Page 1 of 12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations EO 13563 Progress Report, July 2015

Agency Title of Initiative / Rule / ICR RIN Summary of Initiative Status of Initiative Target Completion Date Does the Initiative include regulatory flexibilities? What methods will you engage in to Identify Improvements? If available, anticipated or realized savings in costs and/or
burdens EPA/OAR Equipment and leak detection and repair: reducing burden RIN 2060-
AP66 This rule would apply to equipment such as pipes, valves, and flanges used to convey fluids at a variety of stationary sources, including petroleum refineries and chemical manufacturing plants. EPA intends to reduce burden on industry and streamline leak detection and repair (LDAR) by using an optical gas imaging
instrument to find leaks. Ongoing. EPA is developing a protocol for using the optical gas imaging (OGI) instrument for the Alternative Work Practices for Leak Detection and Repair, but EPA expects that the revisions to the AWP will not occur until after the OGI protocol is finalized. See progress update for 2.1.2(b). A draft AWP is not expected until at
least late 2017. This project will streamline requirements by allowing the use of advanced imaging technology to identify leaks. The proposed rule will be published and open for public comment.Using the OGI instrument where permissible, may reduce monitoring time since the instrument can image multiple pieces of equipment simultaneously from a distance, which also removes the need to designate equipment as unsafe-to-monitor
or difficult-to-monitor.

EPA/OAR Equipment and leak detection and repair: reducing burden RIN 2060-
AR00 This rule would apply to equipment such as pipes, valves, and flanges used to convey fluids at a variety of stationary sources, including petroleum refineries and chemical manufacturing plants.EPA intends to reduce burden by developing and consolidating stateof-the-art uniform standards for controlling equipment leaks that will then become applicable when they are referenced in other regulatory actions. Ongoing. EPA proposed the Uniform Standards for Equipment Leaks and Ancillary Systems on March 26, 2012.

The Uniform Standards proposal included the option to use OGI in lieu of the more traditional Method 21 for detecting equipment leaks. Due to resource constraints, the EPA does not have a timeline to finalize these Uniform Standards. However, EPA is moving forward with research and pilot studies using OGI under varying conditions. This information will then be used to develop the OGI protocol, tentatively targeted for proposal in early 2016. Where the EPA has an active rulemaking underway for a specific source category, if the EPA believes that the use of OGI as an alternative to Method 21 is appropriate for that source category, the EPA may propose the option to use OGI once the protocol is final. For example, EPA proposed to allow OGI (once the protocol is finalized) in the Refinery MACT amendments (79 FR 36879, June 30, 2014), to be finalized in September 2015. This project will streamline requirements by allowing the use of advanced imaging technology to identify leaks. The proposed rule was open for public comment for over 90 days.Burden reduction associated with the OGI will be dependent upon the requirements for using OGI that will be housed within the protocol under development., Once the protocol is final, the
EPA will be able to estimate burden reductions for source categories where EPA plans to allow the OGI method in lieu of
Method 21.

EPA/OCSPP Modernizing science and technology methods in the chemical regulation arena: reducing whole animal testing, reducing costs and burdens and improving efficiencies N/A EPA seeks ways to more efficiently assess the health and environmental hazards, as well as the exposure potential, of chemicals while reducing costs and burdens. A new work plan would develop new science-based approaches like computational toxicology tools (e.g., in vitro and in silicomethods) to prioritize
chemicals and focus on effects of concern for risk assessment/management purposes and to develop tools that allow the agency to base these risk management decisions on sufficient,
credible data. Ongoing. EPA is finalizing and applying these methods in a step-wise process, with frequent peer-review and public consultation, to prioritize, screen and test thousands of chemicals in the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). EPA began implementing these new computational toxicology tools in FY2012, and has documented progress at multiple FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) meetings (Jan 2013, May 2013, June 2013, July 2013, July 2014 & Dec 2014). The FIFRA SAP is established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to provide advice to EPA on science issues related to pesticide chemicals, and also provides scientific peer review to the EDSP. EPA anticipates additional external peer reviews (FIFRA SAP meetings) in FY2016 and FY2017 to demonstrate further use of advanced computational methods that screen and test more chemicals in less time, use fewer animals and reduce costs for everyone (http://www.epa.gov/endo).
For FIFRA SAP materials: http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/index.htm

For PPDC: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/testing/index.html. EPA's policies that will reduce animal testing are available athttp://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/2013/newtesting-approach.html. Although this effort does not involve regulations per se, it willenhance the availability of additional regulatory and nonregulatory flexibilities these tools may be considered in implementing our chemical regulatory programs. The alternative, cutting-edge methods EPA is introducing for endocrine screening represent the first steps in a paradigm shift for chemical safety testing. These new tools provide a robust scientific basis for assessing and managing chemical safety and efficiently quantifying risk to human health and the
environment for thousands of chemicals. Scientific peer-review and public consultation are key components of
this effort. For more details on all of the activities related to the EDSP, please go to http://www.epa.gov/endo/. Similar to the EDSP, EPA is developing alternative computational toxicology tools and applications for pesticide safety testing, and has established a stakeholder workgroup under the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) that is addressing communication and transition issues as EPA phases these new test methods into its pesticide registration and review programs. This PPDC workgroup has been meeting since 2013, and in July 2013 held a workshop entitled "Where Vision Meets Action: Practical Application of 21st Century Methods" providing an opportunity for dialogue between the Agency and stakeholders on applying new science to evaluate the risks of pesticides, and examining the challenges and benefits of making this transition. The initial benefits for the EDSP will be to decrease the time it takes to collect the necessary information to make decisions from years to months. The cost savings will come from reduced data generation and review times. For example, using ToxCast data in FY2015 for estrogen screening results in a cost reduction of 90% per chemical saves over 45,000 animals for the 1,800 chemicals already screened for the estrogen pathway. These new technologies involve the use of robotics to rapidly and simultaneously perform tests on thousands of chemicals, and this provides 100 times faster screening than conventional methods without the use of animals. EPA is rapidly developing additional high throughput assays and computational models to further predict endocrine disruption potential, providing rapid alternatives for additional EDSP tests for thousands of chemicals. Over time, we expect similar applications to our pesticides and industrial/commercial chemical programs, with even larger savings in costs and burdens for chemical safety testing.Page 2 of 12 Agency Title of Initiative / Rule / ICR RIN Summary of Initiative Status of Initiative Target Completion Date Does the Initiative include regulatory flexibilities? What methods will you engage in to Identify Improvements? If available, anticipated or realized savings in costs and/or
burdens EPA/OW National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): coordinating permit requirements and removing outdated requirements RIN 2040-
AF25 EPA intends 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 intends to revise or repeal outdated or ineffective regulatory requirements for wastewater facilities. Ongoing. EPA expects to propose modifications to NPDES permit regulations in winter 2016 and a final rule is expected in winter 2017. The rule would remove outdated provisions that may be confusing for stakeholders. The rule would streamline application requirements by conforming them to current agency
data standards. EPA expects to conduct additional outreach with stakeholder groups, including state permitting authorities, environmental groups, and regulated entities. EPA will solicit public comments on the proposed
rule. EPA estimates that public notice of draft permits in newspapers for NPDES major facilities, sewage sludge facilities and general permits currently costs approximately $1.6 million per year (this excludes the costs of preparing the content of the NPDES public notice, and the costs of the other methods to provide notice besides newspaper publication, such as direct mailing). Any savings from EPA's planned rule, however, are likely to be less than this amount. The new rule would allow, but not require states and the Federal Government to use electronic public notice instead of newspaper publication. Some states would continue to publish at least some notifications in newspapers. In addition, there would be offsetting costs to provide electronic notice, and EPA does not currently have estimates of those

costs.

EPA/OW National primary drinking water regulations - Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment: evaluating approaches that may maintain, or provide greater, public health protection N/A EPA intends to evaluate effective and practical approaches that may maintain or provide greater protection from Cryptosporidium and other pathogens in the water treated by public water systems for protection and stored prior to distribution to consumers. EPA plans to conduct this review expeditiously to protect public health while considering innovations and flexibility. Ongoing. The review process for LT2will be completed in conjunction with the 6-year review process, no later than March 2016. The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term 2
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule RIN 2040--AD37 was promulgated, January 5, 2006. The review process for LT2will be completed in conjunction with the 6-year review process, no later than March 2016. If regulatory revisions are determined appropriate, a formal rulemaking will be initiated and options will be evaluated. If a formal rulemaking is initiated, regulatory flexibilities will be considered once options have been agency approved. EPA held a stakeholder meeting on LT2 on December 7, 2011, which focused on analytical methods. The agency held a second stakeholder meeting on April 24, 2012, which focused on uncovered finished water reservoirs. EPA held a third stakeholder meeting on November 15, 2012, which focused on source water monitoring data and current LT2 treatment technique requirements (e.g., binning, microbial tool box options). EPA continues to collect and evaluate information/data pertinent to the review. EPA will consider input provided by stakeholders and any additional information/data collected by EPA as the agency determines options to enhancing protection from pathogens in drinking water.

EPA/OAR New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) reviews and revisions under
the CAA: RIN 2060-
AO60 and

RIN 2060- AQ20 In this action, EPA is prioritizing reviews of existing NSPS to focus on those that, in keeping with EO 13563, promote innovative technologies while upholding EPA’s mission to protect human health
and the environment. Ongoing. EPA issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking in October 2011 (76 FR 65653) asking for public comment on prioritizing 14 potential NSPS reviews. Subsequently, EPA conducted reviews of NSPS for 5 categories of sources that involve phosphate processing and proposed amendments on November 7, 2014 (79 FR 66511). A final rule is expected in July of 2015. The remaining 9 potential reviews are on
hold at this time. will be addressed at a later date. This project will streamline requirements and reduce burden by avoiding amendments that would have no environmental
benefit. The project was initiated with a broad invitation to the public (in the form of an ANPRM) to comment on our NSPS regulations. The public's response to this solicitation provided information that helped us prioritize our work. This strategy will reduce the resource burden to the government and stakeholders by eliminating the need for costly and time consuming reviews of certain standards, which are not expected to result in any environmental benefits. This burden reduction will allow the government and stakeholders to focus on those NSPS with greater opportunities for meaningful improvements in air quality and public health.

EPA/OAR CAA Title V Permit programs: simplifying and clarifying requirements RIN 2060-
AS61 EPA is reviewing the Title V implementation process to determine whether changes can be made to simplify and clarify the process for industry, the public, and government resources. The changes will include a rulemaking to revise the Title V petition process. Ongoing. EPA will propose a rule clarifying and revising the petition process
in 2015. The petition process rulemaking is expected to be consistent with the Digital Government Strategy issued by the White House in 2012 that calls for the EPA to take advantage of new technology and improve transparency for our stakeholders, and to support E-enterprise, a U.S. EPA-state initiative to improve environmental performance and enhance services to the regulated community, environmental agencies, and the public. This rule will provide increased transparency and clarity regarding the petition process and is anticipated to increase process efficiency. Stakeholders will be able to comment on the draft rule once it has been proposed. The petitions rulemaking will revise part 70 to clarify and streamline the process by which EPA receives and reviews title V petitions, thereby increasing transparency and efficiency.Page 3 of 12 Agency Title of Initiative / Rule / ICR RIN Summary of Initiative Status of Initiative Target Completion Date Does the Initiative include regulatory flexibilities? What methods will you engage in to Identify Improvements? If available, anticipated or realized savings in costs and/or
burdens EPA/OAR New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) under the CAA for grain elevators, amendments: updating outmoded requirements and relieving
burden RIN 2060-
AP06 The NSPS for Grain Elevators was promulgated in 1978 with the
latest amendments made in 1984. Since that time there have been a number of changes in the technology used for storing and loading/unloading grain at elevators. The rule has seen increased activity of late, due to the increase in ethanol production that has lead to larger crops of corn being grown, which, in turn, has led to a need for increased grain storage. For these reasons a review and potential change in certain definitions is necessary to ensure the appropriate standards are being applied consistently throughout the industry. Ongoing. The proposed amendments were published on 7/9/2014 - 79 FR 39241. The comment period initially closed on October 7, 2014 but was extended to Dec. 22, 2014. The final rule is expected in
Fall 2015. The grain elevator trade coalition petitioned EPA in early February 2012 to review and repeal the NSPS. The Agency is evaluating the petition in conjunction with this lookback exercise. Numerous meetings with the industry trade coalition were held throughout 2012 and 2013 to update them on the progress of the rulemaking and hear their concerns as we proceed. Comments on the proposed rule were received from numerous trade groups and individual industry members. Also, comments from approximately 10 states regulatory agencies were received, and all are being considered as we develop the final rule. The industry will realize some benefits in regulatory certainty moving forward as the current regulation is being interpreted differently across the country. EPA is proposing revisions to the standards that will clarify issues related to temporary grain
storage.

EPA/OW Water quality standard regulations: simplifying and clarifying requirements RIN 2040-
AF16 EPA has reviewed the water quality standard (WQS) regulations to identify ways to improve the Agency’s effectiveness in helping restore and maintain the Nation’s waters and to simplify standards. EPA intends for the revision to provide a better-defined pathway for states and authorized tribes to develop and implement WQS and to protect water quality. Ongoing. EPA proposed a targeted set of revisions to the WQS regulation 9/4/2013 (78 FR 54517). The comment period for the proposed rule closed 1/2/2014. EPA expects to issue a final rule in June

2015. The revisions will enable states and authorized tribes to address complex water quality challenges to protect existing water quality and facilitate environmental improvements. In addition, the revisions will lead to better understanding and proper use of available CWA tools by promoting transparent and engaged public participation. The rule uses state flexibilities related to the clarification for antidegradation, designated uses, WQS variances, and compliance schedule authorizing provisions. For example, WQS variances and compliance schedule authorizing provisions are discretionary portions of the regulation, and the rule provides a clear pathway to retain the use of these tools. With regard to the antidegradation clarifications, the rule retains state flexibility to choose an approach to identify their high quality waters, and allows selection of any alternative from a range. Similarly, the rule retains flexibility for states on how to articulate a highest attainable use and provides several examples. More information on this action, including the public listening sessions, public webinars, and public meeting held throughout the rulemaking can be found at http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/wqs_index.cfm. States, tribes, stakeholders, and the public will benefit from the clarifications of the WQS regulations by ensuring better utilization of available WQS tools (variances & designated use change) that allow states and tribes the flexibility to implement their WQS in an efficient manner while providing transparency and open public participation. Although associated with potential administrative burden and costs in some areas, the proposal has the potential to partially offset these costs by reducing regulatory uncertainty and consequently increasing overall program efficiency. Furthermore, more efficient and effective implementation of state and tribal WQS has the potential to provide a variety of economic benefits associated with cleaner water including the availability of clean, safe, and affordable drinking water, water of adequate quality for agricultural and industrial use, and water quality that supports the commercial fishing industry and higher property values. Nonmarket benefits of the proposal include the protection and improvement of public health and greater recreational opportunities.

EPA/OAR State Implementation Plan (SIP) process: reducing burden N/A EPA intends to take a number of actions to reduce SIP backlog and ensure that future SIPs are processed in a timely manner. All 10 regions have completed 4-year plans for reducing SIP backlog. Among the measures to be explored are reducing use of paper copies, assuring that hearings are held only when needed, minimizing expensive newspaper advertisements providing public notice, and exploring the potential for certain regulatory changes to be made with less process. Ongoing. The nature of the project is one of steady progress, and does not generally proceed via milestones with projected dates. Significant progress in reducing SIP backlog and in the areas mentioned is expected in 2015. The project will afford significant state flexibilities and streamlined requirements, as outlined in the summary column of this report. EPA is working with ECOS/NACAA SIP Reform Work Group to clear the SIP backlog and to improve SIP processing. All 10 EPA Regions
are involved. The benefits of this project include reducing SIP backlog, making it easier and less time-consuming to process SIPs, and moving the SIP system toward electronic processing. The improvements to the SIP development process will result in a noticeable cost and burden reduction for states. EPA Regions 3 and 5 estimate that such changes will result in approximately $165,000 to $180,000 per year in cost savings to their states.

EPA/OW National primary drinking water regulations for lead and copper: simplifying and clarifying assumptionsRIN 2040-
AF15 Efforts to revise the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) have been ongoing. This review is part of the Retrospective Review Plan because, in addition to improving public health protection, EPA is seeking ways to simplify and clarify requirements imposed on drinking water systems to maintain safe levels of lead and copper in drinking water.Ongoing. EPA currently expects to issue a proposed rulemaking in late 2016. The 1991 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper RIN 2010-AB51, has been previously reviewed and revised in 2000 RIN 2140-AC27, and 2007 RIN 2040-AE83. The agency is currently awaiting input on potential revisions to the LCR from the NDWAC working group and recommendations from the full NDWAC, which are anticipated in late 2015. Regulatory flexibilities will be considered once options are agency approved. A Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the small entities potentially subject to the rule’s requirements was completed on April 16, 2013. EPA conducted stakeholder engagement through a NDWAC working group. The NDWAC working group will provide input to the full NDWAC on 5 key issues of the LCR revisions. EPA expects to receive
recommendations from the NDCWA in late 2015.

EPA/OCSPP Certification of pesticide applicators: eliminating uncertainties and improving efficiencies RIN 2070-
AJ20 A review of EPA's regulations on certification and training of pesticide applicators will help clarify requirements and modify potentially redundant or restrictive requirements. Ongoing. EPA intends to propose improvements to these regulations in

2015. Yes. NPRM is pending, so details will be added once that is
issued. Improvements are based on extensive stakeholder engagement over several years. In addition, we will engage stakeholders during the public comment period; consult our FACAs; etc. Savings may result from 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 the regulation.Page 4 of 12 Agency Title of Initiative / Rule / ICR RIN Summary of Initiative Status of Initiative Target Completion Date Does the Initiative include regulatory flexibilities? What methods will you engage in to Identify Improvements? If available, anticipated or realized savings in costs and/or
burdens EPA/OSWER Management Standards for
Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals RIN 2050-
AG39 EPA intends to review the data and information in our possession about pharmaceutical products that may become wastes to address these issues as part of a rulemaking on pharmaceutical waste
management. Ongoing. EPA expects to publish a proposed rulemaking in summer 2015.This rule is expected to propose two conditional exemptions that provide regulatory relief: (1) for the hazardous wastes that are also DEA controlled substances, and (2) for certain types of containers that once held pharmaceuticals. EPA has been and plans to continue conducting outreach on the pharmaceuticals proposed rule.This outreach includes site visits, participation in conferences, and engaging stakeholders, including states and industry.EPA will also analyze public comments on the proposed rule. There will be cost savings in certain areas, including cost savings associated with longer accumulations times and the potential for burden reduction associated with changing how generator categories are defined, A benefit of the rule will be to ensure these pharmaceutical hazardous wastes are managed and disposed of safely. Another benefit will be to eliminate overlap in EPA and DEA regulations.

EPA/OW National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Group Regulation of Carcinogenic Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) RIN 2040-
AF29 EPA intends to coordinate drinking water regulatory requirements and regulate more cost-effectively by addressing contaminants as groups. The plan is to group contaminants into one regulation, which will utilize the same analytical methods for measurement and/or can be removed by the same treatments or control

processes. Ongoing. EPA expects to issue a proposed rulemaking in 2018. This action may revise drinking water standards for up to 8 VOCs. The standards for the 8 regulated VOCs were promulgated in phases. Phase I: July 8, 1987(Vol 52, No. 130) includes: TCE, 1,2- dichloroethane, vinyl chloride, benzene, carbon tetrachloride. Phase II&IIB: January 20, 1991(Vol 56, No 20) & July 1, 1991(Vol 52, No 126) includes: PCE and 1,2-dichloropropane. Phase V: July 17, 1992(Vol 57, No 138) includes: dichloromethane. Regulatory flexibilities will be considered once options are established (during 2016-17) and are agency approved. EPA decided to wait for UCMR3 monitoring data on three cVOCs that are being considered for the group, before continuing regulatory development of the group. UCMR3 monitoring will be completed December 2015. EPA presented potential group MCL approaches to the NDWAC for consideration at its November 2014 meeting.

EPA/OSWER Hazardous waste export-import
revisions 2050-AG77To help meet the objectives of EO 13659 "Streamlining Export/Import Process for America's Businesses", this action would propose revisions to the hazardous waste export-import requirements under RCRA to improve consistency with those for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)members; enable electronic submittal of all export and importrelated documents; and enable electronic validation of export shipment data prior to export. Ongoing. EPA expects to publish a proposed rulemaking in October 2015.This information will be available upon publication of the proposed rule. EPA will conduct target outreach to those businesses involved in or associated with import/exports of hazardous wastes. We will also notify foreign governments of the proposed changes through our regular communications channels. TBD as ICR for the proposal is under development.

EPA/OCSPP Confidential Statement of Product Specification for Pesticides N/A Under the aegis of the US-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council, EPA and Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) have developed an action plan to, among other things, address obstacles to joint pesticide registrations. As part of that plan, EPA and PMRA launched an effort to harmonize the product specification forms and facilitate joint submissions of the harmonized form. The
harmonized EPA-PMRA Confidential Statement of Product Specifications (CSPS) will reflect the current level of information already submitted to either agency and allow applicants to submit the same form to both Agencies with potentially much of the same
information and reduce the number of errors received. EPA will also investigate whether and how product specification forms could be submitted electronically. Ongoing. To be determined, subject to completion of discussions with PMRA and approval of an information collection request by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. EPA and PMRA are in the process of developing software that will enable applicants to submit the CSPS electronically. EPA is working with 9 stakeholders to test the new electronic module and to develop an implementation/release strategy based on comments and test results. Once the ICR is approved by OMB, the new electronic form will be launched as an optional program to other registrants. The current paper form will remain available for registrants to complete while the new optional electronic form is being made available. EPA plans on soliciting comments from 9 registrants on the
electronic form. This will inform our finalization of the electronic
form. Over time, EPA anticipates being able to reduce the amount of contractor support needed for manually keying in Confidential Statement of Formula (CSF) data. The return on investment is anticipated to be 15.6 months. EPA and PMRA receive many of the same errors on numerous product chemistry forms (Confidential Statement of Formula). These errors result in the form being sent back to the registrants for revisions. The availability of a joint electronic CSPS is expected to sharply curtail or eliminate the need for registrants to engage in extensive and time-consuming revisions to the specification
forms submitted in both countries.Page 5 of 12 Agency Title of Initiative / Rule / ICR RIN Summary of Initiative Status of Initiative Target Completion Date Does the Initiative include regulatory flexibilities? What methods will you engage in to Identify Improvements? If available, anticipated or realized savings in costs and/or
burdens EPA/OCSPP FIFRA Pesticide Import Revisions Rule; preproposal stage N/A Section 17(c) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C 136o(c)) governs the importation of pesticides and
devices. Under the current Customs and Border Protection regulations in 19 CFR part 12 that implement FIFRA section 17(c)(1), prior to a pesticide or device being imported into the U.S., importers or their broker submit to EPA a paper Notice of Arrival (NOA) form.
EPA reviews and evaluates the information on the NOA and determines the disposition of the shipment upon its arrival in the U.S. The determination is indicated on the NOA form, which is signed and returned to the importer. Upon arrival of the shipment, the importer must present the signed NOA form to CBP. CBP will, in consultation with EPA, propose revisions to the current regulations that would modernize the existing pre-arrival notice import procedures for pesticides and devices. Such revisions are necessary to fully implement International Trade Data System and leverage the
Automated Commercial Environment. Ongoing. The EPA regulatory development component of this rulemaking was completed with signed off to CBP for further development/ completion. Publication of CBP's proposed rule is anticipated by December 2015. Promulgation of CBP's final rule is anticipated by December 2016, consistent with EO 13659, entitled Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America’s Businesses, which requires the Federal government to create, make available, and utilize a single system for the sharing of export and import data from industry and Federal agencies. The EPA transmitted the referral package to CBP in May 2015. CBP is currently reviewing the package. Details will be added once CBP determines what it will propose. EPA consulted stakeholders and may conduct further consultations during the public comment period once CBP issues their NPRM. TBD once CBP decides on what they will propose. EPA expected benefits of this rule include the following: will make the import requirements more consistent and efficient, facilitate submittal of the Notice of Arrival (NOA) electronically through ACE, and thereby streamlining information management and communications for CBP transparency and data quality.

EPA/OCSPP TSCA Chemical Import Revisions Rule; preproposal stage N/A Section 13 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2612) governs the importation of chemicals, mixtures, and articles containing a chemical substance or mixture. Under the current CBP regulations in 19 CFR part 12 that implement TSCA section 13, an importer of a chemical substance imported in bulk or as part of a mixture, or as part of an article where specified by an appropriate TSCA rule promulgated by EPA, or the authorized agent of such an importer, must certify either that the chemical shipment is subject to TSCA and complies with all applicable rules and orders thereunder, or that the chemical shipment is not subject to TSCA. CBP will, in consultation with EPA, propose revisions to the current regulations that would modernize the existing chemical import procedures. Such revisions are necessary to fully implement International Trade Data System and leverage the Automated
Commercial Environment. Ongoing. The EPA regulatory development component of this rulemaking was completed with signed off to CBP for further development/ completion. Publication of CBP's proposed rule is anticipated by September 2015. Promulgation of CBP's final rule is anticipated by November 2016, consistent with EO 13659, entitledStreamlining the Export/Import Process for America’s Businesses, which requires the Federal government to create, make available, and utilize a single system for the sharing of export and import data from industry and Federal agencies by December 2016. The EPA transmitted the referral package to CBP in May 2015. CBP is currently reviewing the package. Details will be added once CBP determines what it will propose. EPA consulted stakeholders and may conduct further consultations during the public comment period once CBP issues their NPRM. TBD once CBP decides on what they will propose. EPA expected benefits of this rule include the following: will make the import requirements more consistent and efficient, facilitate submittal of the TSCA certifications electronically through ACE, and thereby streamlining information management and communications for CBP transparency and data quality.

EPA/OCSPP Lead-based Paint Program;
Amendment to Jurisdictions and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements 2070-AK02EPA proposed several minor amendments to the EPA lead-based paint program that would improve efficiencies and save resources for those involved. These revisions are based on our implementation experiences. Under the EPA renovation, repair and painting rule, renovators must take a certification training course every 5 years. The renovator refresher training requires an hour of hands-on learning and therefore cannot be completed online. Currently, with the initial online course, students take the classroom portion online and then travel to a training facility to complete the hands-on skill portion of the training. EPA proposed modifying the "hands-on" component for the refresher training requirements. In addition, under the lead-based paint abatement program, firms, training providers and individuals must apply for and be certified or accredited in each jurisdiction where they work (i.e., state, tribe or territory where EPA runs the abatement program). Each individual certification or accreditation must be approved by the regional office that oversees that jurisdiction. EPA anticipates the elimination of jurisdictions, and instead allowing these entities to operate under a single EPA-approved certification or accreditation wherever EPA administers the program. Ongoing. The proposed rule published on January 14, 2015. Promulgation of the final rule is anticipated later in 2015. Yes. NPRM reflects streamlined requirements, added state flexibilities and use of similar strategies to reduce burden while maintaining protections. Stakeholder consultations led to NPRM. Public comment period closed on February 13, 2015. As proposed, changing the hands-on training requirement is estimated to reduce the tuition for renovator refresher training courses by an average of $37; and is also expected to make online renovator refresher training more attractive to training providers and renovators. If renovators become recertified solely by taking an e-learning course (i.e., without an in-person component) they are estimated to save an additional $165 by avoiding the time and associated expenses needed to travel to a training site. EPA estimates savings of more than $9 million per

year. In addition, EPA estimates that removing the $35 jurisdiction fee will result in total estimated cost savings of approximately $15,000 per year to entities that apply for additional jurisdictions.Page 6 of 12 Agency Title of Initiative / Rule / ICR RIN Summary of Initiative Status of Initiative Target Completion Date Does the Initiative include regulatory flexibilities? What methods will you engage in to Identify Improvements? If available, anticipated or realized savings in costs and/or
burdens EPA/OAR SNAP Submittal Review Process Improvements N/A Through it's Significant New Alternatives Program (SNAP), EPA reviews potential alternatives to ozone-depleting chemicals that manufacturers could use in consumer products such as aerosol cans, adhesives, cleaning solvents, refrigeration and air conditioning systems. The potential chemical alternatives are submitted by the producing manufacturers, and EPA reviews and approves those that have lower detrimental impacts on the ozone while reducing the
overall risk to human health and the environment. It is in the
interest of both the environment and the industries that this review and approval process proceed expeditiously. In this project, EPA will undertake a number of process improvements to reduce the time it takes to get potential chemical alternatives approved. Examples include use of case managers responsible for specific submissions, training for staff on relevant technical topics, improving effectiveness of meetings with submitters, clarifying steps for reviews, creating and using templates for correspondence and listing decisions, updating submission forms and instructions to reduce requests for further information and clarification, improving tracking of submittals received to ensure prompt processing and communication with submitters, and working together more closely and more systematically with EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) on SNAP submittals that are also submitted to OCSPP through pre-manufacture notices for new
chemicals. Ongoing. December 2015. The project streamlines and clarifies the SNAP process in a number of ways, as discussed in the summary column of this
report. EPA will reach out to submitters and potential submitters to solicit proposed alternatives. We are confident the improvements will reduce EPA’s review time for SNAP submittals from an average of 65 weeks to an average of 19-24 weeks (60-70% improvement); even greater reductions are likely as the process improvements are fully implemented.

EPA/OSWER Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program (Parts 261-265) 2050-AG70The Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Proposed Rule will provide a much needed face lift to the regulations in order to keep pace with the needs of today’s regulated community. For example EPA expects to update the RCRA emergency preparedness and response regulations to fit in with current emergency response infrastructure and to request comment on how next generation compliance can be used to assist with compliance. Through the rule, we seek to improve understanding of the regulations, for example, by updating the biennial reporting and hazardous waste determination provisions to reflect current EPA guidance and instructions. Additionally, we expect to reorganize the regulations to make it easier for the regulated community to find applicable regulations and to reduce onerous cross-referencing. Ongoing. EPA expects to publish a proposed rulemaking in summer 2015.The Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Proposed Rule will propose a number of regulatory changes and improvements to the generator program, including regulatory relief and burden reduction associated with changing how generator categories are defined. EPA published an ANPRM (69 FR 21800, April 22, 2004) that solicited public comment on the effectiveness of the generator program. EPA also held four public meetings during this time. Over the last decade, EPA has issued several guidance documents and website updates to address public comments received on the ANPRM. However, some comments received on the NODA can only be resolved through rulemaking. The Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Proposed Rule will request public comment on a number of regulatory changes and improvements to the generator program. EPA plans to conduct outreach on the proposed rule, which includes meetings, participation in conferences and targeted outreach. EPA will also analyze public comments on the proposed rule. There will be cost savings associated with certain provisions of the Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements rule that provide additional flexibilities for generators managing
hazardous waste.

EPA/OW Reinterpreting Treatment in a Manner
Similar to a State For Clean Water Act Regulatory Programs N/A The purpose of this action is to request comments on a proposed reinterpretation of the tribal authority provision of the Clean Water Act. This section authorizes EPA to treat eligible tribes in a similar manner as a state for administering specified Clean Water Act programs. The reinterpretation would reflect changes since 1991 in case law and EPA’s experience. The reinterpretation would remove the current requirement for applicant tribes to show inherent regulatory authority; however, it would retain the requirement for tribes to identify water bodies for which jurisdiction is being
asserted. Ongoing. Proposal summer 2015. EPA proposes to streamline how tribes apply for TAS for the water quality standards program and other Clean Water Act regulatory programs. EPA conducted consultation and coordination with federally recognized tribes and with states (including intergovernmental associations) during April-September 2014. The input received helped EPA shape the proposal to answer common questions and concerns. EPA will accept comments on the proposal for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register and will offer an
informational webinar within the first month to assist the comment process. At the same time, EPA will offer further consultation and coordination opportunities to tribes and states. The proposal would reduce the administrative costs for an applicant tribe by an estimated 39% and advance cooperative federalism by facilitating tribal involvement in the protection of reservation water quality as intended by Congress.

EPA/OAR Public Notice Provisions in CAA Permitting Programs (SAN 5594.1) 2060-AS59This action proposes to enable the public notification process for CAA permitting programs to proceed electronically rather than via the print medium. New/Ongoing. EPA plans to propose this action August 2015. The E-Notice rulemaking will significantly reduce permitting burden by moving the public notification process from paper to
electronic media. EPA is consulting with stakeholders as we design the rules to effect these changes, and the public will be able to comment on the draft rules once it they havesbeen proposed. The E-Notice rule will enable state/local permitting authorities and EPA to post public notice permit actions electronically and will be significantly more cost effective than use of newspapers. Preliminary estimates suggest that modifying the public notice requirements for Title V, PSD, and NNSR permits to remove the mandatory use of newspaper notices and provide foralternatives such as the use of electronic media noticing (enotice), could save about $8.75 million per year nationally for all CAA permits issued by EPA and the State/Local/Tribal programs.Page 7 of 12 Agency Title of Initiative / Rule / ICR RIN Summary of Initiative Status of Initiative Target Completion Date Does the Initiative include regulatory flexibilities? What methods will you engage in to Identify Improvements? If available, anticipated or realized savings in costs and/or
burdens EPA/OAR Regional Haze Regulations – Revision
to SIP Submission Date and Requirements for Progress Reports (SAN 5806) 2060-AS55This action will propose to revise several process requirements of the visibility protection rules pertaining to state plans to improve and protect visibility in national parks and other designated Class I areas. The EPA will propose (1) to allow an additional 3 years (from 2018 to 2021) for states to submit their next plan for additional emission reductions to improve visibility leves, (2) to remove the requirement that progress reports be submitted as formal plan revisions thus reducing required administrative steps at the state level, (3) to make the schedule for progress reports useful, (4) to remove the requirement dating from 1980 that states assess whether there is reasonably attributable visibility impairment on a repeating 10-year cycle, and (5) to extend to all states the existing opportunity for federal land management agencies such as the National Part Service to notify a state that reasonably attributable visibility impairment is occurring due to one or a small number of sources. Additionally, proposed guidance would be issued in conjunction with the notice of proposed rulemaking to be finalized along with the final rulemaking. This guidance would clarify the regulatory elements which states must address in their regional haze SIP submittals. The substantive requirements of the existing rule will
not be amended. New/Ongoing. EPA plans to propose this action in January, 2016, with final rulemaking and guidance planned for Summer 2016. This action would remove certain existing requirements entirely for all affected states. It would allow a state to choose when, by July 31, 2021, to submit its next plan to improve visibility in Class I areas. Under the CAA and existing regulations, states already have considerable discretion to determine what emission reductions are necessary to make reasonable progress towards the goal of natural conditions of visibility. The EPA has already held several meetings and conference calls with states on the topics to be addressed in the rulemaking. EPA managers discussed rule revision and guidance concepts with
members of the Western States Air Resources Council at several of its semi-annual meetings over the two years. EPA hosted a 2-day meeting of states, multi-state organizations, federal land managers and HQ and regional office EPA staff and managers on March 3 and 4, 2015 to discuss issues and options, and three extended conference calls in July 2015. The proposed rule and guidance will be published and open for public comment. Extending the submittal deadline until 2021 will reduce regulatory burden on states since they will have additional time to coordinate their regional haze plans with other obligations to prepare emission reductions plans. Changing the progress report requirements will reduce state administrative burden by eliminating the formal regulatory steps involved in submitting an approvable plan while maintaining the right of federal land management agencies and the public to review and comment on the reports. Removing the requirement for states to periodically assess whether reasonably attributable visibility impairment is occurring will eliminate an administrative exercise, mandated in 1980, that in practice typically has accomplished little in light of the more comprehensive and specific obligations established through the 1999 Regional Haze
Rule.

EPA/OAR Exceptional Events

Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events – Rule Revisions

Guidances -Draft Guidance on the Preparation of Exceptional Event Demonstrations for Fire Events that May Influence Ozone Concentrations, and Analyses for Purposes Other than Determinations of Current Attainment of the NAAQS RIN 2060-
AS02 The EPA plans to propose revisions to the 2007 Exceptional Events Rule, under which states may request that EPA set aside air quality data that have been affected by an exceptional event. An exceptional event is a natural event or a manmade event that is unlikely to recur in the location. for both types of events, the event must have been not reasonably controllable or preventable and it
must be shown that the event is the cause of the exceedance or violation that the state seeks to have omitted. These changes to the Exceptional Events Rule are intended to resolve a number of issues that have arisen since 2007, having to do with the resources required to prepare an approvable justification for data exclusion and extended EPA review times. The changes will simplify the documentation that states must submit when they request that the EPA exclude event-affected data from regulatory determinations such as the designation of an area as nonattainment for a national ambient air quality standard. Various process simplifications will also be included, including the removal of the deadlines for certain state submittals in order to allow more appropriate schedules to be negotiated for specific cases. The changes will clarify that a state does not always have to fully quantify the impact of an exceptional event in order to convincingly show that the event has caused an exceedance or violation of an air quality standard. Along with these rule changes, the EPA will issue technical guidance to assist states in preparing documentation for requests to exclude fire-affected ozone
data. New/Ongoing. Propose rulemaking action in late 2015, with final rulemaking and guidance planned for 2016. Yes. The revisions would remove some of the fixed deadlines for submissions by states. They would also provide states the option in certain cases of relying on emission controls that were adopted and approved by EPA several years prior to the event occurrence, without re-justification of their current sufficiency.This rule and guidance development effort has been informed by several years of close engagement with state air agencies about the difficulties they have encountered in implementing the existing rule. The EPA has already had in-person and conference call discussions with states on the topics to be addressed in the rulemaking. This has included attendance by EPA managers at semi-annual meetings of state organizations over the past 4 years, monthly conference calls with committees of state air officials, extended conference calls around the time of the development and release of interim guidance documents in 2013 as well as a formal public comment process on those documents, and most recently phone calls with several individual western states in the winter of 2014/2015 to discuss their implementation experiences. The proposed rule and guidance will be published and open for public comment. States will be able to prepare shorter documents to support requests for regulatory relief in some cases, requiring fewer types of technical analysis and with less narrative. States have reported spending in excess of $100,000 for preparation of some of past demonstration documents. The savings to state air agencies are not quantifiable, because exceptional events are unpredictable and require different irreducible levels of analysis. Also, EPA has been working with states to narrow the types of
information included in demonstrations even within the provisions of the current rule, so the baseline for measuring the savings from the proposed rule changes is not stable.

EPA/OAR Clean Air Act Stationary Source Ereporting RIN 2060-
AP63 EPA intends to revise the new source performance standards for stationary sources to require affected facilities to submit specified air emissions data reports to the EPA electronically and to allow facilities to maintain electronic records of these reports. All reports are currently required to be submitted in hard copy. EPA also intends to take similar action with respect to the regulations for sources of hazardous air pollutants at a later date. New/Ongoing. EPA proposed this rulemaking on March 20, 2015. The comment period ended on June 18, 2015. EPA anticipates being able to finalize the action by early 2016. The action on regulations for sources of hazardous air pollutants will follow this action. This project will streamline recordkeeping and reporting requirements through the use of electronic recordkeeping and reporting. Reporting is streamlined through standardized forms that clearly outline required data elements. Electronic reporting eliminates redundant submittals of reports by allowing multiple agencies to access the same report. It streamlines report reviews through the use of a standardized report format and the ability to download data in order to electronically analyze it without re-entering it. In addition, this project will reduce burden as a result of allowing electronic reporting. We estimate a savings of about 160,000 hours after the program is fully implemented. The proposed rule was open for public comment for 90 days. EPA anticipates affected facilities will see reduced costs as a result of electronic reporting standardized reporting forms. Standardizing reporting formats will help ensure completeness of the data, allow for accurate assessment of data quality and result in elimination of re-reporting data that has been previously submitted. EPA estimated a cost savings to industry of approximately $300,000 per year over a 20-year period.Page 8 of 12 Agency Title of Initiative / Rule / ICR RIN Summary of Initiative Status of Initiative Target Completion Date Does the Initiative include regulatory flexibilities? What methods will you engage in to Identify Improvements? If available, anticipated or realized savings in costs and/or
burdens EPA/OSWER RCRA Corrective Action: Lean ExerciseN/A RCRA Corrective Action (CA) involves the cleanup of facilities contaminated with hazardous waste. Responsibly overseeing and prompting cleanups requires diligence and scrutiny by federal and state regulators, but administrative procedures can become redundant or otherwise inefficient over time, slowing down the process without adding benefit, resulting in unnecessary owner/operator expenditures unrelated to cleanup work and delay for communities and stakeholders awaiting the benefits of cleanup. Two EPA Regions jointly led two events applying Lean Six Sigma techniques to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the facility investigation and remedy selection phases of the CA process. From these they developed and are piloting the “RCRA Facilities Investigation Remedy Selection Track (RCRA FIRST) Toolbox” and accompanying training, to share efficiencies identified at the events and highlight opportunities to streamline the phases. New/Ongoing. The RCRA First Toolbox is projected to be completed by late in calendar year 2015. Many trainings and workshops will continue well past this date in order to disseminate the tool and to encourage and enable its use. The toolbox and overall project enable full and productive use of the underutilized flexibilities in existing CA regulations so that the program can achieve the same goals – responsible cleanup – more efficiently and effectively. The toolbox was designed with a suite of options and ideas for streamlining the investigation and remedy selection phases of a RCRA cleanup. However, Regions, states, and their project managers, as well as responsible parties have full control in choosing which, if any, of the ideas from the toolbox they may wish to use/apply. Improvements were identified through the application of Lean SixSigma Techniques at two Lean events jointly led by two EPA Regions, with participation by states and other stakeholders. Additional potential improvements will be identified through workshops, trainings, and other means of encouraging implementation of the options laid out in the toolbox and others developed through the use of the toolbox and application of its approaches, including in the regular, established communications between headquarters, regions
and states. Participants in the Lean exercises project that, if implemented, the ideas available in the toolbox could cut the avg. time for a Remedial Investigation from 10 to 5.1 yrs. (or by 49%), and reduce the average time for Remedy Selection from 6 yrs. down to as much as 1 to 2 yrs. (or by roughly 75%). Such improvements hasten cleanup, stemming contaminant migration and stimulating facility reuse, providing significant
economic and societal benefits.

EPA/OSWER Revision to the research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) permits rule for municipal
solid waste landfill bioreactors RIN 2050-
AG75 EPA is considering a proposal to increase the allowable permit term for municipal solid waste landfills that add liquids (bioreactors) operating under Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) permits in order to provide more time to support research into the performance of these types of units. New/Ongoing. EPA expects to publish a proposed rulemaking in December 2015.EPA expects to propose to increase the maximum permit term for municipal solid waste landfills units operating under RD&D permits to allow for the addition bulk liquids to the disposal unit. The addition of liquids is generally prohibited by existing regulations for MSW landfills. The Agency also expects to gather information about facilities operating under RD&D permits. The goal is to evaluate that data and consider whether and how to propose to revise the regulations to cover municipal solid waste landfills that add liquids. EPA plans to conduct outreach on the RD&D proposed rule that will include engaging stakeholders and participation in conferences and similar forums. The Agency will also analyze public comments received in response to the proposed rule.

In 2009, SWANA estimated 28 active “bioreactor” projects. In 2014, an EPA ORD report estimated there may be as many as 40 bioreactor projects in the US; however, that report indicates uncertainty as to the number of projects. As part of our information gathering, EPA anticipates refining these estimates. The Agency anticipates there will be savings in costs associated with bioreactor landfills, including (1) acceleration of landfill gas generation, thereby increasing the potential for capture and use of landfill gas as a source of fuel and reducing greenhouse gas emissions; (2) reduction in the need for post-closure care leachate control due to accelerated biodegradation of waste materials; and (3) increased efficiency in utilization of landfill space due to acceleration of waste settlement and airspace
reclamation.

The Agency believes that cost savings will come from the sale of increased methane gas generation, not treating leachate generated from the landfill, and increased landfill space from rapid settlement.

The increased volume of gas makes converting methane gas to electric energy an easier decision because the higher volume of gas reduces the cost of the equipment per unit cost of gas.

Landfill space settlement occurs rapidly at a bioreactor and allows more waste to be placed in the landfill without increasing its height.

EPA/OAR Gasoline and diesel regulations: reducing reporting and recordkeeping. Vehicle regulations: harmonizing criteria air pollutant requirements with CARB RIN 2060- AQ86 As part of the Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards rule, EPA reviewed existing gasoline and diesel regulations that apply to fuel producers, ethanol blenders, fuel distributors, and others for areas where recordkeeping and reporting obligations can be modified to reduce burden. In regard to vehicle regulations, EPA is assessing opportunities to harmonize testing and compliance requirements
with CARB’s vehicle emission standards. Completed. Final rule published 4/28/2014 (79 FR 23413). http://www.epa.gov/otaq/tier3.htm 40 CFR Part 80 - Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives. Subpart D - Reformulated Gasoline (80.40 through 80.89) Subpart E - Anti-Dumping (Conventional Gasoline) (80.90 through 80.124) Subpart H - Gasoline Sulfur (80.180 through 80.415) Subpart J - Gasoline Toxics (MSAT1) (80.800 - 80.1045) Subpart L - Gasoline Benzene (MSAT2) (80.1200 - 80.1363) A Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the small entities potentially subject to the rule’s requirements was completed on October 3,

2011.

EPA/OECA and EPA/OW Regulatory certainty for farmers: working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and states EPA worked with USDA and state governments to explore flexible, voluntary approaches for farmers to achieve water quality improvements. Completed. January 2013. In October, 2012, EPA met with Chesapeake Bay State Agriculture and Environment Directors. In November, 2012, EPA met with Bay state officials and key stakeholder groups. An anticipated outcome is that one or more of these states adopt certainty programs that encourage more farmers to adopt BMPs to reduce runoff of excess nutrients and sediment. In January, 2012, EPA signed an agreement with Minnesota on "Engaging in a State and Federal Partnership in Support of the Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program." EPA and USDA have met with officials from Vermont and communicated with Maryland and Delaware who have indicated their intentions to move forward with certainty programs. EPA's Region 3 office will provide support to that effort. We will coordinate with USDA as needed as they work with their state partners to develop agricultural certainty programs. Anticipated benefits include increased adoption of best management practices (BMPs) that reduce runoff of excess
nutrients and sediment.Page 9 of 12 Agency Title of Initiative / Rule / ICR RIN Summary of Initiative Status of Initiative Target Completion Date Does the Initiative include regulatory flexibilities? What methods will you engage in to Identify Improvements? If available, anticipated or realized savings in costs and/or
burdens EPA/OCSPP Electronic online reporting of health and safety data under TSCA, FIFRA and FFDCA: reducing burden and improving efficiencies. Quick changes to some TSCA reporting requirements; reducing burden. RIN 2070-
AJ75 EPA explored transitioning from paper-based reporting to electronic reporting for industries regulated under TSCA, FIFRA, and FFDCA. Online electronic reporting can reduce burden and costs for regulated entities. The changes to TSCA reporting requirements are intended to reduce reporting burdens and to clarify reporting requirements. Considerations include the submission of an electronic copy in the place of 6 paper copies, the additional requirement of including "Robust Summaries" of test results with test data, and the use of the Inventory UpdateReporting Form to format submission of preliminary assessment information. Completed. EPA issued a final rule related to Electronic reporting under TSCA on December 4, 2013. (78 FR 72818) With regard to electronic reporting under FIFRA & FFDCA, on October 14, 2011, EPA implemented an electronic submission option via CD/DVD that covers many aspects of the pesticides registration processes. EPA provided detailed guidance and a down-loadable tool to facilitate electronic submission via CD/DVD of registration and endocrine disruptor screening program orders. Online electronic reporting is expected to reduce burden and costs for the regulated entities by eliminating the costs associated with printing and mailing reports to EPA, many of which are required in multiple copies, completing the forms through look-up features and error checks, and maintaining paper records. It is also providing the opportunity for increased efficiencies in terms of record retrieval and information sharing within the company. At the same time, it will improve EPA’s efficiency in reviewing the submissions, in particular for lengthy
scientific studies. The regulated community has indicated that these savings could be substantial, but there may be an initial offset from burden related to initial registration into the system that will be used for the online reporting portal.

EPA/OSWER National Priorities List rules: improving transparency EPA improved transparency in the NPL listing process by considering ways for states, local governments, and tribes to have meaningful input to listing decisions. Completed. January 2013. See: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/nplstcor.ht

m
EPA is initiating a more structured approach for the process by which state and tribal input on NPL listing decisions is solicited. A model letter has been developed for use when requesting state and tribal support for NPL listing. The model letter 1) explains the concerns at the site and the EPA’s rationale for proceeding; 2) requests an explanation of how the state intends to address the site if placement on the NPL is not favored; and 3) emphasizes the transparent nature of the process by informing states that information on their responses will be publicly available. EPA/OW Integrated planning for municipal
wastewater and stormwater sources.N/A When EPA requested public comments on how we should meet the Executive Order 13563, several commenters raised concerns that EPA, states and municipalities often focus on Clean Water Act requirements applicable to municipalities, including requirements for CSOs, SSOs and other wet weather discharges, individually, assessing and implementing the best alternative to solve one problem at a time without adequate consideration of the entire water quality challenge facing a community. This review is included in the Plan so that EPA can gather additional information on how to better promote green infrastructure, to promote more cost-effective remedies to CSO, SSO and other wet weather violations and to identify additional approaches that balance competing CWA requirements and allows municipalities to develop a comprehensive plan that addresses CSOs, SSOs, stormwater and other municipal CWA requirements in a way that focuses their resources on the most pressing public health and environmental protection issues first. Completed. EPA issued the Integrated Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater Planning Approach framework document on June 5, 2012 that more fully describes the integrated planning concept. http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/stormwater/upload/integra ted_planning_framework.pdf This effort gives municipalities the opportunity to develop and implement plans that will help them meet their water quality objectives in the most cost-effective way. It allows municipalities to take advantage of some innovative practices, such as green infrastructure, that can be used to address several issues, such as CSOs, SSOs, and stormwater discharges. Green infrastructure offers municipalities other benefits as well, such as making their communities more livable, reducing the urban heat island effect, and saving energy.

EPA/OAR Vehicle Regulations: harmonizing requirements for GHG and Fuel Economy Standards RIN 2060- AQ54 The National Program for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and fuel economy standards was developed jointly by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and applies to light duty cars and trucks in model years 2012-2016 (first phase)and2017-2025 (second phase).Completed. Final joint rulemaking published 10/15/2012 - 77 FR 62623. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regs-light-duty.htm The rulemaking is directly responsive to requests from the auto industry to harmonize DOT's fuel economy standards, EPA's greenhouse gas standards and CARB's greenhouse gas
standards. This will allow the auto manufacturers to more efficiently produce one vehicle fleet to meet the requirements of the "National Program."

EPA/OAR Multiple air pollutants: coordinating emission reduction regulations and using innovative technologies RIN 2060- AQ41 EPA intends to explore ways to reduce emissions of multiple air 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. An early example of this approach is a rule amending pollution-control requirements for the pulp and paper industry. Completed. Final rule issued 9/11/2012 - 77 FR 55698. Market analysis found that the proposal is likely to induce minimal changes in the average national price of paper and paperboard products. The control costs for the proposed rule amendments are estimated to be approximately $4.1M per year with associated emission reductions of approximately 4,100 tons per year of HAP. Total industry costs (repeat testing/monitoring and incremental reporting/recordkeeping requirements in addition to controls) are estimated to be approximately $2.1M

per year.Page 10 of 12 Agency Title of Initiative / Rule / ICR RIN Summary of Initiative Status of Initiative Target Completion Date Does the Initiative include regulatory flexibilities? What methods will you engage in to Identify Improvements? If available, anticipated or realized savings in costs and/or
burdens EPA/OP Innovative technology: seeking to spur new markets and utilize technology N/A EPA assessed technology during retrospective reviews and new rulemakings to help encourage development of innovative technologies that reduce costs. EPA also plans to update monitoring and testing protocols to allow the use of new methods and technologies, where feasible. Support for the newly formed regional water technology innovation cluster will continue. Completed. EPA completed the pilot(s) in 2012. The DfE market analysis pilot was completed in 2012 and was focused on understanding the drivers, needs, barriers, and selection criteria used by a company when an alternative flame retardant is considered or employed. A second pilot study was completed in December 2012 with OW focused on mountain top mining water pollution technologies. This action was not designed to reduce costs or information burdens; its desired outcome is to stimulate the incorporation of the most up to date technology in regulatory programs. EPA hopes to explore the potential for expanding alternative technologies and processes in the market that will offer new possibilities for reducing environmental and health impacts.

EPA/OP The costs of regulations: improving
cost estimates N/A The goals of the Retrospective Cost Study are to evaluate whether exante and ex-post cost estimates of regulations differ substantially and, if so, to explore the reasons causing the divergence. If systematic differences in between ex ante and ex post cost estimates are detected, we hope to identify the source of the
differences and determine if there are defensible means of correcting for them in our ex-ante cost estimation methodology. Completed. After incorporating comments received from an SAB-EEAC review of EPA's Interim Report, EPA released "Retrospective Study of the Costs of EPA Regulations: A Report of Four Case Studies" in August 2014. The final report is available at:http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE0575.pdf/$file/EE-0575.pdf The ultimate goals of this effort are to improve our ex-ante cost modeling and to inform future revisions to EPA’s Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses.

EPA/OAR Vehicle fuel vapor recovery systems: eliminating redundancy RIN 2060- AQ97 EPA intends to seek burden reductions for gas stations by eliminating regulatory requirements that call for the use of redundant technology. Completed. Final rule published 5/16/2012 - 77 FR 28772. The EPA projects that during 2013-2015, gasoline-dispensing facilities (GDFs) in up to 19 states and the District of Columbia could seek to decommission and remove Stage II systems from their dispensers. There are about 30,600 GDFs with Stage II in these 20 areas. If the states submit and EPA approves SIP revisions to remove Stage II systems from these GDFs, the EPA projects savings of about $10.2 million in the first year, $40.5 million in the second year, and $70.9 million in the third year. Long-term savings are projected to be about $91 million per year, compared to the current use of Stage II systems in these

areas. EPA estimates the long-term cost savings associated with this rule to be approximately $91million per year (2011$).

EPA/OSWER E-Manifest: reducing burden RIN 2050-
AG20 This rule establishes the legal and policy framework for collecting hazardous waste shipment data electronically, thereby replacing the current, burdensome paper manifest system that requires 6-copy forms to be completed, carried and signed manually. Completed. The final rule was published on February 7, 2014 (79 FR 7517). Implementation of e-Manifest could result in annual cost savings exceeding 75 million, and annual burden reductions of between 370,000 and 700,000.

EPA/OSWER Electronic hazardous waste Site ID form: reducing burden N/A EPA explored ways to reduce burden for hazardous waste generators, transporters, and holders of waste permits. Completed. eSiteID was deployed and initial CROMERR approval from the Office of Environmental Information was provided to the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on 2/22/13. 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 submit updates of past submissions (rather than repeatedly filling out the form again and again); and 4) enable states and EPA to receive the updated data faster.

EPA/OW Consumer confidence reports for primary drinking water regulations: providing for the open exchange of
information N/A EPA explored ways to promote greater transparency and public participation in protecting the nation’s drinking water, while at the same time looking for opportunities to reduce utility burden. Completed. On January 3, 2013, EPA released an interpretive memo allowing for electronic delivery of CCRs and a document summarizing CCR issues and recommended next steps for utilities to enhance public access to information on drinking water quality. In FY 2012, EPA began review of the CCR, including an internal comparison of the statute and CCR rule language and formation of an EPA workgroup. EPA determined that the current rule language will allow for additional delivery options (e.g., electronic delivery). To gather information from stakeholders, a Listening Session was held on February 23, 2012. The web-based dialogue was opened for two weeks allowing for states, utilities, and consumers to provide feedback on CCR delivery and on other issues. EPA held a public meeting in October 2012 to obtain feedback on its draft framework for electronic delivery of CCRs. The draft was available for a 30-day public comment period. On January 3, 2013, EPA released an interpretive memo on CCR delivery options, with an attachment describing electronic delivery considerations for states and utilities, and a summary of issues raised by stakeholders. EPA estimated a cost savings of approximately $1,000,000 (2010$) per year, based on the anticipated reduction in postage and paper costs for systems serving ≥10,000 customers. EPA developed estimated cost savings to utilities for several different electronic delivery scenarios.Page 11 of 12 Agency Title of Initiative / Rule / ICR RIN Summary of Initiative Status of Initiative Target Completion Date Does the Initiative include regulatory flexibilities? What methods will you engage in to Identify Improvements? If available, anticipated or realized savings in costs and/or
burdens EPA/OW Reporting requirements under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) reducing burden N/A EPA explored ways to reduce the burden on state governments when reporting on the quality of the nation’s water bodies. Completed. The report for this effort was completed in April 2013. See http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/guidance.
cfm Burden reduction is anticipated through clarifying processes and providing opportunities for States and EPA Regions to be more efficient in handling data. Accomplishments include: completion of a LEAN event; completion of four workgroups that focused on identifying minimum data elements, improving data flows, improving measures, and streamlining state assessment of monitoring data; discussions underway as part of an Integrated Project Team, which is coordinating with the Exchange Network; and transition to catchment-based indexing for performance measures and processing. Not available at this time.

EPA/OCSPP Export notification for chemicals and pesticides: reducing burden and improving efficiencies N/A EPA evaluated options to reduce regulatory burden on pesticide exporters and foreign countries monitoring these exports, as industry suggests that these requirements do not appear to provide comparable benefits to public health or the environment. Completed. In 2009/2010, EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an evaluation entitled, “EPA Needs to Comply with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and Improve its Oversight of Exported Never-Registered Pesticides (Report No. 10- P-0026).” EPA evaluated the OIG report and in response to the audit, developed a “Corrective Action Plan,” which has since been implemented.

EPA/OSWER Adjusting threshold planning quantities (TPQs) for solids in solution: reducing burden and relying on scientific objectivity RIN 2050-
AF08 EPA is reviewed the manner by which the regulated community would apply the threshold planning quantities (TPQs) for those extremely hazardous substances (EHSs) that are non-reactive solid chemicals in solution. This would allow facilities reporting EHSs for the first time to have larger quantities on-site and not be subject to the reporting requirements. Completed. Final rule published 3/22/2012 (77 FR 16679). EPA has revised the manner by which the regulated community would apply the threshold planning quantities (TPQs) for those extremely hazardous substances (EHSs) that are non-reactive solid chemicals in solution. This allows facilities reporting EHSs for the first time to have larger quantities on-site and not be subject to the emergency planning notification reporting requirements. This final rule allows facilities to have larger
amounts of EHS solids in solution on site than before without being subject to certain emergency planning notification requirements. In addition, the changes in reporting will allow state and local emergency planners to better focus limited resources on amounts of chemicals that will potentially cause the greatest harm and to spend fewer resources on those that pose less harm when released.

EPA/OCSPP Integrated pesticide registration reviews: reducing burden and improving efficiencies N/A EPA reviewed the pesticide registration review process, as well as other FIFRA requirements. Completed. The new procedure were put in place in March 2013. This is an ongoing program, so the efforts and commitments described apply
to future activities. EPA has bundled several sets of chemicals together as part of registration review, including the organophosphates, the carbamates, the pyrethroids, the nonicotinoid insecticides, and the sulfonylurea herbicides. In addition, to enhance label clarity and potentially reduce regulatory burdens on industry refining data requirements to support pesticide re-evaluation, EPA began holding "Focus meetings." "Focus meetings" ensured hat EPA and all interested stakeholders begin communicating early in the process to ensure the accuracy of information about pesticide use, as well as early identification of data needs to support re-evaluation decisions.

EPA/OSWER Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) reforms: improving efficiencies and
effectiveness N/A EPA examined existing PCB guidance and regulations to harmonize regulatory requirements related to harmful PCB uses and to PCBcleanup. The disposal and cleanup requirements for PCBcontaminated building material depend on whether the material is classified as PCB bulk product waste or PCB remediation waste. The Agency intends to issue a Federal Register notice that solicits comment on guidance that reinterprets the definition of PCB bulk product waste. EPA believes that this proposed reinterpretation would allow for accelerated cleanups of PCB-contaminated building material by providing a more straightforward path for disposal pursuant to the regulations. Speeding up removal and disposal of the PCB-contaminated material is critical for reducing exposurepotential, such as in schools or other locations where such PCBcontaminated building materials are currently in place. Completed. On October 24, 2012, OSWER released the final PCB Bulk Waste Reinterpretation. The reinterpretation is available to the public at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/caulk/reint erpret.htm Increased number and speed of cleanups of PCB caulk and PCB paint contaminationPage 12 of 12 Agency Title of Initiative / Rule / ICR RIN Summary of Initiative Status of Initiative Target Completion Date Does the Initiative include regulatory flexibilities? What methods will you engage in to Identify Improvements? If available, anticipated or realized savings in costs and/or
burdens EPA/OSWER Hazardous waste requirements for retail products: clarifying and making the program more effective N/A EPA intended to review its regulations to determine whether to issue guidance in the short term concerning certain pharmaceutical containers. One of the top priorities identified through further conversations with retailers was clarity on how to manage containers such as pill bottles that once contained a p-listed pharmaceutical hazardous waste since the containers usually have some sort of residue. Under the RCRA regulations these containers are NOT considered empty unless they are triple rinsed. EPA committed to investigate whether guidance in this area was feasible and appropriate. Completed. EPA decided that guidance was needed to provide clarity and national voice on how to manage these containers that once held p-listed hazardous waste pharmaceuticals. States had taken a wide variety of approaches and stakeholders beyond retailers were asking for assistance on this issue. After talking with various stakeholders including Walmart and gathering limited available data on the p-listed pharmaceutical residues inside these containers, EPA issued a guidance memorandum on November 4,

2011. The guidance on how to manage containers that contain residues from pharmaceuticals that were p-listed hazardous waste when discarded provides regulated entities with various options on how to approach the management of these containers. We anticipate that some generators, who were becoming large quantity generators due to counting the residue and container weight towards their generator status, will be able to maintain a lower generator status by managing their containers according to the memo, resulting in costs savings associated with paperwork and training.

EPA/OSWER Hazardous Waste Requirements for
Retail Products RIN 2050-
AG72 This NODA is part of the Agency’s effort to better understand concerns from all stakeholders about RCRA’s applicability to the retail sector, what materials may be affected, what the full scope of the issues are, and what options may exist for addressing the issues.Completed. EPA published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) on February 14, 2014 (79 FR 8926). EPA anticipates publishing two proposed rules, the Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule and the Pharmaceuticals Rule, (which are specific listed items in this report), in summer 2015. These rules respond to many of the comments received in the NODA. In addition, EPA is developing a retail sector strategy to address other comments from the NODA. EPA expects to make this strategy publicly available in spring 2015.There will be regulatory relief associated with the Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule and Pharmaceuticals proposed rule in terms of burden reduction associated with changing how generator categories are defined. Prior to publishing the NODA, EPA previously conducted outreach activities with various stakeholders in the retail community to gather additional information regarding the hazardous waste issues they are facing and to better understand challenges faced by the retail sector in complying with the RCRA hazardous waste generator regulations. EPA plans to conduct outreach on the proposed rules and is developing a strategy to engage the regulated community on remaining issues. This strategy includes site visits, meetings, participation in conferences and targeted outreach. EPA will also analyze public comments on the proposed rules. There will be cost savings associated with the Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements and Pharmaceuticals proposed rules in terms of burden reduction associated with changing how generator categories are defined.

EPA/OP Section 610 reviews: coordinating requirements N/A To the extent practicable, EPA will coordinate Section 610 reviews with other statutorily or Presidentially mandated retrospective
reviews. Completed. The list of rules for which upcoming 610 reviews are required are posted on EPA's Small Entities and Rulemaking website (http://www.epa.gov/rfa/section-610.html). Other required retrospective reviews for each rule will be indicated. EPA is committed to maintaining the public list and coordinating reviews when practicable. Each specific Section 610 review that can be coordinated with another review requirement will save Agency resources and reduce burden on the public responding to and commenting on
reviews.