regulations, the export notifications must be transmitted to an appropriate official of 

the government of the importing country, and is intended to provide them with notice of the 

chemical’s export and other relevant information, e.g. the chemical’s regulatory status in the U.S. 

and whether other information is available about the chemical. 

During the public involvement process for this Plan, industry reported that these export 

notification requirements have resulted in a significant, and growing, number of export 

notifications, which is burdensome both for them, and also for EPA and the receiving foreign 

countries. Yet industry suggested that these requirements do not appear to provide comparable 

benefits to public health or the environment. 

EPA intends to review the implementing regulations to determine whether there are any 

opportunities to reduce overall burden on exporters, the Agency, and receiving countries, while 

still ensuring that the statutory mandates are followed. For example, EPA is considering whether 

some or all of the transaction could be accomplished through electronic media and whether other 

changes to the process could provide efficiencies that would benefit all parties. 

EPA is currently developing a workplan for completing this review effort within the next 12 

months. As a first step in this effort, EPA intends to carefully review the related comments 

received during the public involvement process for this Plan. The Agency intends to identify a 

timeline and process for engaging stakeholders in this review. 

2.2.6 ** Water Quality Trading: improving approaches 

In 2003, EPA issued its final Water Quality Trading Policy, which provides a framework for 

trading pollution reduction credits to promote cost-effective improvements in water quality, 

consistent with the goals and requirements of the Clean Water Act. This policy has been a 

success in encouraging states and stakeholders to give greater attention to market-based 

approaches for achieving pollutant reductions beyond the technology-based requirements of the 

Act. However, EPA believes that significant, cost-effective pollutant reductions, particularly 

from non-point sources, remain untapped, and will explore ways to revise the policy based on 

lessons learned over the past eight years and public input. EPA intends to begin this process 

with a workshop or other forum to solicit ideas from the public on barriers to trading under the 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 28 of 47 

current policy, and ways to reduce these barriers. The focus is expected to be on seeking 

improved approaches that promote trading in ways that “share” the gains from increased 

efficiency, so as to provide reasonable further progress toward attainment of water quality goals 

and simultaneously reduce costs and promote economic growth. EPA intends to begin this 

process with a workshop or other forum to be held in 2012. 

2.2.7 ** Water Quality Standard regulations: simplifying and 

clarifying requirements 

EPA intends to propose a targeted set of changes to the water quality standard (WQS) 

regulations to improve its effectiveness in helping restore and maintain the Nation’s waters. The 

core of the current WQS regulation has been in place since 1983, and provides limited guidance 

on recurring implementation issues. The proposed rule is expected to provide clarity in the 

following six key areas: 1) antidegradation, 2) Administrator’s determination, 3) uses, 4) 

variances; 5) triennial review scope and requirements, and 6) updating regulation to reflect court 

decisions. This action will allow EPA to better achieve program goals by providing enhanced 

water resource protection and greater flexibility in meeting Water Quality Standards in 

appropriate circumstances. 

2.2.8 ** State Implementation Plan (SIP) process: reducing burden 

EPA intends to review the administrative steps states must follow when they adopt and submit 

State Implementation Plans that describe how they will attain and maintain the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards, with the goal of reducing and eventually eliminating the paper (hardcopy) 

submittals of SIP revisions in favor of electronic submittals. A number of simplifying changes 

have recently been communicated to the states as guidance. These changes will eliminate the 

need for many formal hearings on matters of no public interest, expensive advertisements in 

newspapers with low readership, and shipment of multiple hard copies of documents. 

Additionally, a state-EPA working group is considering 1) training tools that would assist states 

developing nonattainment SIPs for the first time, and 2) ways to provide states with information 

that will better equip them to deal with SIPs (e.g. SIP status/approval information, information 

on innovative measures). 

Additional changes that may involve rulemaking include the following: 

• Continuing to pursue options for reducing and eventually eliminating the paper 

(hardcopy) submittals of SIP revisions in favor of electronic submittals. 

• Determining whether additional types of non-substantive SIP revisions may be added to 

the list of actions appropriate for Letter Notice. 

• Exploring other modifications that would provide less rigorous notice and comment 

requirements for such non-substantive SIP revisions. 

The timeframes for these milestones will be determined at a later date. 

2.2.9 ** CAA Title V Permit programs: simplifying and clarifying 

requirements. 

Operating permits are legally enforceable documents that permitting authorities issue to air 

pollution sources after the source has begun to operate. As required under Title V of the CAA, 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 29 of 47 

most large sources and some smaller sources of air pollution are required to obtain an operating 

permit. A Title V permit lists all of the air quality-related rules and requirements that apply to 

the particular source, and specifies how compliance will be monitored. States are required to 

give public notice of the draft and final permits and typically post permits on their websites. 

This avoids any misunderstandings between the source, regulatory agencies, and the public 

living around the source. 

The Title V program was the focus of many of the public comments received as part of the 

outreach EPA conducted as it developed its plan to implement Executive Order 13563. In 

addition, EPA continues to draw on the Title V implementation ideas generated by its Clean Air 

Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC), including those developed by a CAAAC task force in 2006. 

Taking advantage of advice and ideas from all these sources, EPA intends to review the Title V 

implementation process to determine whether changes can be made to help all permitting 

participants understand the program better. EPA also intends to streamline the process to be 

more efficient in terms of industry, public, and government resources. Activities may include 

consideration of electronic filing of applications, including supporting material such as reports. 

The timeframe for action will be determined at a later date. 

2.2.10 ** National primary drinking water regulations for lead and 

copper: simplifying and clarifying requirements 

On June 7, 1991, EPA published a regulation to control lead and copper in drinking water. This 

regulation is known as the Lead and Copper Rule (also referred to as the LCR). The treatment 

technique for the rule requires systems to monitor drinking water at customer taps. If lead and 

copper concentrations exceed action levels in more than 10% of customer taps sampled, the 

system must undertake a number of additional actions to reduce lead levels. If the action level 

for lead is exceeded, the system must also inform the public about steps they should take to 

protect their health. While LCR is an important means for reducing children's exposure to lead, 

stakeholders have commented that the rule is hard to understand and implement. The LCR 

review is evaluating ways to improve public health protections provided by the rule as well as 

streamline rule requirements by making substantive changes based on topics that were identified 

in the 2004 National Review of the LCR. EPA currently expects to issue a proposed rulemaking 

in spring 2012. 

2.2.11 Adjusting threshold planning quantities (TPQs) for solids in 

solution: reducing burden and relying on scientific objectivity 

The extremely hazardous substances (EHSs) list and its TPQs, developed pursuant to the 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), are intended to help 

communities focus on the substances and facilities of most immediate concern for emergency 

planning and response. EPA is considering an alternative approach for the TPQs for chemicals 

on the EHSs list that are handled as non-reactive solids in solution. EPA is pursuing this 

approach in part based on industry's request to revisit the TPQ rationale for the chemical 

paraquat dichloride (handled as a solid in aqueous solution). These regulatory revisions reflect 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 30 of 47 

EPA's use of best current science, and offer streamlining for facilities while maintaining 

environmental standards, and will be completed by fall 2012.9 The burden reduction is 

estimated to be minimal because the required notification is a one-time reporting (unless 

significant changes occur) and the rule change only affects facilities who have not yet reported. 

These facilities may handle other EHS chemicals that would trigger the emergency planning 

requirements anyway. Comments on the proposed rule are due June 15 and so far the Agency 

has received one comment, which is in favor of the proposal. 

2.2.12 ** Certification of pesticide applicators: eliminating 

uncertainties and improving efficiencies 

EPA intends to review regulations for certification and training of pesticide applicators (40 CFR 

171). By law, certain pesticides may be applied only by or under the direct supervision of 

specially trained and certified applicators. Certification and training programs are conducted by 

states, territories, and tribes in accordance with national standards. EPA has been in extensive 

discussions with stakeholders since 1997, when the Certification and Training Assessment Group 

(CTAG) was established. CTAG is a forum used by regulatory and academic stakeholders to 

discuss the current state of, and the need for improvements in, the national certified pesticide 

applicator program. In July of 2004, well over a million private, state, federal, and tribal 

commercial certified applicators had active pesticide applicator certificates in the U.S. 

Based on extensive interactions with stakeholders, EPA has identified the potential for 

streamlining activities which could reduce the burden on the regulated community by promoting 

better coordination among the state, federal, and tribal partnerships, clarifying requirements, and 

modifying potentially redundant or restrictive regulation. This review would also consider 

strengthening the regulations to better protect pesticide applicators and the public and the 

environment from harm due to pesticide exposure. In addition, resources and time permitting, 

EPA intends to consider the use of innovative technology tools (e.g., investigation of the use of 

educational tools such as web based tools), including consideration of the need to ensure 

communication and training is available to non-English speakers. EPA intends to propose 

improvements to these regulations in 2012. 

2.2.13 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) reforms: improving 

efficiencies and effectiveness 

EPA regulations governing the use of PCBs in electrical equipment and other applications were 

first issued in the late 1970s and have not been updated since 1998. EPA has initiated 

rulemaking to reexamine these ongoing PCB uses with an eye to ending or phasing out uses that 

can no longer be justified under section 6(e) of the Toxics Substances and Control Act (TSCA), 

which requires that EPA determine certain authorized uses will not present an unreasonable risk 

of injury to health and the environment. In addition, EPA recognizes that its cleanup program 

for PCBs may create barriers to the timely cleanup of sites that are contaminated with PCBs and 

other toxic constituents under EPA’s other cleanup programs. Thus, EPA intends to look for 

opportunities to improve PCB regulations and related guidance to facilitate quicker and more 

 

9

 More information about TPQs for EHSs: http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/epcra/epcra_ammend.htm. 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 31 of 47 

effective PCB cleanups, for example with respect to PCB-contaminated caulk. EPA has already 

started looking for opportunities to improve PCB cleanup guidance and will be working with 

states to identify areas for focus. Also, EPA intends to look in the future (not earlier than 2013), 

after guidance revision opportunities are completed, at whether there are remaining issues that 

need regulatory revisions to facilitate quicker and more effective PCB cleanups. 

2.2.14 Contaminants under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): 

coordinating regulatory requirements 

On March 22, 2010, EPA announced a new Drinking Water Strategy, which was aimed at 

finding ways to strengthen public health protection from contaminants in drinking water. This 

collaborative effort across EPA program offices is intended to streamline decision-making and 

expand protection under existing laws, and to enable EPA to provide more robust public health 

protection in an open and transparent manner, assist small communities to identify cost and 

energy efficient treatment technologies, and build consumer confidence by providing more 

efficient sustainable treatment technologies to deliver safe water at a reasonable cost. To obtain 

input on the strategy, EPA held four public listening sessions around the country, hosted a webbased discussion forum, and met with the National Drinking Water Advisory Council. In 

addition, EPA held a web dialogue and stakeholder meeting focused on the first goal of the 

strategy. The first goal of the strategy is to address contaminants as groups rather than one at a 

time, so that enhancement of drinking water protection can be achieved cost-effectively. The 

Agency announced in February 2011, that it plans to develop one national drinking water 

regulation (NDWR) covering up to sixteen carcinogenic Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). 

EPA intends to propose a regulation to address carcinogenic contaminants as groups rather than 

individually in order to provide public health protections more quickly and also allow utilities to 

more effectively and efficiently plan for improvements. This action is part of the Agency's 

Drinking Water Strategy to help streamline implementation of drinking water rules for the 

regulated community. EPA expects to issue a proposed rulemaking in the fall of 2013. 

2.2.15 **Section 610 reviews: coordinating requirements 

Under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA is required to review its regulations 

that have or will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 

(SISNOSE) within ten years of promulgation. Section 610 specifically requires review of 

regulations to determine the continued need for the rule; the nature of complaints or comments 

received concerning the regulation from the public since promulgation; the complexity of the 

regulation; the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other federal 

regulations, and, to the extent feasible, with state and local government regulations; and the 

length of time since the regulation has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, 

economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the regulation. These 

areas effectively promote many of the same principles of transparency, streamlining, and 

flexibility outlined in EO 13563. To the extent practicable, EPA plans to use the opportunity 

under this Plan to combine is section 610 reviews with other reviews. EPA’s upcoming 610 

reviews include 

• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent 

Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations due by February 

2013; 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 32 of 47 

• NESHAP: Reinforced Plastic Composites Production due by April 2013; and 

• Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel due by 

June 2014. 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 33 of 47 

3 Public Involvement and Agency Input for this Plan 

EPA developed this Plan by gathering input from the public and from the Agency’s regulatory 

experts. In parallel efforts, we sought to learn how public and Agency stakeholders would 

recommend designing EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews of Existing 

Regulations. The regulatory reviews described in section 2 respond to a number of the 

comments submitted by the public and EPA regulatory experts. 

3.1 Public involvement in developing this Plan 

Through EPA’s public involvement process, the Agency gathered verbal and written public 

comments on the design of the Plan and on regulations that should be candidates for 

retrospective review. EPA posted the “Improving Our Regulations” website 

(http://www.epa.gov/improvingregulations) on February 18, 2011. The site provided direct links 

to a total of fifteen dockets established in Regulations.gov where members of the public could 

submit written comments about how EPA should design the Plan. Many commenters also 

suggested regulations as candidates for retrospective review. Fourteen of the dockets allowed 

the public to submit ideas by: 

• Issue or impact: 

o Benefits and costs (Docket # EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0158) 

o Compliance (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0166) 

o Economic conditions / market (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0167) 

o Environmental justice / children’s health / elderly (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0168) 

o Integration and innovation (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0161) 

o Least burdensome / flexible approaches (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0165) 

o Science / obsolete / technology outdated (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0162) 

o Small business (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0164) 

o State, local and tribal governments (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0163) 

• Program area: 

o Air (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0155) 

o Pesticides (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0157) 

o Toxic substances (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0159) 

o Waste (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0160) 

o Water (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0154) 

A fifteenth docket collected general comments (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156) that spanned more 

than one issue/impact or program area. Also, we established an email account where members 

of the public could submit their ideas: ImprovingRegulations.SuggestionBox@epa.gov. And 

finally, EPA issued a Federal Register (FR) notice10 to ensure that people who lacked Internet 

access could read EPA’s call for public comment. 

 

10 EPA issued a Federal Register (FR) notice on February 23, 2011, to announce the public comment period and 

public meeting. EPA subsequently issued a second FR notice on March 18th to extend the comment period. The 

respective citations are: 

[cont’d. on next page] 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 34 of 47 

The website, dockets, and FR notice included guiding questions based on the principles of EO 

13563 and EPA’s priorities. The Agency provided these questions to guide the public in 

formulating their ideas, not to restrict their comments. (See the questions in the appendix.) 

Verbal comments were solicited at a series of twenty public meetings. On March 14, EPA held a 

day-long public meeting in Arlington, Virginia, focused on all aspects of the Plan. The first half 

of the day focused on how to design the Plan. The second half was divided into targeted, 

concurrent sessions that focused on five areas: air, pesticides, toxic substances, waste, and water. 

Additionally, EPA held nineteen more town halls and listening sessions targeting specific 

programs areas (e.g. solid waste and emergency response) and EPA Regions. In total, 

approximately 600 members of the public attended. 

Written comments were initially solicited from February 18 – March 20, 2011. After hearing 

many requests from the public to extend the comment period, EPA extended the due date to 

April 4, 2011. Over 1,400 submissions were made to the public dockets. To advertise the public 

comment process and the public meetings, we issued a press release, publicized on our Open 

Government website and other key websites, and posted on the Agency’s Facebook and Twitter 

pages. 

While EPA has read all of the comments, the Agency has yet to process and address each one. 

In keeping with OMB guidance,11 EPA intends to further consult with the public in May or June. 

EPA intends to consider the comments it has yet to process, as well as new input received in 

May or June, and may make updates to this Plan and/or the list of initial regulations we intend to 

review. Upon processing all of the public’s input, however, the Agency may decide that no 

further additions will be made until future review periods. 

Even if a suggested regulatory review is not taken up in this first review period, we do not intend 

to forget it. While it is impossible to conduct – all at one time – the many reviews that were 

suggested in public comments, the comments will be retained in publicly accessible 

Regulations.gov dockets and EPA intends to once again review the comments in the future fiveyear review periods described in section 4. 

 

• “Improving EPA Regulations; Request for Comment; Notice of Public Meeting,” 76 FR 36 (23 

February 2011), pp. 9988 – 9990, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-23/pdf/2011-4152.pdf. 

• “Extension of Comment Period: EPA’s Plan for Retrospective Review Under Executive Order 13563,” 

76 FR 53 (18 March 2011), pp. 14840 – 14841, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-03-

18/pdf/2011-6413.pdf. 11 Memorandum from Cass R. Sunstein, Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office 

of Management and Budget, to Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. “Retrospective Analysis of Existing 

Significant Regulations,” 25 April 2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2011/m11-

19.pdf. 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 35 of 47 

3.2 Agency input into this Plan 

While EPA’s public involvement process was underway, the Agency also engaged in an 

extensive process to tap the expertise of regulatory professionals throughout EPA and 

complement ideas gathered from the public. A cross-Agency workgroup helped craft the Plan 

and collected nominations for retrospective reviews from EPA’s rule-writing experts, as well as 

those who work on regulatory enforcement and compliance. Staff and managers in EPA’s ten 

Regional offices hold responsibilities for executing EPA’s programs within the Nation’s states, 

territories, and tribal nations. The Regions also assisted with the design of the Plan and 

indentified regulations that should be candidates for retrospective review. 

Moreover, EPA combined efforts in the development of this Plan during preparation of the 

Spring 2011 Semiannual Regulatory Agenda. The Agenda describes a broad universe of 

regulatory activities under development or review, as well as recently completed regulations. 

This comprehensive report of regulations currently under development includes a number of 

activities that EPA identified as responsive to EO 13563. EPA has a long history of reviewing 

regulations and related activities in an effort to continually improve its protection of human 

health and the environment. It is the Agency’s ongoing responsibility to listen to regulated 

groups and other stakeholders, rely on EPA expertise and quality scientific and economic 

analyses, address petitions for regulatory revisions, and otherwise respond to public and internal 

cues that indicate when reviews are necessary. 

EPA determined which ongoing activities listed in our upcoming Spring 2011 Semiannual 

Regulatory Agenda are themselves a regulatory to identify regulatory requirements that may be 

“outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome,” as directed by EO 13563. 

While some of these regulatory revisions are required by statute, many others are being 

examined by EPA as a discretionary measure. EPA intends to apply the principles and directives 

of EO 13563 to these ongoing reviews. 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 36 of 47 

4 EPA’s Plan for Future Periodic Regulatory Reviews 

EPA has selected an initial list of regulations that are expected to be reviewed during our first 

review period. However, EO 13563 also calls for “a preliminary plan, consistent with law and 

its resources and regulatory priorities, under which the agency will periodically review its 

existing significant regulations...” (emphasis added).12 This section of the Plan therefore defines 

a process that EPA intends to use for predictable, transparent future reviews, to be conducted 

every five years. 

4.1 Management and oversight of the Plan 

EPA’s Regulatory Policy Officer (RPO) was responsible for developing this Plan for the 

Administrator. Going forward, the RPO intends to work toward finalizing this Plan; manage and 

oversee the execution of future retrospective reviews; report on EPA’s progress; and evaluate the 

Plan. 

4.2 Process for conducting retrospective reviews 

EPA plans to ask the public about our full range of regulations – soliciting comments on what 

the public recommends for review – on a five-year cycle. The Agency also intends to ask for 

input from EPA’s rule-writing experts. Every five years, the Agency intends to follow a fourstep process for retrospective reviews: 

 

12 Executive Order 13563, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-21/pdf/2011-1385.pdf

Step 1: Solicit Nominations 

• At the start of each new review period, EPA plans to ask the public, other federal agencies, 

and EPA experts to nominate regulations that are in need of review. 

• EPA plans to announce the new nomination period via the Semiannual Regulatory 

Agenda, a press release, and related outreach tools. 

• EPA intends to collect public input via a Regulations.gov docket. 

• EPA plans to collect input from EPA experts via a staff-level “Regulatory Review 

Workgroup,” as well as senior management meetings. 

Step 2: Select Regulations for Review 

• From the nominees, EPA intends to select a discrete number of regulations for review. To 

the extent permitted by law and resources, selections are intended to be based on: 

o Comments gathered in Step 1; 

o The expertise of the EPA offices writing the regulations; 

o Priorities of the day, such as judicial rulings, emergencies, etc.; 

o Criteria described in subsection 4.3, and 

o Agency resources. 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 37 of 47 

In each review period, the first three steps are expected to take approximately one year to 

complete, giving the Agency the remaining four years, or more if needed, to complete 

modifications as warranted. 

As mentioned in section 3, EPA intends to seek further public consultation in May or June 2011 

once a preliminary version of this Plan is complete. After this public consultation, the Agency 

may make updates to this Plan and/or the list of initial regulatory reviews. Even if a suggested 

regulatory review is not taken up in this first review period, we do not intend to forget it. While 

it is impossible to conduct – at one time – all of the reviews that were suggested in the public 

comments we have received, all comments will be retained in publicly accessible 

Regulations.gov dockets, and EPA intends to once again review these ideas in future five-year 

review periods. 

4.3 Criteria for regulatory reviews 

In each review period, EPA intends to use the principles and directives of EO 13563 both to help 

determine which of the suggested regulations should be reviewed (Step 2 in subsection 4.2) and 

to evaluate regulations under review (Step 3 in subsection 4.2) During Step 2, the Agency 

intends to assess in a general way whether the principle or directive is likely to have a bearing on 

the regulation’s review; while during Step 3, the Agency intends to analyze each regulation more 

fully and answer the questions that appear under each heading below. 

For example, the first principle listed in EO 13563 is: “[T]o the extent permitted by law, each 

agency must, among other things propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

Step 3: Conduct Retrospective Reviews 

• Rule-writing offices plan to review the selected regulations using the criteria described in 

subsection 4.3. 

• The Agency intends to establish a docket for each regulation under review in order to 

collect public comments on whether to revise the regulation, and if so, how. 

• EPA intends to announce which regulations are under review in the Semiannual 

Regulatory Agenda and on the Rulemaking Gateway. 

Step 4: Make Necessary Modifications 

• After collecting comments from the public and conducting our own analyses, EPA 

intends to make modifications to any regulation that warrants it, as determined during 

Step 3. 

• The Agency plans to announce such modifications in the Federal Register, the 

Rulemaking Gateway, and the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 38 of 47 

determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are 

difficult to quantify).”13 This principle corresponds to the “Benefits justify costs” heading below. 

During Step 2, EPA would answer a general question such as “Are there benefit and cost 

estimates related to this regulation that warrant review at this time?” During Step 3, the Agency 

would conduct a more detailed retrospective benefit-cost analysis to understand if the benefits of 

the regulation still justify its costs. 

• Benefits justify costs 

o Now that the regulation has been in effect for some time, do the benefits of the 

regulation still justify its costs? 

• Least burden 

o Does the regulation impose requirements on entities that are also subject to 

requirements under another EPA regulation? If so, what is the cumulative burden 

and cost of the requirements imposed on the regulated entities? 

o Does the regulation impose paperwork activities (reporting, recordkeeping, or 

third party notifications) that could benefit from online reporting or electronic 

recordkeeping? 

o If this regulation has a large impact on small businesses, could it feasibly be 

changed to reduce the impact while maintaining environmental protection? 

o Do feasible alternatives to this regulation exist that could reduce this regulation’s 

burden on state, local, and/or tribal governments without compromising 

environmental protection? 

• Net benefits 

o Is it feasible to alter the regulation in such a way as to achieve greater cost 

effectiveness while still achieving the intended environmental results? 

• Performance objectives 

o Does the regulation have complicated or time-consuming requirements, and are 

there feasible alternative compliance tools that could relieve burden while 

maintaining environmental protection? 

o Could this regulation be feasibly modified to better partner with other federal 

agencies, state, local, and/or tribal governments? 

• Alternatives to direct regulation 

o Could this regulation feasibly be modified so as to invite public/private 

partnerships while ensuring that environmental objectives are still met? 

o Does a feasible non-regulatory alternative exist to replace some or all of this 

regulation’s requirements while ensuring that environmental objectives are still 

met? 

 

13 General Principles of Regulation,” Section 1 of Executive Order 13,563, 76 FR 3821 (January 21, 2011), 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-21/pdf/2011-1385.pdf. 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 39 of 47 

• Quantified benefits and costs / qualitative values 

o Since being finalized, has this regulation lessened or exacerbated existing impacts 

or created new impacts on vulnerable populations such as low-income or minority 

populations, children, or the elderly? 

o Are there feasible changes that could be made to this regulation to better protect 

vulnerable populations? 

• Open exchange of information 

o Could this regulation feasibly be modified to make data that is collected more 

accessible? 

o Did the regulatory review consider the perspectives of all stakeholders? 

• Coordination, simplification, and harmonization across agencies 

o If this regulation requires coordination with other EPA regulations, could it be 

better harmonized than it is now? 

o If this regulation requires coordination with the regulations of other federal or 

state agencies, could it be better harmonized with those regulations than it is now? 

• Innovation 

o Are there feasible changes that could be made to the regulation to promote 

economic or job growth without compromising environmental protection? 

o Could a feasible alteration be made to the regulation to spur new markets, 

technologies, or jobs? 

o Have new or less costly methods, technologies, and/or innovative techniques 

emerged since this regulation was finalized that would allow regulated entities to 

achieve the intended environmental results more effectively and/or efficiently? 

• Flexibility 

o Could this regulation include greater flexibilities for the regulated community to 

encourage innovative thinking and identify the least costly methods for 

compliance? 

• Scientific and technological objectivity 

o Has the science of risk assessment advanced such that updated assessments of the 

regulation’s impacts on affected populations such as environmental justice 

communities, children or the elderly could be improved?

o Has the underlying scientific data changed since this regulation was finalized such 

that the change supports revision to the regulation? 

o Has the regulation or a portion(s) of the regulation achieved its original objective 

and become obsolete? 

o Does the regulation require the use of or otherwise impose a scientific or technical 

standard? If so, is that standard obsolete or does it otherwise limit the use of 

updated or improved standards? 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 40 of 47 

4.4 Public involvement in future review periods 

Just as the public has been and will continue to be involved in the development of this Plan, EPA 

plans to routinely involve the public in our periodic retrospective review process. The Agency 

intends to ensure regular public involvement by: 

• Starting each review period by soliciting input from the public – As we did for this 

initial review period, EPA intends to collect public comments at the start of each fiveyear review period to begin identifying nominees for regulatory review. This public 

involvement process is described in section 4.2. 

• Using the existing tools – such as the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda and the 

Rulemaking Gateway – to aid the public in tracking our review activities. EPA plans 

to publicize our regulatory review schedule in the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda. In 

this twice yearly publication, we plan to announce upcoming review periods and provide 

status updates of the reviews underway. At this time, EPA expects to begin its next 

review period in spring 2016. 

EPA’s Rulemaking Gateway is a website that allows the public to track regulations that 

are under development. Updates are made to the Gateway on a monthly basis, and in the 

case of more time-sensitive information, on a daily basis. Between the twice yearly 

publications of the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, the Gateway is expected to serve as a 

resource for the public to obtain updates on regulatory reviews. By the end of 2011, the 

Agency intends to redesign the Gateway to include retrospective review information. 

EPA intends to link the tracking tools for this Plan to EPA’s Open Government website

for seamless integration of the Agency’s retrospective review efforts and broader 

transparency efforts. 

• Making data and analyses available, whenever possible. Data.gov catalogs federal 

government datasets and increases the ability of the public to easily find, download, and 

use datasets that are generated and held by the federal government. EPA will strive to 

make available, to the extent possible, the raw data used to conduct retrospective analyses 

on www.data.gov. The Agency also intends to continue to provide access to underlying 

analyses in the Regulations.gov docket established for a regulation. 

• Providing notice-and-comment opportunities as the Agency makes modifications to 

regulations. As is typically the case for new rulemakings, EPA intends to issue a Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for each modification resulting from a retrospective 

review, during which the Agency would invite public comment on the proposed 

modifications. 

• Making available numerous ways to contact EPA’s RPO staff. At any time, the 

public may submit a comment to RPO staff members about the Agency’s Plan. The 

Agency intends to make the following contact information easily accessible on the 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 41 of 47 

Rulemaking Gateway, EPA’s Open Government website, and in all materials and media 

related to the Plan: 

Email: ImprovingRegulations.SuggestionBox@epa.gov 

Mail: 

Regulatory Policy Officer 

Re: Retrospective Review of Regulations 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest (Mail Code 1803A) 

Washington, DC 20460 

Advertising contact information on major EPA websites: 

• www.epa.gov/open

• Rulemaking Gateway

• Laws & Regulations

• RegStat

4.5 Reporting on each review period 

As touched on in subsection 4.4, EPA intends to regularly report on its progress. EPA plans to 

report on the regulations under review, as well as modifications resulting from the reviews, by 

using EPA’s Semiannual Regulatory Agenda. Also, EPA intends to provide a brief yearly 

summary of activities in EPA’s Regulatory Plan, which annually accompanies the fall 

Semiannual Regulatory Agenda. Finally, the Agency intends to provide tracking information to 

the public on a monthly basis – in some cases, daily basis – via EPA’s Rulemaking Gateway. 

EPA plans to link these tracking tools to EPA’s Open Government website for seamless 

integration of the Agency’s retrospective review efforts and broader transparency efforts. 

4.6 Frequency of review periods 

EPA plans to begin a new retrospective review period every five years. The first review period 

is expected to last from spring 2011 to spring 2016, the next period would then span spring 2016 

to spring 2021, and subsequent periods would continue on five-year cycles. EPA intends to 

begin each review period with a public solicitation, during which time EPA would ask the public 

to nominate any of the Agency’s existing regulations for retrospective review. The public 

nomination process would be coupled with an internal effort to capture the nominations of EPA 

experts. 

At any time, EPA maintains the discretion to add to the list of nominated rules gathered from the 

public, and EPA intends to select regulations for review using considerations that go beyond 

those identified by the public. (See the considerations described in step 2, subsection 4.3.) The 

Agency may choose to make changes to respond to public suggestions, judicial rulings, 

emergencies, or other unexpected issues. 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 42 of 47 

5 Evaluation of the First Review Period 

In late 2016, as directed by OMB, EPA plans to lead an evaluation of the first review period to 

identify the best practices and areas of improvement for the Plan. Among other things, EPA 

plans to evaluate: 

• Whether the criteria used for retrospective reviews (listed in subsection 4.3) should be 

expanded or otherwise modified. 

• The resources required to conduct the first review period, and the feasibility / 

consequences of expending the same level of resources on an ongoing basis. 

• The results of the review (e.g., how many regulations were revised? in what ways?). 

The results of this evaluation will be made available to the public via an announcement in EPA’s 

Regulatory Plan, as well as the other, regular reporting mechanisms described in subsection 4.5.
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 43 of 47 

6 Contact Information 

For more information about EPA’s Plan and retrospective reviews, contact RPO staff at: 

Email: ImprovingRegulations.SuggestionBox@epa.gov 

Mail: 

Regulatory Policy Officer 

Re: Retrospective Review of Regulations 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest (Mail Code 1803A) 

Washington, DC 20460 

 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 44 of 47 

Appendix: Questions offered during the public comment 

period to help the public formulate their comments 

The following questions – both general questions and questions categorized by issue or impact – 

were published on EPA’s Improving Our Regulations website and added to the fifteen dockets 

that collected public comments. During a comment period that ran from 02/18/2011 to 

04/04/2011, EPA accepted public comments on how to design this Plan. This non-exhaustive list 

of questions was provided to help the public formulate their ideas but was not intended to restrict 

the issues that they may wish to address. 

General Questions 

• How should we identify candidate regulations for periodic retrospective review? 

• What criteria should we use to prioritize regulations for review? 

• How should our review plan be integrated with our existing requirements to conduct 

retrospective reviews? 

• How often should we solicit input from the public? 

• 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)? 

Questions Specific to an Issue or Impact 

Benefits and Costs 

(Regulations.gov Docket #EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0158)

• Which regulations have high costs and low benefits? What data support this? 

• Which regulations could better maximize net benefits (including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity)? What data support this? What quantitative and qualitative benefits and costs justify 

your suggestion (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify)? 

Compliance 

(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0166)

• Which regulations have complicated or time consuming requirements? To what extent are 

alternative compliance tools available? Could the regulations be modified to improve 

compliance? What data support this? 

• Which regulations or regulated sectors have particularly high compliance? How could the 

factors or approaches that lead to high compliance be utilized in other regulations and 

sectors? What data is available to support this? 

 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 45 of 47 

Economic Conditions/ Market 

(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0167)

• Which regulations have impacted an industry sector(s) that was hard hit by high 

unemployment in the past three years? What changes to the regulation would promote 

economic growth or job creation without compromising environmental protection? What 

data support this? 

• How can regulations spur new markets, technologies, and new jobs? What suggestions do 

you have to support this idea? 

• Which regulations have impeded economic growth in an affected industry sector? What 

information is available to support this? How could the regulations be modified to improve 

both economic growth and environmental protection? What data support this? 

• Where can EPA examine market-based incentives as an option to regulation? What program 

would you design that utilizes market-based incentives and ensures environmental objectives 

are still met? 

• How can a regulation be improved so as to create, expand or transform a market? 

• Which regulations could be modified so as to invite public/private partnerships, and how? 

 

Environmental Justice / Children’s Health / Elderly 

(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0168)

• Which regulations have exacerbated existing impacts or created new impacts on vulnerable 

populations such as low-income or minority populations, children, or the elderly? Which 

ones and how? What suggestions do you have for how the Agency could change the 

regulations? What data support this? 

• Which regulations have failed to protect vulnerable populations (minority or low-income, 

children or elderly) and why? 

• Which regulations could be streamlined, modified, tightened, or expanded to mitigate or 

prevent impacts to vulnerable populations (minority or low-income, children or elderly)? 

What suggestions do you have for changing the regulations? What data support this? 

Integration and Innovation 

(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0161)

• Which regulations could achieve the intended environmental results using less costly 

methods, technology, or innovative techniques? How could the regulations be changed? 

What data support this? 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 46 of 47 

• Which regulations could be improved by harmonizing requirements across programs or 

agencies to better meet the regulatory objectives? What suggestions do you have for how the 

Agency can better harmonize these requirements? 

• Which regulations have requirements that are overlapping and could be streamlined or 

eliminated? What suggestions do you have for how the Agency could modify the 

regulations? Be specific about how burden can be reduced from gained efficiencies related to 

streamlining the requirements. 

• What opportunities exist for the Agency to explore alternatives to existing regulations? How 

can these alternatives be designed to ensure that environmental objectives are still met? 

Least Burdensome / Flexible Approaches 

(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0165)

• Which regulations have proven to be excessively burdensome? What data support this? How 

many facilities are affected? What suggestions do you have for reducing the burden and 

maintaining environmental protection? 

• Which regulations impose paperwork activities (reporting, recordkeeping, or 3rd party 

notifications) that would benefit from online reporting or electronic recordkeeping? Tell us 

whether regulated entities have flexibility in providing the required 3rd party disclosure or 

notification. What data support this? What suggestions do you have for how the Agency 

could change the regulation? 

• Which regulations could be made more flexible within the existing legal framework? What 

data support this? What suggestions do you have for how the Agency could change the 

regulations to be more flexible? 

Science / Obsolete / Technology Outdated 

(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0162)

• Which regulations could be modified because the underlying scientific data has changed 

since the regulation was issued, and the change supports revision to the original regulation? 

What data support this? What suggestions do you have for changing the regulations? 

• Which regulations have achieved their original objective and have now become unnecessary 

or obsolete? What data support this? What suggestions do you have for how the Agency 

could modify, streamline, expand, or repeal the regulation? 

• Have circumstances surrounding any regulations changed significantly such that the 

regulation’s requirements should be reconsidered? Which regulations? What data support 

this? What suggestions can you provide the Agency about how these regulations could be 

changed? 
EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 47 of 47 

• Which regulations or reporting requirements have become outdated? How can they be 

modernized to accomplish their regulatory objectives better? What data support this? What 

suggestions do you have for how the Agency could change the regulations?

• Which regulations have new technologies that can be leveraged to modify, streamline, 

expand, or repeal existing requirements? What data support this? What suggestions do you 

have for how the Agency could change these regulations? 

Small Business 

(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0164)

• Which regulations have large impacts on small businesses? How could these regulations be 

changed to reduce the impact while maintaining environmental protection? Are there 

flexible approaches that might help reduce these impacts? Which of these regulations have 

high costs and low benefits? What data support this? 

• Are there any regulations where flexible approaches for small businesses have proven 

successful and could serve as a model? Where else and how could these approaches be 

utilized? 

State, Local and Tribal Governments 

(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0163)

• Which regulations impose burden on state, local or tribal governments? How could these 

regulations be changed to reduce the burden without compromising environmental 

protection? 

• What opportunities are there within existing regulations to better partner with state, local 

and/or tribal governments? If so, do you have suggestions for how to better utilize those 

opportunities?