### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

Statement of Priorities

OVERVIEW

For more than 40 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has worked to protect people’s

health and the environment. By taking advantage of the best thinking, the newest technologies and the

most cost-effective, sustainable solutions, EPA has fostered innovation and cleaned up pollution in the

places where people live, work, play and learn.

With a renewed focus on the challenges ahead, science, law and transparency continue to guide EPA

decisions. EPA will leverage resources with grant and incentive-based programs, sound scientific advice,

technical and compliance assistance and tools that support states, tribes, cities, towns, rural communities

and the private sector in their efforts to address our shared challenges, including:

• making a visible difference in communities across the country;

• a d dressing climate change and improving air quality;

• taking action on toxics and chemical safety;

• protecting water: a precious, limited resource;

• launching a new era of state, tribal and local partnership; and

• working toward a sustainable future.

EPA and its federal, state, local, and community partners have made enormous progress in protecting the

nation's health and environment. From reducing mercury and other toxic air pollution to doubling the fuel

efficiency of our cars and trucks, the Agency is working to save lives and protect the environment. In

addition, while removing a billion tons of pollution from the air, the Agency has produced hundreds of

billions of dollars in benefits for the American people.

HIGHLIGHTS OF EPA'S REGULATORY PLAN

### EPA's more than forty years of protecting human health and the environment demonstrates our nation's

commitment to reducing pollution that can threaten the air we breathe, the water we use and the

communities we live in. This Regulatory Plan contains information on some of our most important

upcoming regulatory actions. As always, our Semiannual Regulatory Agenda contains information on a

broader spectrum of EPA's upcoming regulatory actions.

Six Guiding Priorities

The EPA's success depends on supporting innovation and creativity in both what we do and how we do it.

To guide the agency's efforts, the Agency has established several guiding priorities. These priorities are

enumerated in the list that follows, along with recent progress and future objectives for each.

1. Making a Visible Difference in Communities Across the Country

Enhance Agricultural Worker Protection. Based on years of extensive stakeholder engagement and

public meetings, EPA is developing a proposal to strengthen the existing agricultural worker protection

regulation under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The changes under

consideration aim to improve pesticide safety training and agricultural workers’ ability to protect

themselves and their families from potential secondary exposure to pesticides and pesticide residues.

The proposed revisions will address key environmental justice concerns for a population that may be

disproportionately affected by pesticide exposure. Other changes under development are intended to

bring hazard communication requirements more in line with Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) requirements, and seek to clarify current requirements to facilitate program

implementation and enforcement.

Environmental Justice in Rulemaking . EPA will continue to focus attention on improving the

environment in communities that have been adversely or disproportionately impacted by exposure to

environmental hazards and pollution. EPA is supporting innovative and sustainable solutions, integrated

with community development and private investments.

### 2. Addressing Climate Change and Improving Air Quality

The Agency will continue to deploy existing regulatory tools where appropriate and warranted. Addressing

climate change calls for coordinated national and global efforts to reduce emissions and develop new

technologies that can be deployed. Using the Clean Air Act, EPA will continue to develop greenhouse gas

standards for both mobile and stationary sources.

Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Power Plants. In April of 2012, EPA proposed emission

standards for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from new electric power plants. A supplemental

proposal was issued in September of this year. The proposed standards, if finalized, will establish

achievable limits of carbon pollution per megawatt hour for all future units, moving the nation towards a

cleaner and more efficient energy future. In 2014, EPA intends to propose standards of performance for

greenhouse gas emissions from existing and modified power plant sources.

Carbon Capture and Storage. EPA proposed a rule to clarify the applicability of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste regulations to certain Carbon Capture and

Storage (CCS) activities. The proposed rule, if finalized, will conditionally exclude CO 2 

### streams from

RC R A hazardous waste requirements when injected into a Class VI Underground Injection Control (UIC)

well and meeting certain other conditions. Specifically, the rule will work in conjunction with the Safe

Drinking Water Act's Class VI Underground Injection Control Rule, which governs the geological

sequestration of CO 2 

### streams by providing regulatory clarity for defining and managing these CO2

st r eams, and help facilitate the deployment of CCS.

Since passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990, nationwide air quality has improved

significantly for the six criteria air pollutants for which there are national ambient air quality standards, as

well as many other hazardous air pollutants. Long-term exposure to air pollution can cause cancer and

damage to the immune, neurological, reproductive, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems.

### Reviewing and Implementing Air Quality Standards. Despite progress, millions of Americans still live

in areas that exceed one or more of the national air pollution standards. This year's regulatory plan

describes efforts to review the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead.

Tier 3 Vehicle and Fuel Standards. In May of this year, EPA proposed vehicle emission and fuel

standards to further reduce NOx, PM, and other harmful air toxics. These standards will also help states

to achieve air quality standards. EPA expects to publish a final rule establishing these standards in

February of 2014.

Cleaner Air From Improved Technology. EPA continues to address hazardous air pollution under

authority of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The centerpiece of this effort is the "Maximum

Achievable Control Technology" (MACT) program, which requires that all major sources of a given type

use emission controls that better reflect the current state of the art. In February of this year, EPA expects

to propose a rule that will review existing MACT standards for Petroleum Refineries to reduce residual

risk and assure that the standards reflect current technology.

3. Taking Action on Toxics and Chemical Safety

One of EPA’s highest priorities is to make significant progress in assuring the safety of chemicals. Using

sound science- as a compass, EPA protects individuals, families, and the environment from potential risks

of pesticides and other chemicals. In its implementation of these programs, EPA uses several different

statutory authorities, including the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the

Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the

Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), as well as collaborative and voluntary activities. In FY 2014, the Agency

will continue to satisfy its overall directives under these authorities, and highlights the following actions in

this Regulatory Plan:

EPA’s Existing Chemicals Management Program Under TSCA. As part of EPA’s ongoing efforts to

ensure the safety of chemicals, EPA plans to take a range of identified regulatory actions for certain

### chemicals and assess other chemicals to determine if risk reduction action is needed to address potential

concerns.

Addressing Formaldehyde Used in Composite Wood Products. As directed by the

Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act of 2010, EPA is developing final regulations

to address formaldehyde emissions from hardwood plywood, particleboard and medium-density

fiberboard that is sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured in the United States.

Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security. In addition to the actions noted in this Regulatory

Plan, the Executive Order 13650 on Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security directs federal

agencies to work with stakeholders to improve chemical safety and security through agency programs,

private sector initiatives, federal guidance, standards, and regulations. During the course of implementing

this executive order, EPA, along with the Department of Homeland Security, including the National

Protection and Programs Directorate, the Transportation Security Agency, and the United States Coast

Guard; the Occupational Safety and Health Administration; the United States Department of Justice,

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; the United States Department of Agriculture; and the United

States Department of Transportation, will assess whether its regulations should be modified or new

regulations developed to improve upon chemical safety and security. EPA will initiate rulemaking if the

assessment warrants it.

4. Protecting Water: A Precious, Limited Resource

Despite considerable progress, America’s waters remain imperiled. Water quality protection programs

face complex challenges, from nutrient loadings and stormwater runoff to invasive species and drinking

water contaminants. These challenges demand both traditional and innovative strategies.

Stormwater. Urban stormwater is a leading source of impairment and a fast growing water quality

concern. Over 60% of regulated municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) discharge to impaired

### waters. Stormwater from newly developed areas is one of the nation’s largest growing sources of water

pollution. Approximately 800,000 acres are developed every year and projected to grow to over 1.0

million acres by 2040. Development increases the amount of impervious cover in the landscape and even

small increases in impervious cover lead to big impacts in receiving waters. As more land is developed

and new impervious surfaces are created, the volume, velocity, and pollutants contained in storm water

increases.

EPA is considering a range of regulatory and non-regulatory options to reduce the pollutant loads

delivered by storm water discharges to receiving waters and improve water quality and aquatic ecosystem

integrity, and to protect water quality from certain currently unregulated storm water discharges. EPA

plans to work closely with state and local governments in this effort and will consider innovative

approaches to address these issues.

Improving Water Quality. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to address challenging

water quality issues in several rulemakings during fiscal year 2014.

Cooling Water Intake Structures. EPA plans to finalize standards for cooling water intakes for electric

power plants and for manufacturers who use large amounts of cooling water. The goal of the final rule will

be to protect aquatic organisms from being killed or injured through impingement or entrainment.

Steam Electric Power Plants. EPA will establish national technology-based regulations, called effluent

guidelines, to reduce discharges of pollutants from industries to waters of the U.S. and publicly owned

treatment works. These requirements are incorporated into National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System discharge permits issued by EPA and states. The steam electric effluent guidelines apply to

steam electric power plants using nuclear or fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and natural gas. Power plant

discharges can have major impacts on water quality, including reduced organism abundance and species

diversity, contamination of drinking water sources, and other health effects. Pollutants of concern include

metals (e.g., mercury, arsenic and selenium), nutrients, and total dissolved solids.

### Definition of “Waters of the United States” Under the Clean Water Act. After U.S. Supreme Court

decisions in SWANCC and Rapanos, the scope of “waters of the US” protected under Clean Water Act

(CWA) programs has been an issue of considerable debate and uncertainty. The Act does not distinguish

among programs as to what constitutes “waters of the United States.” As a result, these decisions affect

the geographic scope of all CWA programs. SWANCC and Rapanos did not invalidate the current

regulatory definition of “waters of the United States.” However, the decisions established important

considerations for how those regulations should be interpreted. Experience implementing the regulations

following the two court cases has identified several areas that could benefit from additional clarification

through rulemaking.

5. Launching a New Era of State, Tribal and Local Partnership

EPA's success depends more than ever on working with increasingly capable and environmentally

conscious partners. States have demonstrated leadership on managing environmental challenges and

EPA wants to build on and complement their work. EPA supports state and tribal capacity to ensure that

programs are consistently delivered nationwide. This provides EPA and its intergovernmental partners

with an opportunity to further strengthen their working relationship and, thereby, more effectively pursue

their shared goal of protecting the nation’s environmental and public health. The history and future of

environmental protection will be built on this type of collaboration.

New Native American Affairs Council. By Executive Order, President Obama established the White

House Council on Native American Affairs in 2013. The policy behind the formation of this council is to

recognize the government–to-government relationship, as well as the unique legal and political

relationship that exists between the federal government and tribes. Greater EPA engagement and

consultation is critical to policies that advance tribal self-determination and prosperity.

6. Working Toward a Sustainable Future

### Allowing the Use of Electronic Manifests. The e-Manifest Final rule will codify certain provisions of the

“Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act,” which direct EPA to adopt a regulation by

October 5, 2013 that authorizes the use of electronic manifests to track hazardous waste shipments

nationwide. The Act also instructs EPA to develop a user-fee funded e-Manifest system by October 2015.

Pursuant to the Act, EPA will soon issue a regulation that will allow hazardous waste handlers to use

electronic manifest documents to track hazardous waste from the time the waste leaves the generator

facility where it was produced, until it reaches the off-site waste management facility that will store, treat,

or dispose of the hazardous waste. EPA will issue a subsequent rulemaking that will establish the

schedule of user fees for the system and announce the date on which the system will be implemented

and available to users.

Once the e-Manifest regulation is adopted and the national e-Manifest system becomes available,

hazardous waste handlers will be able to complete, sign, transmit, and store electronic manifests through

the national IT system, or they can elect to continue tracking the hazardous waste under the paper

manifest system. Further, waste handlers that currently submit manifests to the states will no longer be

required to do so, as EPA will collect both the remaining paper manifest copies and electronic manifests

in the national system, and will disseminate the manifest data to those states that want it. The adoption

of e-Manifest will eliminate the current impediments to automation in the current manifest regulations,

such as the requirements to physically carry paper forms with hazardous waste shipments; sign manifest

copies “by-hand;” manually file copies; and mail copies to waste handlers and authorized states. EPA will

clarify which electronic signature methods may be used when executing electronic manifests in the first

generation of the national e-Manifest system, as well as to specify how issues of public access to

manifest information will be addressed when manifest data are submitted and processed electronically.

The priorities described above will guide EPA's work in the years ahead. They are built around the

challenges and opportunities inherent in our mission to protect health and the environment for all

Americans. This mission is carried out by respecting EPA's core values of science, transparency and the

rule of law. Within these parameters, EPA carefully considers the impacts its regulatory actions will have

on society.

### Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

Just as today's economy is vastly different from that of 40 years before, EPA's regulatory program is

evolving to recognize the progress that has already been made in environmental protection and to

incorporate new technologies and approaches that allow us to accomplish our mission more efficiently

and effectively.

Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review" (Jan. 18,

2011), the following Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated with

retrospective review and analysis in the Agency's final retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of

these entries on this list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory Plan

. However, more information can be found about these completed rulemakings in past publications of the

Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov in the Completed Actions section for that agency. These rulemakings can

also be found on Regulations.gov. EPA's final agency plan can be found at:

http://www.epa.gov/regdarrt/retrospective/.

Regulatory Identifier

Number (RIN) Rulemaking Title

2060-AQ86 Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission

and Fuel Standards

2060-AO60 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Review under CAA -111(b)(1)(B)

2060-AP06 New Source Performance Standards for Grain Elevators – Amendments

2070-AJ75 Electronic Reporting under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

2040-AF15 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Regulatory

Revisions

2040-AF16 Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications

2040-AF25 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Application and

Program Updates Rule

### 2040-AF29 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Group Regulation of

Carcinogenic Volatile Organic Compound (VOCs)

2050-AG39 Management Standards for Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals

2050-AG72 Hazardous Waste Requirements for Retail Products; Clarifying and Making the

Program More Effective

2050-AG20 Hazardous Waste Manifest Revisions - Standards and Procedures for

Electronic Manifests

Burden Reduction

As described above, EPA continues to review its existing regulations in an effort to achieve its mission in

the most efficient means possible. To this end, the Agency is committed to identifying areas in its

regulatory program where significant savings or quantifiable reductions in paperwork burdens might be

achieved, as outlined in Executive Order 13610, while protecting public health and our environment.

Rules Expected to Affect Small Entities - By better coordinating small business activities, EPA aims to

improve its technical assistance and outreach efforts, minimize burdens to small businesses in its

regulations, and simplify small businesses' participation in its voluntary programs. Actions that may affect

small entities can be tracked on EPA's Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker

(http://www.epa.gov/regdarrt/) at any time. This Plan includes a number of rules that may be of particular

interest to small entities:

Regulatory Identifier

Number (RIN) Rulemaking Title

2060-AQ86 Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Mo tor Vehicle Emission

and Fuel Standards

2060-AQ91 Standard of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Modified

Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units

2070-AJ92 Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products

### International Regulatory Cooperation Activities

EPA has considered international regulatory cooperation activities as described in Executive Order 13609

and has identified two international activities that are anticipated to lead to significant regulations in the

following year:

Regulatory Identifier

Number (RIN) Rulemaking Title

2070-AJ44 Formaldehyde; Third-Party Certification Framework for the Formaldehyde

Standards for Composite Wood Products

2070-AJ92 Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products

BIL LING CODEThe 14 Actions Described in the Regulatory Plan

Title Regulation Identifier Number Rulemaking Stage

Definition of "Waters of the United States" Under the Clean Water Act 2040-AF30 Proposed Rule Stage

Criteria and Standards for Cooling Water Intake Structures 2040-AE95 Final Rule Stage

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category 2040-AF14 Final Rule Stage

Hazardous Waste Manifest Revisions--Standards and Procedures for Electronic Manifests 2050-AG20 Final Rule Stage

Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead 2060-AQ44 Proposed Rule Stage

Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and NSPS 2060-AQ75 Proposed Rule Stage

Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units 2060-AQ91 Proposed Rule Stage

Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units 2060-AR33 Proposed Rule Stage

Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Modified Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units 2060-AR88 Proposed Rule Stage

Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards 2060-AQ86 Final Rule Stage

Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements 2060-AR34 Final Rule Stage

Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions 2070-AJ22 Proposed Rule Stage

Formaldehyde; Third-Party Certification Framework for the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products 2070-AJ44 Final Rule Stage

Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood Products 2070-AJ92 Final Rule Stage

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water ( WATER ) RIN: 2040-AF30

View Related Documents

Title: Definition of "Waters of the United States" Under the Clean Water Act
Abstract: After U.S. Supreme Court decisions in SWANCC and Rapanos, the scope of "waters of the US" protected under all CWA programs has been an issue of considerable debate and uncertainty. The Act has a single definition for "waters of the United States." As a result, these decisions affect the geographic scope of all CWA programs. SWANCC and Rapanos did not invalidate the current regulatory definition of "waters of the United States." However, the decisions established important considerations for how those regulations should be interpreted, and experience implementing the regulations has identified several areas that could benefit from additional clarification through rulemaking. U.S. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are developing a proposed rule for determining whether a water is protected by the Clean Water Act. This rule would make clear which waterbodies are protected under the Clean Water Act.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 33 USC 1251 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: After U.S. Supreme Court decisions in SWANCC and Rapanos, the scope of "waters of the US" protected under all CWA programs has been an issue of considerable debate and uncertainty. The Act has a single definition for "waters of the United States." As a result, these decisions affect the geographic scope of all CWA programs. SWANCC and Rapanos did not invalidate the current regulatory definition of "waters of the United States." However, the decisions established important considerations for how those regulations should be interpreted, and experience implementing the regulations has identified several areas that could benefit from additional clarification through rulemaking. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are developing a proposed rule for determining whether a water is protected by the Clean Water Act. This rule would clarify which water bodies are protected under the Clean Water Act.

Legal Basis: To be determined.

Alternatives: To be determined.Costs and Benefits: To be determined.

Risks: To be determined.
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 12/00/2013

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined
Federalism: Undetermined Energy Affected: No Agency Contact: Donna Downing Environmental Protection Agency Water 4502T, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460 Phone: 202 566- 1367 E-Mail: Downing.Donna@epamail.epa.gov Agency Contact: Rachel Fertik Environmental Protection Agency Water 4502T, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460 Phone: 202 566- 1452 E-Mail: Fertik.Rachel@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water ( WATER ) RIN: 2040-AE95

View Related Documents

Title: Criteria and Standards for Cooling Water Intake Structures
Abstract: Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to ensure that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. Under a consent decree with environmental organizations, EPA divided the 316(b) rulemaking into three phases. All new facilities except offshore oil and gas exploration facilities were addressed in Phase I in December 2001. In July, 2004, EPA promulgated Phase II which covered large existing electric generating plants. In July 2007, EPA suspended the Phase II rule following the Second Circuit decision. Several parties petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review that decision, and the Supreme Court granted the petitions, limited to the issue of whether the Clean Water Act authorized EPA to consider the relationship of costs and benefits in establishing 316(b) standards. On April 1, 2009, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit subsequently granted a request from EPA that the case be returned to the Agency for further consideration. In June 2006, EPA promulgated the Phase III regulation, covering existing electric generating plants using less than 50 MGD of cooling water, new offshore oil and gas facilities, and all existing manufacturing facilities. Petitions to review this rule were filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In July 2010, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision upholding EPA's rule for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities. The court also granted the request of EPA and environmental petitioners to remand the existing facility portion of the rule to the Agency. EPA entered a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in two lawsuits related to Section 316(b) rulemakings. Under the settlement agreement EPA agreed to sign a notice of a proposed rulemaking implementing section 316(b) of the CWA at existing facilities no later than March 28, 2011 and to sign a notice taking final action on the proposed rule no later than November 4, 2013 as discussed below. Plaintiffs agreed to seek dismissal of both their suits, subject to a request to reopen one of the lawsuits in the event EPA failed to meet the deadlines. EPA's proposed regulation includes uniform controls at all existing facilities to prevent fish from being trapped against screens (impingement), site-specific controls for existing facilities other than new units to prevent fish from being drawn through cooling systems (entrainment), and uniform controls equivalent to closed cycle cooling for new units at existing facilities (entrainment). Other regulatory options analyzed included similar uniform impingement controls, and progressively more stringent requirements for entrainment controls. Another option considered would imposed the uniform impingement controls only for facilities withdrawing 50 or more MGD of cooling water, with site-specific impingement controls for facilities withdrawing less than 50 MGD. EPA issued two Notices of Data Availability in June 2012 that described measures to provide additional flexibility that EPA is considering as part of the impingement mortality standard and that described the preliminary results of surveys of households' willingness to pay for incremental reductions in fish mortality. In light of the Supreme Court 2009 decision and its recognition that EPA has broad discretion in its 316(b) regulations, EPA initiated consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. EPA and the Services began informal consultation in 2012, but concluded in 2013 that formal consultation was necessary. In order to accommodate the regulatory 135-day time frame for formal consultation, plaintiffs agreed to a modification to the settlement agreement, extending final rule deadline to November 4, 2013.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: Private Sector
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 122; 40 CFR 125 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations )Legal Authority: CWA 101; CWA 301; CWA 304; CWA 308; CWA 316; CWA 401; CWA 402; CWA 501; CWA 510 Legal Deadline:

Action Source Description Date

NPRM Judicial NPRM: 3/28/2011 - Settlement Agreement - As per 14 day extension granted 3/10 (or 4 days if no CR). Riverkeeper v. EPA, 06-12987, SDNY (signed 11/22/2010). 03/28/2011

Other Judicial Settlement Agreement 01/14/2014

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: Cooling water is withdrawn for the purpose of dissipating waste heat from industrial processes. Over half of all water withdrawn in the United States each year is for cooling purposes. The withdrawal of cooling water removes and kills hundreds of billions of aquatic organisms from waters of the United States each year, including plankton, fish, crustaceans, shellfish, sea turtles, and marine mammals. In addition to direct loss of organisms, a number of indirect, ecosystem-level effects may also occur, and environmental degradation can result from the cumulative impacts. The long life of the capital equipment in industries withdrawing cooling water implies that these adverse environmental impacts could continue for decades. Private decision making at facilities that use cooling water may not take society's preferences for fish protection into account. The beneficiaries of fish protection at cooling water intakes include fisherman, and citizens interested in well-functioning and healthy aquatic ecosystems. In addition, deregulation in the electric industry has made it more difficult for merchant power producers to both remain competitive and pass along to consumers costs associated with fish protection, putting them at a disadvantage to rate-regulated electric utilities that are vertically integrated.

Legal Basis: The Clean Water Act requires EPA to establish best technology available standards to minimize adverse environmental impacts from cooling water intake structures. On February 16, 2004, EPA took final action on regulations governing cooling water intake structures at certain existing power producing facilities under section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (Phase II rule). 69 FR 41576 (July 9, 2004). These regulations were challenged, and the Second Circuit remanded several provisions of the Phase II rule on various grounds. Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA, 475F.3d83, (2d Cir., 2007). EPA suspended most of the rule in response to the remand. 72 FR 37107 (July 9, 2007). The remand of Phase III does not change permitting requirements for these facilities. Until the new rule is issued, permit directors continue to issue permits on a case-by-case, Best Professional Judgment basis for existing facilities.

Alternatives: This analysis will cover various sizes and types of potentially regulated facilities and control technologies. EPA is considering whether to regulate on a national basis, by subcategory, by broad water body category, or some other basis.

Costs and Benefits: The technologies under consideration in this rulemaking are similar to the technologies considered for the original Phase II and Phase III rules, and costs have been updated to 2009. The annual social costs associated with EPA's proposed regulation are $384 million, plus an additional $15 million in costs associated with the new units provision. The annual social costs of the other options ranged from $327 million to $4.63 billion. EPA monetized only a portion of the expected annual benefits of the rule, amounting to $18 million. The monetized benefits for the other options ranged from $17 million to $126 million. EPA also conducted a stated preference survey to provide a more comprehensive estimate of the monetized benefits and expects to have the Science Advisory Board review this study.

Risks: Cooling water intake structures may pose significant risks for aquatic ecosystems.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 04/20/2011 76 FR 22174

NPRM Comment Period Extended 07/20/2011 76 FR 43230

Notice 06/11/2012 77 FR 34315

Notice 06/12/2012 77 FR 34927

Final Rule 01/00/2014

Additional Information: Docket #:EPA- HQ-OW-2008-0667

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State
Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: No
RIN Information URL: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/index.cfm
Sectors Affected: 336412; 332999; 321999; 324199; 326299; 331521; 331524; 331315; 311313; 313210; 311312; 327310; 611310; 333120; 333922; 331525; 339914; 211111; 321912; 332211; 312140; 221121; 221122; 331112; 313320; 333111; 311225; 221112; 332212; 332510; 221111; 212210; 331111; 221210; 211112; 221113; 332323; 221119; 332618; 332439; 332919; 321918; 312229; 333923; 322130; 324110; 325992; 333315; 212391; 332117; 331312; 331419; 333911; 336510; 321219; 326192; 331221; 322291; 321113; 331492; 337215; 321212; 311222; 221330; 331222; 111991; 111930; 311311; 326211; 312210; 311221 Agency Contact: Tom Born Environmental Protection Agency Water 4303T, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460Phone: 202 566-1001 FAX: 202 566-1053 E- Mail: born.tom@epamail.epa.gov Agency Contact: Julie Hewitt Environmental Protection Agency Water 4303T, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460 Phone: 202 566- 1031 E-Mail: hewitt.julie@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water ( WATER ) RIN: 2040-AF14

View Related Documents

Title: Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category
Abstract: EPA establishes national technology-based regulations, called effluent limitations guidelines and standards, to reduce discharges of pollutants from industries to waters of the U.S. These requirements are incorporated into National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permits issued by EPA and States and through the national pretreatment program. The steam electric effluent limitations guidelines and standards apply to steam electric power plants using nuclear or fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and natural gas. There are about 1,200 nuclear- and fossil-fueled steam electric power plants nationwide; approximately 500 of these power plants are coal-fired. In a study completed in 2009, EPA found that the current regulations, which were last updated in 1982, do not adequately address the pollutants being discharged and have not kept pace with changes that have occurred in the electric power industry over the last three decades. The rulemaking may address discharges associated with coal ash waste and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) air pollution controls, as well as other power plant waste streams. Power plant discharges can have major impacts on water quality, including reduced organism abundance and species diversity, contamination of drinking water sources, and other effects. Pollutants of concern include metals (e.g., mercury, arsenic and selenium), nutrients, and total dissolved solids. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on June 17, 2013 ("Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category," 78 Federal Register 110 (7 June 2013), pp. 34432 - pp. 34543).

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 423 (revision) (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 33 USC 1311; 33 USC 1314; 33 USC 1316; 33 USC 1317; 33 USC 1318; 33 USC 1342; 33 USC 1361 Legal Deadline:

Action Source Description Date

NPRM Judicial Consent Decree 04/19/2013

Other Judicial 5/22/2014 - Consent Decree deadline for Final Action - Defenders of Wildlife v. Jackson, 10-1915, D. D.C. 05/22/2014

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: Steam electric power plants contribute over half of all toxic pollutants discharged to surface waters by all industrial categories currently regulated in the United States under the Clean Water Act. For example, steam electric plants annually discharge: • 64,400 lb. of lead • 2,820 lb. of mercury • 79,200 lb. of arsenic • 225,000 lb. of selenium • 1,970,000 lb. of aluminum • 4,990,000 lb. of zinc • 30,000,000 lb. of nitrogen • 682,000 lb. of phosphorus • 14,500,000 lb. of manganese • 158,000 lb. of vanadium; and • 27 other pollutants. Discharges of these toxic pollutants are linked to cancer, neurological damage, and ecological damage. Many of these toxic pollutants, once in the environment, remain there for years. These pollutant discharges contribute to: • over 160 water bodies not meeting State quality standards • 185 waters for which there are fish consumption advisories; and • degradation of 399 water bodies across the country that are drinking water supplies. The revised steam electric rule would strengthen the existing controls on discharges from these plants. It would set the first Federal limits on the levels of toxic metals in wastewater that can be discharged from power plants, based on technology improvements in the industry over the last three decades.

Legal Basis: Section 301(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to promulgate effluent limitations for categories of point sources, using technology-based standards that govern the sources' discharge of certain pollutants. 33 USC Section 1311(b). Section 304(b) of the Act directs EPA to develop effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) that identify certain technologies and control measures available to achieve effluent reductions for each point source category, specifying factors to be taken into account in identifying those technologies and control measures. 33 U.S.C. Section 1314(b). Since the 1970s, EPA has formulated effluent limitations and ELGs in tandem through a single administrative process. Am. Frozen Food Inst. v. Train, 539 F.2d 107 (D.C. Cir. 1976). The CWA also requires EPA to perform an annual review of existing ELGs and to revise them, if appropriate. 33 U.S.C. Section 1314(b); see also 33 U.S.C. Section 1314(m)(1)(A). EPA originally established effluent limitations and guidelines for the steam electric generating industry in 1974 and last updated them in 1982. 47 Fed. Reg. 52,290 (Nov. 19, 1982). As described above, EPA determined the existing regulations do not adequately address the pollutants being discharged and that revisions are appropriate.Alternatives: Due to the widespread discharge of pollutants in steam electric discharges, EPA has not identified alternatives to regulation.

Costs and Benefits: EPA recently proposed revisions to the steam electric rule and identified a range of preferred regulatory options. EPA's estimates of the annual social costs of the steam electric rule range from $185 million to $954 million with associated annual pollutant discharge reductions of 470 million to 2.62 billion pounds and water use reductions of 50 billion to 103 billion gallons. EPA's estimate of the monetized benefits, which only includes a portion of the benefits, range from $139 million to $483 million.

Risks: Effluent limitations guidelines and standards are technology based discharge requirements. As such, EPA has not assessed risk associated with this action. However, as detailed in the Statement of Need, toxic pollutant discharges from steam electric plants are linked to cancer, neurological damage, and ecological damage.
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 06/07/2013 78 FR 34431

NPRM Comment Period Extended 07/12/2013 78 FR 41907

Final Rule 05/00/2014

Additional Information: Docket #:EPA- HQ-OW-2009-0819

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined
Federalism: Yes Energy Affected: No
RIN Information URL: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steam_index.cfm
Sectors Affected: 22111; 221112; 221113 Agency Contact: Ronald Jordan Environmental Protection Agency Water 4303T, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460 Phone: 202 566- 1003 FAX: 202 566- 1053 E-Mail: Jordan.Ronald@epamail.epa.gov Agency Contact: Jezebele Alicea Environmental Protection Agency Water 4303T, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460 Phone: 202 566- 1755 FAX: 202 566- 1053 E-Mail: alicea.jezebele@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Solid Waste and Emergency Response ( SWER ) RIN: 2050-AG20

View Related Documents

Title: Hazardous Waste Manifest Revisions--Standards and Procedures for Electronic Manifests
Abstract: The "Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act," signed into law by the President on October 5, 2012, established the authority for an electronic manifest program, including the development of a system collection of user fees and the establishment of an advisory group. The Act requires that the EPA issue regulations by October 5, 2013 that authorize the use of electronic manifests in lieu of the current manifest form (i.e., EPA Form 8700-22 and 8700-22A). There are between 4.6 to 5.6 million manifests processed each year, including manifests for State-defined hazardous wastes. Pursuant to the Act, this action is aimed at finalizing the development of EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulatory standards and procedures that will govern the initiation, signing, transmittal, and retention of hazardous waste manifests using electronic documents and systems. EPA proposed electronic manifest standards in May 2001 as part of a more general manifest revision action that also addressed standardizing the paper manifest form's data elements and procedures (EPA Form 8700-22). The May 2001 electronic manifest proposed rule was a standards-based decentralized approach under which EPA would establish and maintain the standards that would guide the development of electronic manifest systems by private sector entities that chose to participate in the system. Since the proposal, the Agency has (1) continued its engagement with affected industry,States, and the general public to solicit input on the development of a nationwide e-manifest system, and (2) published an emanifest approach in an April 18, 2006, Notice of Data Availability. EPA envisions that an e-manifest system will facilitate the electronic transmittal of manifests throughout the hazardous waste shipping process, including enabling better transparency by sharing data with the public at appropriate stages. This rule does not address the collection of fees, which will be dealt with in a subsequent rulemaking.Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 260; 40 CFR 262; 40 CFR 263; 40 CFR 264; 40 CFR 265; 40 CFR 271 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 42 USC 6922; 42 USC 6923; 42 USC 6924; 42 USC 6926; PL 105-277 Legal Deadline:

Action Source Description Date

Other Statutory The Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act of 2012 requires the EPA to authorize the use of e-manifests by October 5, 2013. 10/05/2013

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: Federal and State laws for the current paper-based manifest system require hazardous waste handlers(i.e., generators, transporter, and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities) to track hazardous waste shipments from cradle-tograve using the uniform hazardous waste manifest form (EPA Form 8700-22). Currently, hazardous waste handlers prepare between 4.6 to 5.6 million manifests annually. The current paper-based manifest system is inefficient and waste handlers incur substantial costs to comply with the current requirements to complete, carry, sign, file, and mail paper manifest copies. EPA has been exploring ways to reduce burden for hazardous waste handlers by transitioning from a paper-based reporting system to an electronic reporting system. This is consistent with EO 13563's directive to reduce regulatory burden. This action also codifies new statutory provisions contained in the "Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act," which directs EPA to issue a regulation that authorizes use of electronic manifests for tracking hazardous wastes."

Legal Basis: The President signed the "Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act" into law on October 5, 2012. The Act amended RCRA to direct the EPA Administrator to establish a hazardous waste electronic manifest system. Section 2(g)(1)(A) of the Act directs EPA to promulgate final regulations, after consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, authorizing the use of electronic manifests within one year of enactment (i.e., by October 5, 2013). Section 2(b) directs the Agency to establish an e-Manifest system that may be used by any user within three years from the date of enactment of the Act (i.e., by October 5, 2015). This action simply codifies several of the provisions of the e-Manifest Act and authorizes the use of the electronic manifests that will be available when the information technology (IT) system is developed and operational.

Alternatives: EPA has explored various electronic manifest approaches for tracking hazardous wastes. In May 2001, EPA proposed a standards-based decentralized approach under which EPA would establish and maintain the standards that would guide the development of electronic manifest systems by private sector entities that chose to participate in the system. In May 2004, EPA held a two-day public meeting to solicit input and preferences from stakeholders and other interested persons on the development and implementation of the e-Manifest. Based on comments to the 2001 proposed rule and input received from stakeholders at the public meeting, EPA published a follow-up notice in April 2006, which announced and requested comment on EPA's preferred approach for electronically completing and transmitting manifests through a national, centralized web-based IT system.

Costs and Benefits: This action does not establish a system for the collection of electronic manifests, nor does it compel industry or State stakeholders now using the paper manifest system to change their behavior and thus incur costs or benefits. This action simply establishes the legal and policy framework for the national e-Manifest system and by itself will not result in any tangible costs, benefits, or other impacts to the regulated community or the Government at this time. The e-Manifest option will only become available when EPA develops and implements this new electronic system and establishes a program of fees to be imposed upon users of the e-manifest system. A subsequent rulemaking will establish the schedule of user fees for the system and announce the date on which the e-Manifest will be implemented and available to users. While this action does not quantify the economic benefits for an e-Manifest system, EPA expects that the non-economic benefits will be significant as the system will provide (1) much improved data quality from the manifest creation and editing aids that will be available in an electronic system; (2) greater inspection and oversight efficiencies for regulators who can access manifests more readily with electronic search aids; (3) greater transparency for and empowerment of communities with more accurate information about completed waste shipments and management trends; and (4) the efficiencies of consolidating duplicative Federal and State waste data reporting requirements with one-stop reporting.

Risks: This action does not address any particular risks in EPA's jurisdiction as it does not change existing requirements for manifesting hazardous waste shipments. It merely authorizes the use of electronic manifests at such time as the system to receive them is built and operational.
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 05/22/2001 66 FR 28240

Notice 04/01/2004 69 FR 17145

Notice 04/18/2006 71 FR 19842

Notice 02/26/2008 73 FR 10204

Final Rule 11/00/2013

Additional Information: Docket #:EPA- HQ-RCRA-2001-0032

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State; TribalSmall Entities Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: No
RIN Information URL: www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/manifest/
Sectors Affected: 325; 2211; 332; 2122; 2111; 326; 331; 323; 3221; 482; 484; 5621; 5622; 483 Agency Contact: Rich LaShier Environmental Protection Agency Solid Waste and Emergency Response 5304P, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460 Phone: 703 308- 8796 FAX: 703 308- 0514 E-Mail: LaShier.Rich@epa.gov Agency Contact: Bryan Groce Environmental Protection Agency Solid Waste and Emergency Response 5304P, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460 Phone: 703 308- 8750 FAX: 703 308- 0514 E-Mail: Groce.Bryan@epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air and Radiation ( AR ) RIN: 2060-AQ44

View Related Documents

Title: Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead
Abstract: Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, EPA is required to review and if appropriate, revise the air quality criteria for the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) every 5 years. On November 12, 2008, EPA published a final rule to revise the primary and secondary NAAQS for lead to provide increased protection for public health and welfare. EPA has now initiated the next review. This new review includes the preparation of an Integrated Review Plan, an Integrated Science Assessment, and, if warranted, a Risk/Exposure Assessment, and also a Policy Assessment Document by EPA, with opportunities for review by EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the public. These documents inform the Administrator's proposed decision as to whether to retain or revise the standards. This decision will be published in the Federal Register with opportunity provided for public comment. The Administrator's final decisions will take into consideration these documents and public comment on the proposed decision.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: No
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 50 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 42 USC 7408; 42 USC 7409 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, EPA is required to review and if appropriate revise the air quality criteria for the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) every 5 years. In the last lead NAAQS review, EPA published a final rule on November 12, 2008, to revise the primary and secondary NAAQS for lead to provide increased protection for public health and welfare.

Legal Basis: Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, EPA is required to review and if appropriate revise the air quality criteria for the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) every 5
years.

Alternatives: The main alternative for the Administrator's decision on the review of the national ambient air quality standards for lead is whether to retain or revise the existing standards.

Costs and Benefits: The Clean Air Act makes clear that the economic and technical feasibility of attaining standards are not to be considered in setting or revising the NAAQS, although such factors may be considered in the development of State plans to implement the standards. Accordingly, when the Agency proposes revisions to the standards, the Agency prepares cost and benefit information in order to provide States information that may be useful in considering different implementation strategies for meeting proposed or final standards. In those instances, cost and benefit information is generally included in the regulatory analysis accompanying the final rule.

Risks: As part of the review, EPA prepares an Integrated Review Plan, an Integrated Science Assessment, and, if warranted, a Risk/Exposure Assessment, and also a Policy Assessment Document, with opportunities for review by EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the public. These documents inform the Administrator's proposed decision as to whether toretain or revise the standards. The proposed decision will be published in the Federal Register with opportunity provided for public comment. The Administrator's final decisions will take into consideration these documents and public comment on the proposed decision.
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Final Rule

NPRM 07/00/2014

Additional Information: Docket #:EPA- HQ-OAR-2010-0108

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Undetermined
Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: No
RIN Information URL: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_index.html Agency Contact: Deirdre Murphy Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation C539-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Research Triangle Park , NC 27709 Phone: 919 541- 0729 FAX: 919 541- 0840 E-Mail: murphy.deirdre@epa.gov Agency Contact: Karen Martin Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation C504-06, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711 Phone: 919 541- 5274 FAX: 919 541- 0237 E-Mail: Martin.Karen@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air and Radiation ( AR ) RIN: 2060-AQ75

View Related Documents

Title: Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and NSPS
Abstract: This action pertains to the Petroleum Refining industry and specifically to petroleum refinery sources that are subject to maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards in 40 CFR part 63, subparts CC (Refinery MACT 1) and UUU (Refinery MACT 2) and new source performance standards (NSPS) in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja. This action is the Petroleum Refining Sector Rulemaking which will address our obligation to perform Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR) for Petroleum Refinery MACT 1 and 2 source categories and will address issues related to the reconsideration of Petroleum Refinery New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) subpart Ja. Petroleum refineries are facilities engaged in refining and producing products made from crude oil or unfinished petroleum derivatives. Emission sources include petroleum refinery-specific process units unique to the industry, such as fluid catalytic cracking units (FCCU) and catalytic reforming units (CRU), as well as units and processes commonly found at other types of manufacturing facilities (including petroleum refineries), such as storage vessels and wastewater treatment plants. Refinery MACT 1 regulates hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from common processes such as miscellaneous process vents (e.g., delayed coking vents), storage vessels, wastewater, equipment leaks, loading racks, marine tank vessel loading, and heat exchange systems at petroleum refineries. Refinery MACT 2 regulates HAP from those processes that are unique to the industry including sulfur recovery units (SRU) and from catalyst regeneration in FCCU and CRU.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: No
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60; 40 CFR 63 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: Clean Air Act sec 111 and 112 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that existing air toxics standards undergo periodic review. In this action, EPA will conduct such a review for the Petroleum Refineries MACT standard, as well as addressing issues that have arisen regarding the Petroleum Refineries New Source Performance Standard.

Legal Basis: The periodic air -toxics-standard reviews are required by CAA section 112. New Source Performance Standards are issued under CAA section 111.Alternatives: Not yet determined.

Costs and Benefits: EPA is currently assessing the costs and benefits associated with this action.

Risks: EPA is currently assessing risks for this action.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 02/00/2014

Final Rule 01/00/2015

Additional Information: Docket #:EPA- HQ-OAR-2010-0682

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No
Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: No
RIN Information URL: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/petrefine/petrefpg.html
Sectors Affected: 324110 Agency Contact: Brenda Shine Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation E143-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711 Phone: 919 541- 3608 FAX: 919 541- 0246 E-Mail: shine.brenda@epamail.epa.gov Agency Contact: Penny Lassiter Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation E143-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711 Phone: 919 541- 5396 FAX: 919 541- 0246 E-Mail: lassiter.penny@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air and Radiation ( AR ) RIN: 2060-AQ91

View Related Documents

Title: Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units
Abstract: This action will establish the first new source performance standards for greenhouse gas emissions. This rule will establish CO2 emission standards for certain new fossil fuel-fired electric generating units.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: CAA 111 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: EGU GHG NSPS is the first action item in President Obama's Climate Action Plan (CAP). The CAP called for EPA to issue a proposal by September 20, 2013, to regulate carbon emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants.

Legal Basis: CO2 is a regulated pollutant and, thus, is subject to regulation under section 111 of the Clean Air Act as Amended in 1990.

Alternatives: None.

Costs and Benefits: No costs and no quantified benefits.

Risks: The risk addressed is the current and future threat of climate change to public health and welfare, as demonstrated in the 2009 Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The EPA made this determination based primarily upon the recent, major assessments by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 04/13/2012 77 FR 22392

Second NPRM 11/00/2013

Additional Information: Docket #:EPA- HQ-OAR-2011-0660

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No
Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: No
Public Comment URL: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQOAR -2011-0660-0001
Sectors Affected: 221 Agency Contact: Christian Fellner Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711 Phone: 919 541- 4003 FAX: 919 541- 5450 E-Mail: fellner.christian@epa.gov Agency Contact: Nick Hutson Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711 Phone: 919 451- 2968 FAX: 919 541- 5450 E-Mail: hutson.nick@epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air and Radiation ( AR ) RIN: 2060-AR33

View Related Documents

Title: Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units
Abstract: On June 25, 2013, President Obama issued a presidential memorandum directing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to work expeditiously to complete greenhouse standards for the power sector. The agency is using its authority under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to issue emission guidelines, to address greenhouse gases (GHG) from existing power plants. The presidential memorandum specifically directs EPA to build on state leadership, provide flexibility and take advantage of a wide range of energy sources and technologies towards building a cleaner power sector. The presidential memorandum directs EPA to issue proposed GHG standards, regulations or guidelines, as appropriate, for existing power plants by no later than June 1, 2014, and issue final standards, regulations or guidelines, as appropriate, by no later than June 1, 2015. In addition, the presidential memorandum directs EPA to include in the guidelines addressing existing power plants a requirement that states submit to EPA the implementation plans required under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations by no later than June 30, 2016.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: CAA 111 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: On December 7, 2009, the EPA found that current and projected concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. Electric generating units (EGUs) are the single biggest stationary source of greenhouse gases and account for well over a third of all greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Recognizing that greenhouse gases pose a threat to the public health and welfare and that EGUs are one of the largest sources of GHG emissions, the EPA has begun taking regulatory steps to ensure reductions of GHG emissions from EGUs. The regulatory path that the EPA has embarked upon commits the agency to regulating emissions from, not just new EGUs, but also existing EGUs.

Legal Basis: EPA will use the Clean Air Act authority under section 111 (d) to set GHG guidelines for states to set GHG standards for existing EGU sources. The Clean Air Act (CAA) gives the Agency broad authority to set standards for emissions of "air pollutants." GHGs have been determined by the U.S. Supreme Court to be "air pollutants" that are subject to regulation under the CAA. Because of this and the fact that GHGs are not currently regulated under either National Ambient Air QualityStandards or under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, EPA has the authority to address them under the NSPS program.

Alternatives: Not yet determined.

Costs and Benefits: At this time we do not have any estimates regarding the benefits and costs of this action, but we do expect it to be a significant regulatory action with annual effects on the economy exceeding $100 million.

Risks: Not yet determined.
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 06/00/2014

Final Rule 06/00/2015

Additional Information: Docket #:EPA- HQ-OAR-2013-0602. Split from RIN 2060-AQ91.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: State; Tribal
Federalism: Yes Energy Affected: Yes
Related RINs: Split From 2060 -AQ91 Agency Contact: Sharon Nizich Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation D243, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711 Phone: 919 541- 2825 FAX: 919 541- 5450 E-Mail: nizich.sharon@epamail.epa.gov Agency Contact: Lisa Conner Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation D205-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711 Phone: 919 541- 5060 E-Mail: conner.lisa@epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air and Radiation ( AR ) RIN: 2060-AR88

View Related Documents

Title: Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Modified Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units
Abstract: This action will amend the electric generating units (EGU) New Source Performance Standards for modified sources for greenhouse gas (GHG) under Clean Air Act section 111(b).

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: CAA 111 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: On December 7, 2009, the EPA found that current and projected concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. Electric generating units (EGUs) are the single biggest stationary source of greenhouse gases and account for well over a third of all greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Recognizing that greenhouse gases pose a threat to the public health and welfare and that EGUs are one of the largest sources of GHG emissions, the EPA has begun taking regulatory steps to ensure reductions of GHG emissions from EGUs. The regulatory path that the EPA has embarked upon commits the agency to regulating emissions from, not just new EGUs, but also existing EGUs (including those that are modified).

Legal Basis: EPA will use the Clean Air Act authority under section 111 (b) to set GHG standards for modified EGU sources. The Clean Air Act (CAA) gives the Agency broad authority to set standards for emissions of "air pollutants." GHGs have been determined by the U.S. Supreme Court to be "air pollutants" that are subject to regulation under the CAA. Because of this and the fact that GHGs are not currently regulated under either National Ambient Air Quality Standards or under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, EPA has the authority to address them under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) program.Alternatives: Not yet determined.

Costs and Benefits: At this time we do not have any estimates regarding the benefits and costs of this action, but we do expect it to be a significant regulatory action with annual effects on the economy exceeding $100 million.

Risks: Not yet determined.
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 06/00/2014

Final Rule 06/00/2015

Additional Information: Docket #:EPA- HQ-OAR-2013-0603. Split from RIN 2060-AQ91

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Federal; State; Tribal
Federalism: No Energy Affected: Yes
Related RINs: Related to 2060 -AQ91; Related to 2060 -AR33 Agency Contact: Sharon Nizich Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation D243, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711 Phone: 919 541- 2825 FAX: 919 541- 5450 E-Mail: nizich.sharon@epamail.epa.gov Agency Contact: Lisa Conner Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation D205-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711 Phone: 919 541- 5060 E-Mail: conner.lisa@epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air and Radiation ( AR ) RIN: 2060-AQ86

View Related Documents

Title: Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards
Abstract: This action would establish more stringent vehicle emissions standards and reduce the sulfur content of gasoline as part of a systems approach to addressing the impacts of motor vehicles and fuels on air quality and public health. The rule would result in significant reductions in pollutants such as ozone, particulate matter, and air toxics across the country and help state and local agencies in their efforts to attain and maintain health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These proposed vehicle standards are intended to harmonize with California's Low Emission Vehicle program, thus creating a federal vehicle emissions program that would allow automakers to sell the same vehicles in all 50 states. The vehicle standards would also coordinate with the light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas standards for model years 2017-2025, creating a nationwide alignment of vehicle programs for criteria pollutant and greenhouse gases.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: Private Sector
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 80; 40 CFR 86; 40 CFR 85; 40 CFR 600; 40 CFR 1036; 40 CFR 1037; 40 CFR 1065; 40 CFR 1066 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: Clean Air Act sec 202(a); Clean Air Act sec 202(k); Clean Air Act sec 211(c) Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: States are working to attain National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, PM and NOx. Light-duty vehicles are responsible for a significant portion of the precursors to these pollutants and are large contributors to ambient air toxic pollution. In many nonattainment areas, by 2014, cars and light trucks are projected to contribute 30 to 45 percent of total nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions, 20 to 25 percent of total volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, and 5 to 10 percent of total direct particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions. Importantly, without future controls, by 2020 mobile sources are expected to be as much as 50 percent of the inventories of these pollutants for some individual urban areas. EPA has estimated that light-duty vehicles will contribute about half of the 2030 mobile source inventory of air toxics emissions from all mobile sources. The most recent National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment showed that, in 2005, mobile sources were responsible for over 50 percent of the cancer risk and noncancer hazard.

Legal Basis: The Clean Air Act section 202(a) provides EPA with general authority to prescribe vehicle standards, subject toany specific limitations elsewhere in the Act. In addition, section 202(k) provides EPA with authority to issue and revise regulations applicable to evaporative emissions of hydrocarbons from all gasoline-fueled motor vehicles. EPA is also using its authority under section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act to address gasoline sulfur controls.

Alternatives: The rulemaking proposal discussed regulatory alternatives that were considered in addition to the Agency's primary proposal.

Costs and Benefits: EPA estimates that the proposed program would cost about a penny per gallon of gasoline, and about $130 per vehicle. The annual cost of the overall program in 2030 would be approximately $3.4 billion; however, EPA estimates that in 2030 the annual monetized health benefits of the proposed Tier 3 standards would be between $8 and $23 billion.

Risks: Approximately 158 million people currently live in counties designated nonattainment for one or more of the NAAQS, and this figure does not include the people living in areas with a risk of exceeding the NAAQS in the future. These people experience unhealthy levels of air pollution, which are linked with respiratory and cardiovascular problems and other adverse health impacts that lead to increased medication use, hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and premature mortality. The reductions in ambient ozone and PM2.5 that would result from the proposed Tier 3 standards would provide significant health benefits. In addition, more than 50 million people live, work, or go to school in close proximity to high-traffic roadways, and the average American spends more than one hour traveling along roads each day. Exposure to traffic-related pollutants has been linked with adverse health impacts such as respiratory problems (particularly in asthmatic children) and cardiovascular problems. The Tier 3 standards would reduce criteria pollutant and air toxic emissions from cars and light trucks, which continue to be a significant contributor to air pollution directly near roads.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 05/21/2013 78 FR 29815

NPRM Comment Period Extended 05/29/2013 78 FR 32223

Final Rule 02/00/2014

Additional Information: Docket #:EPA- HQ-OAR-2011-0135

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business Government Levels Affected: No
Federalism: No Energy Affected: No

RIN Information URL: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/tier3.htm Public Comment URL: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQOAR -2011-0135
Sectors Affected: 11; 811198; 325199; 336111; 811112; 336311; 325193; 493130; 336312; 811111; 336120; 336112; 336211; 335312; 211112; 424690; 333618; 325110; 424710; 324110; 486910 Agency Contact: Catherine Yanca Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation NVFEL S87, Ann Arbor, MI 48105 Ann Arbor , MI 48105 Phone: 734 214- 4769 E-Mail: yanca.catherine@epamail.epa.gov Agency Contact: Kathryn Sargeant Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation NVFEL S77, Ann Arbor, MI 48105 Ann Arbor , MI 48105 Phone: 734 214- 4441 E-Mail: Sargeant.Kathryn@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air and Radiation ( AR ) RIN: 2060-AR34

View Related Documents

Title: Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements
Abstract: This final rule will address a range of implementation requirements for the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, including requirements pertaining to attainment demonstrations, reasonable further progress, reasonably available control technology, reasonably available control measures, nonattainment new source review, emission inventories, and the timing of State Implementation Plan submissions and compliance. Other issues also addressed in this final rule are the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for purposes other than transportation conformity; anti-backsliding requirements that would apply when the 1997 NAAQS are revoked; and routes to terminate the section 185 fee program.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: NoCFR Citation: 40 CFR 50; 40 CFR 51; 40 CFR 70; 40 CFR 71 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 42 USC 7409; 42 USC 7410; 42 USC 7511 to 7511f; 42 USC 7601(a)(1) Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: This rule is needed to establish requirements for what states must include in their state implementation plans (SIPs) to bring nonattainment areas into compliance with the 2008 ozone NAAQS. There is no court-ordered deadline for this final rule. However, the CAA requires the nonattainment area plans addressed by this rule to be developed and submitted by states within 2 to 3 years after the July 20, 2012 date of nonattainment designations.

Legal Basis: CAA Section110

Alternatives: The proposed rule included several alternatives for meeting implementation requirements, including but not limited to options for SIP submittal dates, NOx substitution for VOC in RFP SIPs, alternative baseline years for RFP and alternatives for addressing anti-backsliding requirements once the 1997 ozone NAAQS has been revoked. Additionally the EPA is solicited comments on a number of topics, including alternative approaches to achieving RFP, RACT flexibility and alternate revocation dates for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

Costs and Benefits: The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the first 3 years is estimated to be a total of 120,000 labor hours per year at an annual labor cost of $2.4 million (present value) over the 3-year period or approximately $91,000 per State for the 26 State respondents, including the District of Columbia. The average annual reporting burden is 690 hours per response, with approximately 2 responses per State for 58 State respondents. There are no capital or operating and maintenance costs associated with the proposed rule requirements. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Risks: Ozone concentrations that exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to can cause adverse public health and welfare effects, as discussed in the March 27, 2008 Final Rule for NAAQS for Ozone (73 FR 16436).

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 06/06/2013 78 FR 34177

NPRM Comment Period Extended 07/24/2013 78 FR 44485

Final Rule 05/00/2014

Additional Information: Docket #:EPA- HQ-OAR-2010-0885

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State; Tribal
Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: No Agency Contact: Karl Pepple Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation C539-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711 Phone: 919 541- 2683 FAX: 919 541- 0824 E-Mail: pepple.karl@epa.gov Agency Contact: Rich Damberg Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation C539-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711 Phone: 919 541- 5592 FAX: 919 541- 0824 E-Mail: damberg.rich@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances ( OPPTS ) RIN: 2070-AJ22

View Related Documents

Title: Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions
Abstract: EPA is developing a proposal under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act to revise the federal regulations that direct agricultural worker protection (40 CFR 170). The changes under consideration are intended to improve agricultural workers' ability to protect themselves from potential exposure to pesticides and pesticide residues and to protect their families from potential secondary exposures to pesticides and pesticide residues. EPA is also considering adjustments to improve and clarify current requirements to facilitate compliance; to align the WPS' hazard communication requirements with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements; and to improve pesticide safety training, with improvedworker safety the intended outcome. This proposal is in response to EPA discussions with key stakeholders beginning in 1996. Since then, EPA has held numerous public meetings throughout the country during which the public submitted written and verbal comments on issues and concerns with the existing requirements.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 170 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 7 USC 136w Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: The agricultural workforce may be exposed to pesticides and pesticide residues that have the potential to pose long- and short-term health risks. In addition, families may potentially be exposed through secondary exposure to pesticide residues. These direct and indirect exposures have the potential to pose long- and short-term health risks. Implementing the Worker Protection Standards (WPS) is a key part of EPA's strategy for reducing occupational exposures to agricultural pesticides. The WPS is designed to protect employees on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses from occupational exposures to agricultural pesticides; and offers protections to approximately 2.5 million agricultural workers (people involved in the production of agricultural plants) and pesticide handlers (people who mix, load, or apply pesticides) that work at over 600,000 agricultural establishments. Although EPA has taken a number of steps to ensure effective national implementation of and compliance with the WPS regulation, the need to consider potential changes to the WPS arose from EPA discussions with key stakeholders beginning in 1996. Since that time, EPA has held several public meetings throughout the country during which written and verbal comments identified issues and concerns with the existing requirements.

Legal Basis: EPA establishes standards for protecting agricultural workers from potential exposure to pesticides and pesticide residues under the authority of sections 2 through 35 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 USC 136-136y, and particularly section 25(a), 7 USC 136w(a).

Alternatives: In implementing the existing WPS, EPA has addressed identified deficiencies in the existing regulation throughnon-regulatory means whenever possible. For example, the Agency has developed improved training materials that are sectorspecific and in multiple languages; improved capacity for outreach; a train-the-trainer program; health care practitioner (HCP) curricula to train HCPs on pesticide exposure identification and treatment; and a bilingual manual for HCPs to use in identifying pesticide poisonings. The Agency also provides financial support for pesticide safety training. Changes under consideration for the WPS regulation are necessary improvements but will not replace these non-regulatory measures. In fact, EPA intends to consider continued support for and potential additions to these and other potential non-regulatory measures that may contribute to improving protections and compliance.

Costs and Benefits: EPA is currently evaluating the incremental costs and benefits of the changes under consideration and will present the EPA estimates in the proposed rule. In general, EPA anticipates that the potential incremental benefits will likely accrue to workers and handlers through improved health outcomes, and that the potential incremental costs will involve revised requirements for agricultural employers.

Risks: Agricultural workers and pesticide handlers are at risk from pesticide exposure through their work activities, and may put their families at risk of secondary exposures. These exposures can pose significant long- and short-term health risks that are difficult to quantify in terms of a specific level of risk because workers and handlers are potentially exposed to a wide range of pesticides with varying toxicities and risks.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 03/00/2014

Additional Information: Docket #: EPA -HQ-OPP-2005-0561. http://epa.gov/sbrefa/worker-protection-standards.html

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State; Tribal
Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: No
RIN Information URL: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/worker.htm
Sectors Affected: 111; 541690; 32532; 541712; 8133; 115 Agency Contact: Kathy Davis Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 7506P, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460 Phone: 703 308- 7002 FAX: 703 308- 2962 E-Mail: davis.kathy@epa.gov Agency Contact: Jeanne Kasai Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic SubstancesPYS1162, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460 Phone: 703 308- 3240 FAX: 703 308- 3259 E-Mail: kasai.jeanne@epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances ( OPPTS ) RIN: 2070-AJ44

View Related Documents

Title: Formaldehyde; Third-Party Certification Framework for the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products
Abstract: On July 7, 2010, the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act was enacted as Title VI of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2697, to establish specific formaldehyde emission limits for hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard, which are identical to the California emission limits for these products. On June 10, 2013, EPA issued a proposed rule under TSCA Title VI to establish a framework for a TSCA Title VI Third-Party Certification Program whereby third-party certifiers (TPCs) are accredited by accreditation bodies (ABs) so that they may certify composite wood product panel producers under TSCA Title VI. The proposed rule identifies the roles and responsibilities of the groups involved in the TPC process (EPA, ABs, and TPCs), as well as the criteria for participation in the program. This proposal contains general requirements for TPCs, such as conducting and verifying formaldehyde emission tests, inspecting and auditing panel producers, and ensuring that panel producers' quality assurance and quality control procedures comply with the regulations set forth in the proposed rule. A separate Regulatory Agenda entry (RIN 2070-AJ92) covers the other proposed regulation to implement the statutory formaldehyde emission standards for hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard, and particleboard sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured (including imported) in the United States.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 770 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 15 USC 2697; TSCA section 601 Legal Deadline:

Action Source Description Date

Other Statutory Deadline for promulgation of regulations, per 15 USC 2697(d). 01/01/2013

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: Formaldehyde is a colorless, flammable gas at room temperature that has a strong odor. It is found in resins used in the manufacture of composite wood products (i.e., hardwood plywood, particleboard and medium-density fiberboard). It is also found in household products such as glues, permanent press fabrics, carpets, antiseptics, medicines,cosmetics, dishwashing liquids, fabric softeners, shoe care agents, lacquers, plastics and paper product coatings. It is a byproduct of combustion and certain other natural processes. Examples of sources of formaldehyde gas inside homes include cigarette smoke, unvented, fuel-burning appliances (gas stoves, kerosene space heaters), and composite wood products made using formaldehyde-based resins.

Legal Basis: The Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, which created Title VI of the Toxic SubstancesControl Act (TSCA), established formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood products (hardwood plywood, mediumdensity fiberboard (MDF), and particleboard) sold, supplied, offered for sale or manufactured in the United States. Under TSCA Title VI, manufacturers of composite wood products must comply with specific formaldehyde emission standards, and their compliance must be verified by a third-party certifier (TPC). TSCA Title VI requires EPA to promulgate implementing regulations by January 1, 2013.

Alternatives: TSCA Title VI establishes national formaldehyde emission limits for hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard and EPA has not been given the authority to change the limits. However, EPA will evaluate various implementation alternatives during the course of this rulemaking.

Costs and Benefits: EPA prepared an analysis of the potential impacts associated with the proposed rulemaking. This analysis is summarized in greater detail in Unit VI.A. of the preamble for the proposed rule, and is briefly summarized here. Costs: EPA estimates the annualized costs of this proposed rule to be approximately $34,000 per year using either a 3% discount rate or a 7% discount rate. Small Entity Impacts: This rule would impact an estimated 9 small entities, of which 8 are expected to have impacts of less than 1% of revenues or expenses, and 1 is expected to have impacts between 1% and 3%. Effects on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Government entities are not expected to be subject to the rule's requirements, which apply to third-party certifiers and accreditation bodies. The rule does not have a significant intergovernmental mandate, significant or unique effect on small governments, or have Federalism implications.

Risks: Formaldehyde is both an irritant and a known human carcinogen. Depending on concentration, formaldehyde can cause eye, nose, and throat irritation, even when exposure is of relatively short duration. In the indoor environment, sensory reactions and various symptoms as a result of mucous membrane irritation are some potential effects from exposure. There is also evidence that formaldehyde may be associated with changes in pulmonary function and respiratory related effects. Inaddition, formaldehyde is a by-product of human metabolism; therefore, endogenous levels are present in the body.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

ANPRM 12/03/2008 73 FR 73620

Second ANPRM 01/30/2009 74 FR 5632

NPRM 06/10/2013 78 FR 34795

NPRM Comment Period End With Extension 09/25/2013 78 FR 44090

Final Rule 09/00/2014

Additional Information: Docket #: ANPRM stage: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0627; NPRM stage: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0380.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No
Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: No International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.

RIN Information URL: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/formaldehyde/index.html Public Comment URL: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPAHQ-OPPT -2011-0380-0001
Sectors Affected: 541611; 541990; 561990; 813910; 541330; 813920; 321219; 541380; 3212 Agency Contact: Robert Courtnage Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 7404T, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460 Phone: 202 566- 1081 E-Mail: courtnage.robert@epa.gov Agency Contact: Sara Kemme Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 7404T, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460 Phone: 202 566- 0511 FAX: 202 566- 0473 E-Mail: kemme.sara@epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances ( OPPTS ) RIN: 2070-AJ92

View Related Documents

Title: Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood Products
Abstract: On July 7, 2010, the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act was enacted as Title VI of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2697, and requires that EPA promulgate implementing regulations to establish specific formaldehyde emission limits for hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard, which limits are identical to the California emission limits for these products. On June 10, 2013, EPA proposed regulations to implement emissions standards established by TSCA Title VI for composite wood products sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured in the United States. Pursuant to TSCA section 3(7), the definition of "manufacture" includes import. As required by Title VI, these regulations apply to hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard, and particleboard. TSCA Title VI also directs EPA to promulgate supplementary provisions to ensure compliance with the emissions standards, including provisions related to labeling; chain of custody requirements; sell-through provisions; ULEF resins; no-added formaldehyde-based resins; finished goods; third-party testing and certification; auditing and reporting of third-party certifiers; recordkeeping; enforcement; laminated products; and exceptions from the requirements of regulations promulgated pursuant to this subsection for products and components containing de minimis amounts of composite wood products. A separate Regulatory Agenda entry (RIN 2070-AJ44) addresses requirements for accrediting bodies and third-party certifiers.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: Private Sector
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 770 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 15 USC 2697; TSCA section 601 Legal Deadline:

Action Source Description Date

Other Statutory Statutory Deadline 01/01/2013

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: Formaldehyde is a colorless, flammable gas at room temperature that has a strong odor. It is found inresins used in the manufacture of composite wood products (i.e., hardwood plywood, particleboard and medium-density fiberboard). It is also found in household products such as glues, permanent press fabrics, carpets, antiseptics, medicines,cosmetics, dishwashing liquids, fabric softeners, shoe care agents, lacquers, plastics and paper product coatings. It is a byproduct of combustion and certain other natural processes. Examples of sources of formaldehyde gas inside homes include cigarette smoke, unvented, fuel-burning appliances (gas stoves, kerosene space heaters), and composite wood products made using formaldehyde-based resins.

Legal Basis: The Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, which created Title VI of the Toxic SubstancesControl Act (TSCA), established formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood products (hardwood plywood, mediumdensity fiberboard (MDF), and particleboard) sold, supplied, offered for sale or manufactured in the United States. Under TSCA Title VI, manufacturers of composite wood products must comply with specific formaldehyde emission standards, and their compliance must be verified by a third-party certifier (TPC). In addition, Congress directed EPA to consider a number ofelements for inclusion in implementing the regulations. These elements include: labeling, chain of custody requirements, sellthrough provisions, ultra low-emitting formaldehyde resins, no added formaldehyde-based resins, finished goods, third-party testing and certification, auditing and reporting of TPCs, recordkeeping, enforcement, laminated products, and exceptions from the requirements of regulations promulgated for products and components containing de minimis amounts of composite wood products. TSCA Title VI requires EPA to promulgate implementing regulations by January 1, 2013.

Alternatives: TSCA Title VI establishes national formaldehyde emission limits for hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard and EPA has not been given the authority to change the limits. However, the notice of proposed rulemaking addresses the alternatives considered by EPA for the implementation of the statutory emission limits for various provisions of the rule. Most of these alternatives would have applied to both small and large entities but, given the number of small entities in the affected industries, some of these alternatives could affect many small entities. EPA made a concerted effort to keep the costs and burdens associated with this rule as low as possible while still ensuring compliance with the TSCA Title VI emissions standards. In developing the proposed rule, EPA considered the statutory requirements and the benefits from protection of human health and the environment, as well as the compliance costs imposed by the rule, both in general and on small entities. EPA took a number of steps to reduce the economic impacts of the rule where doing so was consistent with the statutory mandate.

Costs and Benefits: EPA prepared an analysis of the potential impacts associated with the proposed rulemaking. This analysis is summarized in greater detail in Unit V.A. of the preamble for the proposed rule, and is briefly summarized here. Benefits: This proposed rule will reduce exposures to formaldehyde, resulting in benefits from avoided adverse health effects. For the subset of health effects where the results were quantified, the estimated annualized benefits (due to avoided incidence of eye irritation and nasopharyngeal cancer) are $20 million to $48 million per year using a 3% discount rate, and $9 million to $23 million per year using a 7% discount rate. There are additional unquantified benefits due to other avoided health effects. Costs: The monetized costs of this proposed rule are estimated at $72 million to $81 million per year using a 3% discount rate, and $80 million to $89 million per year using a 7% discount rate. Small Entity Impacts: This proposed rule is estimated to impact nearly 879,000 small businesses: Over 851,000 have costs impacts less than 1% of revenues, over 23,000 firms have impacts between 1% and 3%, and over 4,000 firms have impacts greater than 3% of revenues. Most firms with impacts over 1% have annualized costs of less than $250 per year. Effects on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Government entities are not expected to be subject to the proposed requirements, which apply to entities that manufacture, fabricate, distribute, or sell composite wood products. The proposed rule does not have a significant intergovernmental mandate, significant or unique effect on small governments, or have Federalism implications. Environmental Justice and Protection of Children: This proposed rule is expected to increase the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population or children.

Risks: Formaldehyde is both an irritant and a known human carcinogen. Depending on concentration, formaldehyde can cause eye, nose, and throat irritation, even when exposure is of relatively short duration. In the indoor environment, sensory reactions and various symptoms as a result of mucous membrane irritation are some potential effects from exposure. There is also evidence that formaldehyde may be associated with changes in pulmonary function and respiratory related effects. In addition, formaldehyde is a by-product of human metabolism; therefore, endogenous levels are present in the body.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 06/10/2013 78 FR 34820

NPRM Comment Period End With Extension 10/09/2013 78 FR 44089

Final Rule 09/00/2014

Additional Information: Docket #: EPA -HQ-OPPT-2012-0018. Split from RIN 2070-AJ44.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business Government Levels Affected: No
Federalism: No Energy Affected: No International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.

RIN Information URL: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/formaldehyde/index.html Public Comment URL: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPAHQ-OPPT -2012-0018-0001Sectors Affected: 325199; 423110; 337212; 321213; 423210; 442110; 444130; 321211; 444110; 337127; 423310; 453930; 321991; 336213; 337122; 444190; 423390; 325211; 321992; 321219; 441210; 337215; 321212; 336214; 337121; 337110; 337211; 337129 Agency Contact: Cindy Wheeler Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 7404T, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460 Phone: 202 566- 0484 E-Mail: wheeler.cindy@epa.gov Agency Contact: Lynn Vendinello Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 7404T, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460 Phone: 202 566- 0514 E-Mail: vendinello.lynn@epa.gov