June 2010 Action Initiation List (as of 07/08/2010)U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)The following actions were initiated by EPA this month. Explanations of which EPA actions are included on this list and of each element of the table canbe found at the end of this document.The two most recent Action Initiation Lists (AILs) can always be found at:http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/search/ail.html. But, they will not provide updateson the actions listed herein. Updateson priority rulemakings are available from EPA's Rulemaking Gateway (www.epa.gov/rulemaking/). If one of therules on this AIL is in the Rulemaking Gateway, a link to the rule's profile is included in the table below. For all rules – those that are in the Gateway andthose that are not – you may obtain updates twice a year in EPA’sSemiannual Regulatory Agenda,which is accessible from these Web sites:•EPA’s Laws, Regulations, Guidance and Dockets(http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/search/regagenda.html)•RegInfo.gov(http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain)•Regulations.gov(http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=UnifiedAgenda&agency=EPA&pubperiod=200710)To assist you in tracking actions’ progress, the RINs in the table below are also displayed in theSemiannual Regulatory Agendaand the RulemakingGateway.Action Initiation List - June 2010Page 1 of 7Action Initiation List - June 2010Page 2 of 7RINAction TitleStageContactAbstractProjectedPublicationDate2040-AF23Withdrawal ofCertain FederalAquatic Life WaterQuality CriteriaApplicable toWisconsinNPRMClaudia Fabiano202-566-0446Fabiano.Claudia@epa.govIn 1997, Wisconsin developed revised water quality criteria to complywith the 1995 Great Lakes Initiative, a multi-state comprehensiveplan to restore the health of the Great Lakes Basin. In 2000, EPAdisapproved a subset of Wisconsin’s criteria, including its chronicand acute aquatic life criteria for copper and nickel, and chronicaquatic life criteria for endrin and selenium. As a result of thedisapproval, EPA promulgated standards in 2000 to address chronicand acute aquatic life criteria for copper and nickel (40 CFR §132.6(f)) and chronic aquatic life criteria for endrin and selenium (40CFR § 132.6(g)) to apply to the waters of the Great Lakes System inthe State of Wisconsin. Wisconsin began rulemaking in January2008 to address the six aquatic life criteria for these four pollutantsand in December 2008, the Statefinalized its criteria. EPA approvedWisconsin’s aquatic life water quality criteria on July 1, 2009, with theexception of the chronic aquatic lifecriterion for selenium for watersdesignated by Wisconsin as “Limited Forage Fish” aquatic life use.EPA is proposing to withdraw its aquatic life criteriafor chronic andacute copper and nickel (40 CFR § 132.6(f)) and chronic endrin (40CFR § 132.6(g)) in all surface waters of Wisconsin. EPA is alsoproposing to revise the chronic aquatic life criterion for selenium (40CFR § 132.6(g)) to apply exclusively to areas designated byWisconsin as “Limited Forage Fish” aquatic life use. WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resourceshas adequately demonstrated thatits aquatic life water quality criteria for copper (acute and chronic),nickel (acute and chronic), endrin (chronic), and selenium (chronic)protect all waters of the state ata level consistent with the federalrequirements under the Clean Water Act, with the exception ofselenium (chronic) in Limited Forage Fish” waters. The proposedfederal regulation withdrawal will enable Wisconsin to implement itsEPA-approved aquatic life criteria in all marine waters of the State.12 monthsor lessAction Initiation List - June 2010Page 3 of 7RINAction TitleStageContactAbstractProjectedPublicationDate2060-AQ39Protection ofStratosphericOzone: Extensionof GlobalLaboratory andAnalytical UseExemption forEssential Class IOzone DepletingSubstancesNPRMMollie Lemon202-343-9859Lemon.Mollie@epa.govThis rule would extend the global laboratory and analytical useexemption for the production and import of Class I ozone depletingsubstances through December 31, 2014. This exemption currentlyexpires December 31, 2011. This action is consistent with recentactions by the Parties tothe Montreal Protocol.12 monthsor less2060-AQ40Residual Risk andTechnologyReviewAmendments tothe SecondaryAluminumProductionNational EmissionStandards forHazardous AirPollutants(NESHAP)NPRMRochelle Boyd919-541-1390Boyd.Rochelle@epa.govFollow this rule on theRulemaking Gateway.A secondary aluminum production facility means any establishmentusing clean charge, aluminum scrap, or dross from aluminumproduction, as the raw material for processing. The existing 40 CFRPart 63, Subpart RRR National Emission Standards for HazardousAir Pollutants (NESHAP) for Secondary Aluminum Productionfacilities was promulgated in 2000. This rule regulates Hazardous AirPollutants (HAP) from facilities that are major sources of HAP thatoperate aluminum scrap shredders,thermal chip dryers, scrapdryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, group 2 furnaces, sweatfurnaces, dross only furnaces, rotary dross coolers, and secondaryaluminum processing units (SAPUs). SAPUs include group 1furnaces and in-line fluxers. Area sources of HAP are regulated onlywith respect to emissions of dioxins/furans (D/F) from thermal chipdryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, sweatfurnaces, and SAPUs. Facilities subject to these rules were requiredto be in compliance by March 2003.Section 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs EPA to conductrisk assessments on each source category subject to maximumachievable control technology (MACT) standards and determine ifadditional standards are needed to reduce residual risks. The section112(f)(2) residual risk review is to be done within 8 years afterpromulgation. Section 112(d)(6) ofthe CAA requires EPA to reviewand revise the MACT standards, asnecessary, taking into accountdevelopments in practices, processes, and control technologies. Thesection 112(d)(6) technology review is to be done at least every 8years. These risk and technologyreviews for secondary aluminumproduction facilities will be conducted in this rulemaking, which willaddress possible residual risks, technology advancements, andtechnical deficiencies in the existing rule.More than12 monthsAction Initiation List - June 2010Page 4 of 7RINAction TitleStageContactAbstractProjectedPublicationDate2060-AQ41National EmissionStandards forHazardous AirPollutants(NESHAP) Riskand TechnologyReview for Pulpand Paper Industryand ChemicalRecoveryCombustionSources, and NewSourcePerformanceStandards (NSPS)review for KraftPulp MillsNPRMBill Schrock919-541-5032Schrock.Bill@epa.govFollow this rule on theRulemaking Gateway.The 2004 National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) reportrecommended that EPA begin conducting integrated assessmentsthat consider multiple pollutants (criteria and hazardous airpollutants, and other chemicals thatmay be of concern) and multipleeffects (health, ecosystem, visibility) to set standards and developplanning and control strategies. In response to this recommendation,EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) intendsto conduct an integrated review and assessment that addressesregulatory obligations under boththe National Emission Standardsfor Hazardous Air Pollutants and the New Source PerformanceStandards programs (NSPS).Section 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs EPA to conductrisk assessments on each source category subject to maximumachievable control technology (MACT) standards, and to determine ifadditional standards are needed to reduce residual risks, to becompleted 8 years after promulgation. Section 112(d)(6) of the CAArequires EPA to review and revise the MACT standards, asnecessary, taking into account developments in practices, processesand control technologies, to be done at least every 8 years. TheNESHAP for Chemical RecoveryCombustion Sources at Kraft,Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills (SubpartMM) was promulgated in 2001 and has not been reviewed. Similarly,the NESHAP for the Pulp and Paper Industry (Subpart S) waspromulgated in 1998 and also has not been reviewed.Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA mandates that EPA review and, ifappropriate, revise existing New Source Performance Standards(NSPS) at least every 8 years.The Kraft Pulp Mill NSPS waspromulgated in 1978 and is in need of review. This NSPS componentof this action will include reviewing existing emission limits forparticulate matter, total reduced sulfur, and opacity and evaluatingthe appropriateness of developing emission limits for other pollutantssuch as sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxide, and carbon dioxide.12 monthsor lessAction Initiation List - June 2010Page 5 of 7RINAction TitleStageContactAbstractProjectedPublicationDate2060-AQ42National EmissionStandards forHazardous AirPollutants(NESHAP) Riskand TechnologyReview Group III:Shipbuilding andShip Repair(Surface Coating)and WoodFurnitureManufacturingNPRMKaye Whitfield919-541-2509Whitfield.Kaye@epa.govFollow this rule on theRulemaking Gateway.This action would conduct residual risk and technology reviews fortwo industrial source categories regulated by two National EmissionStandards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Shipbuildingand Ship Repair (Surface Coating), and Wood FurnitureManufacturing. The underlying nationalemission standards that areunder review in this action limit and control hazardous airpollutants.Section 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs EPA to assessthe risk remaining (residual risk) after the application of theNESHAP and promulgate additional standards if warranted toprovide an ample margin of safety to protect public health orprevent an adverse environmental effect. Also, section 112(d)(6) ofthe CAA requires EPA to review and revise the NESHAP asnecessary at least every 8 years,taking into account developmentsin practices, processes, and control technologies. This action wouldconduct those reviews for the two source categories cited above.More than 12months2060-AQ43Residual Risk andTechnologyReview: PrimaryLead SmeltersNPRMSharron Nizich919-541-2825Nizich.Sharron@epa.govFollow this rule on theRulemaking Gateway.This action is the Risk and Technology Review (RTR) for PrimaryLead Smelters. It will address bothEPA's obligation under CleanAir Act (CAA) section 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6) to conduct a residualrisk review and to conduct a technology review. Under the"technology review" provision of CAA section 112, EPA is requiredto review maximum achievable control technology (MACT)standards and to revise them “as necessary (taking into accountdevelopments in practices, processes and control technologies)” noless frequently than every 8 years. Under the "residual risk"provision of CAA section 112,EPA must evaluate the MACTstandards within 8 years after promulgation and promulgatestandards if required to providean ample margin of safety toprotect public health or prevent an adverse environmental effect.12 months orlessAction Initiation List - June 2010Page 6 of 7RINAction TitleStageContactAbstractProjectedPublicationDate2060-AQ44Review of theNational AmbientAir QualityStandards(NAAQS) for LeadNPRMDeirdre Murphy919-541-0729Murphy.Deirdre@epa.govFollow this rule on theRulemaking Gateway.Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, EPA is required toreview and if appropriate revise the air quality criteria for the primary(health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) national ambient airquality standards (NAAQS) every 5 years. On November 12, 2008,EPA published a final rule to revise the primary and secondaryNAAQS for lead to provide increased protection for public health andwelfare. With regard to the primary standard, EPA revised the levelto 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of lead in totalsuspended particles and the averaging time to a rolling 3-monthperiod with a maximum (not-to-be-exceeded) form, evaluated over a3-year period. EPA revised the secondary standard to be identical inall respects to the revised primary standard. EPA has now initiatedthe next review. The review will begin in May 2010 with a workshopto discuss key policy-relevantissues around which EPA wouldstructure the review. This review includes the preparation of anIntegrated Science Assessment, and,if warranted, a Risk/ExposureAssessment, and also a Policy Assessment Document by EPA, withopportunities for review by EPA'sClean Air Scientific AdvisoryCommittee and the public. These documents inform theAdministrator's proposed decision as to whether to retain or revisethe standards.More than12 months2070-AJ75ElectronicReporting forHealth and SafetyData under theToxic SubstancesControl Act(TSCA)NPRMAakruti Shah202-564-8183Shah.Aakruti@epa.govEPA is developing a proposal to facilitate the use of electronicreporting under the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA). Thisaction is intended to streamline andreduce the administrative costsand burdens of submitting health andsafety data, for both industryand the EPA, by establishing standards and requirements usingEPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) toelectronically submit healthand safety data to the Agency. Specifically, EPA is developing aproposal to amend the implementing regulations for submissionsunder Section 4, 8(e), and 8(d) of TSCA to facilitate the use ofelectronic reporting.More than12 monthsAction Initiation List - June 2010Page 7 of 7What EPA Actions Appear on the AILs?Generally, AILs include those actions that 1) will appear in upcomingSemiannual Regulatory Agendaand 2) have been approved for commencement byEPA's Regulatory Policy Officer. Inrare instances, an action will not appear on an AIL before it appears in theAgenda. Also, keep in mind that AILs willnot post immediately. You can access a given month's list roughly15 days after the close of the month (e.g., the April 2008 AIL will post sometimearound May 15th).What Does Each Column in the AIL Mean?RINRIN stands for "Regulation IdentifierNumber." A RIN is assigned by theRegulatory Information Service Center, a component of the U.S. GeneralServices Administration, to identify each regulatory action listed in ourSemiannual Regulatory AgendaandAnnual Regulatory Plans. Also, RINs areincluded in the headings of our rules when they are published in the Federal Register to make it easier for you to track our actions. An example of anEPA RIN is 2050-AG37. It is composed of twoparts. The first part (i.e., 2050) identifies which office within EPA is in chargeof the action. In this case, itis the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. The secondpart (e.g., AG37) is an alpha-numeric code automatically generated as rules areassigned a RIN.TitleSelf-explanatory.StageThe stage of an action describes where we are in the rule writing process, from the very beginning when a rule (or other action) is just an idea to the endwhen it is published as a final rule (or other action) in the Federal Register. For example, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking(NPRM) stage announcesa proposed rule or proposed modification to an existing rule. In the AILs, the following acronyms are used:•ANPRM - Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking•Direct Final - Direct Final Action•NPRM - Notice of Proposed Rulemaking•Supplemental - Supplemental NPRMContactProvides the name, phone, and email address for the EPA staff personassigned to this rule. Additionally, if a rule is in EPA's Rulemaking Gateway(www.epa.gov/rulemaking/), then a link to the rule's profile will be provided in this column.AbstractA brief summary of the action and its purpose.Projected Publication DateSince many variables affect how long it takes to write a rule or other action, it is difficult to predict a firm publication date when we have just startedworking on an action. Therefore, we insert one of two options in the "Projected Publication Date" column: 1) "12 months or less" and 2) "more than 12months." These options give you some idea of how quickly we expect to complete an action.