## ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

Sta tement of Priorities

OVERVIEW

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created on December 2, 1970, when Americans

across the nation took up a call for cleaner air, safer water and unpolluted land. For the past four

decades, EPA has confronted health and environmental challenges, fostered innovations, and cleaned up

pollution in the places where people live, work, play and learn.

The EPA remains strongly committed to protecting health and the environment with a focus on:

• taking action on climate change;

• improving air quality;

• assuring the safety of chemicals;

• cleaning up our communities;

• protecting America's waters;

• expanding the conversation on environmentalism and working for environmental justice; and

• building strong state and tribal partnerships.

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 From reducing mercury and other toxic air pollution from outdated power

plants to doubling the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks, the Agency is working to save tens of

thousands of lives each year and protect the environment. Further, EPA has removed over a billion tons

of pollution from the air, and produced hundreds of billions of dollars in benefits for the American people.

For example:

## • The number of Americans receiving water that meets health standards has gone from 79 percent

i n 1993 to 92 percent in 2008.

• EPA has also helped realize a 60% reduction in the dangerous air pollutants that cause smog,

acid rain, lead poisoning and more since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970. Innovations

like smokestack scrubbers and catalytic converters in automobiles have helped this process.

• Today, new cars are 98 percent cleaner in terms of smog-forming pollutants than they were in

1970.

• Meanwhile, American families and businesses have gone from recycling about 10 percent of

trash in 1980 to more than 34 percent in 2010. Eighty-three million tons of trash are recycled

annually—the equivalent of cutting greenhouse gas emissions from more than 33 million

automobiles.

HIGHLIGHTS OF EPA'S REGULATORY PLAN

EPA’s 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. Addressing climate change calls for coordinated national and global efforts to reduce emissions and

develop new technologies that can be deployed. 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.

Seven 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, Administrator Lisa P. Jackson has established seven guiding priorities.

These priorities are enumerated in the list that follows, along with recent progress and future objectives

for each.

## 1. Taking Action on Climate Change

The Agency will continue to deploy existing regulatory tools where appropriate and warranted. 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 new electric power plants. The proposed standards, if

finalized, will establish an achievable limit of carbon pollution per megawatt hour for all future units,

moving the nation towards a cleaner and more efficient energy future.

Carb on 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

RCR 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

str eams, and help facilitate the deployment of CCS.

2. Improving Air Quality

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 standards. Ground-level ozone and particle pollution still

## present challenges in many areas of the country. This year's regulatory plan describes efforts to review

the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone.

Tier 3 Vehicle and Fuel Standards. EPA is now developing vehicle emission and fuel standards to

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

standards.

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.

3. Assuring the Safety of Chemicals

One of EPA’s highest priorities is to make significant and long overdue 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 2013, the

Agency will continue efforts to enhance its current chemicals management program under TSCA, address

concerns with existing chemicals, including PCBs, Mercury, Lead, and Formaldehyde.

EPA’s Chemicals Management Program under TSCA. As part of EPA’s ongoing efforts to enhance the

Agency’s existing chemicals management program, EPA continues to take actions identified on priority

chemicals and to assess chemicals to determine if action is needed to address potential concerns.

Addressing Concerns with Formaldehyde. As directed by the Formaldehyde Standards for

Composite Wood Products Act of 2010, EPA is developing regulations to address formaldehyde

## emissions from hardwood plywood, particleboard and medium-density fiberboard that is sold, supplied,

off ered for sale, or manufactured in the United States.

4. Cleaning Up Its Communities

Improve Accountability and Oversight of Hazardous Secondary Materials Recycling. The Definition

of Solid Waste (DSW) final rule will take final action on EPA's 2011 DSW proposal, which was developed

to improve the accountability and oversight of hazardous secondary materials recycling, while allowing for

important flexibilities that will promote its economic and environmental benefits. Through this rulemaking

and other partnerships, EPA supports urban, suburban, and rural community goals of improving

environmental, human health, and quality-of-life outcomes through partnerships that also promote

economic opportunities, energy efficiency, and revitalized neighborhoods. Sustainable communities

balance their economic and natural assets so that the diverse needs of local residents can be met now

and in the future with limited environmental impacts. EPA accomplishes these outcomes by working with

communities, other Federal agencies, States, and national experts to develop and encourage

development strategies that have better outcomes for air quality, water quality, and land preservation and

revitalization.

5. Protecting America’s Waters

Despite considerable progress, America’s waters continue to face complex challenges, from nutrient

loadings and storm water runoff to invasive species and drinking water contaminants. These challenges

demand both traditional and innovative strategies.

Clean Water Protection. U.S. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are developing a proposed

rule for determining whether a waterway, water body, or wetland is protected by the Clean Water Act.

This rule would make clear which water bodies are protected under the Clean Water Act.

## Cooling Water Intake Structures. EP A plans to finalize standards for cooling water intakes for electric

power plants and for other 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 propose 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 effects. Pollutants of concern include metals

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

Streamlining Drinking Water Standards. EPA plans to propose revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule

in fiscal year 2013. Beginning in 2004, EPA conducted a wide-ranging review of implementation of the

Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) to determine if there is a national problem related to elevated lead levels.

EPA’s comprehensive review identified several short-term and long-term regulatory changes. EPA will

consider the more recent science and the input from the SAB to prepare proposed regulatory revisions to

make the rule more cost effective and more protective of public health.

Electronic Reporting. EPA intends to propose the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) Electronic Reporting Rule, which would require reports and data to be transmitted electronically

rather than in paper form. Through this regulation, EPA will move reporting into the digital age by

requiring that most NPDES data be submitted electronically and by streamlining reporting. EPA seeks to

ensure that facility-specific information would be readily available, accurate, timely and nationally

consistent for the facilities that are regulated by the NPDES program, with minimum burden on the

affected entities.

## Environmental Justice in Rulemaking . EPA released an interim guidance document in 2011 to help

Agency staff include environmental justice principles in its rulemaking process. The rulemaking guidance

is an important and positive step toward meeting EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson’s priority to work for

environmental justice and protect the health and safety of communities who have been disproportionately

impacted by pollution.

Children’s Health. EPA continues to lead efforts to protect children from environmental health risks, in

accordance with Executive Order 13045. To accomplish this, EPA intends to use a variety of

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

partnerships to protect pregnant women, infants, children, and adolescents from environmental and

human health hazards.

7. Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships



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

conscious partners. EPA is supportive of state and tribal capacity to ensure that programs are

## consistently delivered nationwide. This provides EPA and its intergovernmental partners with an

opp ortunity to further strengthen their working relationship and, thereby, more effectively pursue their

shared goal of protecting the nations environmental and public health.

New Tribal Policy – Finalized in 2012, the new EPA Tribal Policy goes well beyond the requirements of

the Executive Order on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes (EO 13175). The Policy

establishes national guidelines and sets a broad standard for determining which activities are appropriate

for tribal consultation. It also encourages flexibility to tailor consultation approaches to reflect

circumstances of each consultation situation. The new EPA Tribal Policy is available at

http://www.epa.gov/indian/consultation/.

* * * * * * * * *

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

.

## H owever, more information can be found about these completed rulemakings in past publications of the

Uni fied 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-AO60 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Review under CAA

§111(b)(1)(B)

2060-AP06 New Source Performance Standards for Grain Elevators –

Amendments

2060-AR00 Uniform Standards for Equipment Leaks and Ancillary Systems, Closed

Vent Systems and Control Devices, Storage Vessels and Transfer

Operations, and Wastewater Operations

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

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:

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

Revisions

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

Standards for Composite Wood Products

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 not identified any international activities that are anticipated to lead to significant regulations in

the following year.The 17 Actions Described in the Regulatory Plan

Title Regulation Identifier Number Rulemaking Stage

NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 2020-AA47 Proposed Rule Stage

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

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Regulatory Revisions 2040-AF15 Proposed Rule Stage

Clean Water Protection Rule 2040-AF30 Proposed Rule Stage

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

Revisions to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; Subpart J Product Schedule Listing Requirements 2050-AE87 Proposed Rule Stage

Hazardous Waste Management Systems: Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Streams in Geological Sequestration Activities 2050-AG60 Final Rule Stage

Rulemaking on the Definition of Solid Waste 2050-AG62 Final Rule Stage

Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone 2060-AP38 Proposed Rule Stage

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

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

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

Petroleum Refinery Sector Amendment for Flares 2060-AR69 Proposed Rule Stage

Greenhouse Gas New Source Performance Standard for Electric Generating Units for New Sources 2060-AQ91 Final Rule Stage

Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals; Chemical Information Reporting Under TSCA Section 8(a) and Health and Safety Data Reporting Under TSCA Section 8(d) 2070-AJ93 PreRule Stage

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

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

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance ( OECA ) RIN: 2020-AA47

View Related Documents

Title: NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule
Abstract: The EPA has responsibility to ensure that the Clean Water Act's (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program is effectively and consistently implemented across the country. This regulation would mandate electronic reporting of NPDES data. Through this regulation, EPA seeks to ensure that such facility-specific information would be accurate, timely, and nationally consistent on the facilities that are regulated by the NPDES program. In the past, EPA primarily obtained this information from the Permit Compliance System (PCS). However, the evolution of the NPDES program since the inception of PCS has created an increasing need to better reflect a more complete picture of the NPDES program and the diverse universe of regulated sources. In addition, information technology has advanced significantly so that PCS no longer meets EPA's national needs to manage the full scope of the NPDES program or the needs of individual states that use PCS to implement and enforce the NPDES program.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 123; 40 CFR 403; 40 CFR 501 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 33 USC 1314(i) and 1361(a); CWA sections 304(i) and 501(a) Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: EPA views the draft proposed rule as a key means to transform the NPDES program, and provide significant savings and flexibilities to States and the NPDES-regulated universe. The electronic availability of the information would enable States and EPA to better ensure the protection of public health and the environment, effectively manage the national NPDES permitting and enforcement program, monitor compliance, redirect resources, and identify and address environmental problems.Legal Basis: The Clean Water Act establishes a comprehensive program for protecting and restoring our Nation's waters. The Clean Water Act established the NPDES permit program to authorize and regulate the discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. Section 402(a). EPA is proposing this rule under CWA sections 101(f), 304(i), 308, 402, and 501. This proposed rule, which is intended to reduce resource burdens associated with the paper-based system and increase the speed, quality and scope of information echoes the goals of CWA section 101(f). CWA section 304(i)(2) authorizes EPA to promulgate guidelines establishing the minimum procedural and other elements of state programs under section 402, including reporting requirements and procedures to make information available to the public. In addition, EPA is proposing this rule under section 308, which authorizes EPA to require information to carry out the objectives of the CWA, including section 402, which establishes the NPDES permit program. EPA is proposing this rule under CWA sections 402(b) and (c), which require each authorized state, tribe, or territory to ensure that permits meet certain substantive requirements, and provide EPA information from point sources, industrial users, and the authorized program in order to ensure proper oversight. Finally, EPA is issuing this rule under CWA section 501, which authorizes EPA to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out provisions of the Act.

Alternatives: Within the rulemaking process itself, various alternatives are being considered. One alternative would be status quo, where most States are moving toward electronic reporting of some NPDES information. However, unless electronic reporting is made mandatory, participation is not high and States are essentially operating two different reporting systems (i.e., one electronic-based and one paper-based). States also find that they must implement a costly public relations effort to recruit new users and train new users. State development of their own electronic reporting tools is an additional cost of the status quo. As another alternative, in the absence of electronically available information, EPA could seek this NPDES information from each State, as each State should currently be receiving this information in hard-copy format from regulated facilities. Another alternative that EPA could consider in rule implementation is whether third-party vendors may be better equipped to develop and modify such electronic reporting tools than EPA or States.

Costs and Benefits: The economic analysis for the draft proposed rule indicates that significant savings should be anticipated after full implementation. Savings of approximately $30.3 million annually should be realized within three years after the final rule. Most of these savings (approximately $28.5 million) would accrue to the States, largely because of the elimination of data entry by States of paper-based discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) and program reports. The regulated universe would alsoreceive some annual savings and would benefit from reduced incidence of data errors in transcription of the data from hardcopy submissions to electronic form. Some States (e.g., Ohio) have been able to quantify savings realized through mandatory electronic reporting. Additional benefits of this rule will include improved transparency of information regarding the NPDES program, improved information regarding the national NPDES program, improved targeting of resources based on identified program needs and noncompliance problems, and ultimately improved protection of public health and the environment. Some NPDES information associated with NPDES program implementation activities (e.g., permit issuance, inspections, violations, enforcement actions) will also be reported by States to EPA. There will be some upfront initial investment costs needed to realize these savings. EPA will have initial implementation costs to revise the data systems and to develop tools for electronic reporting by permittees, as well as annual operation and maintenance costs associated with those tools (in addition to ongoing ICIS-NPDES operation and maintenance costs). States would have initial investment costs associated with data system upgrades (if not already done) and initial data entry for facilities not currently tracked electronically.

Risks: EPA does not receive sufficient facility-specific NPDES information from the states to be able to fully assess the full scope of compliance with the national NPDES program. This lack of complete information on compliance may adversely impact the states' and EPA's ability to better ensure the protection of public health and the environment, nationally and locally.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 02/00/2013

Final Rule 01/00/2014

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: State
Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: Yes Energy Affected: No
RIN Information URL: http://www.regulations.gov/exchange/topic/npdes Agency Contact: Andrew Hudock Environmental Protection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 2222A, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460 Phone: 202 564-6032 E-Mail: Hudock.Andrew@epamail.epa.gov Agency Contact: John Dombrowski Environmental Protection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 2222A, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460 Phone: 202 566-0742 E-Mail: Dombrowski.John@epamail.epa.govEnvironmental 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 guidelines 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. Power plant discharges can have impacts on water quality, including reduced organism abundance and species diversity and contamination of drinking water sources. Pollutants of concern include metals (e.g., mercury, arsenic, and selenium), nutrients, and total dissolved solids.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed 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 12/14/2012

Other Judicial 4/19/2013 - Consent Decree deadline for Final Action - Defenders of Wildlife v. Jackson, 10-1915, D. D.C. 04/19/2013

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: As described, EPA determined the existing regulations do not adequately address the pollutants being discharged and that revisions are appropriate.

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).

Alternatives: To be determined.

Costs and Benefits: To be determined.

Risks: To be determined.
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 04/00/2013

Final Rule 04/00/2014

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

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined
Federalism: Undetermined Energy Affected: Undetermined
RIN Information URL: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steam_index.cfm
Sectors Affected: 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.govAgency 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) Water ( WATER ) RIN: 2040-AF15

View Related Documents

Title: National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Regulatory Revisions
Abstract: Beginning in 2004, EPA conducted a wide-ranging review of implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) to determine if there is a national problem related to elevated lead levels. EPA's comprehensive review consisted of several elements, including a series of workshops designed to solicit issues, comments, and suggestions from stakeholders on particular issues; a review of monitoring data to evaluate the effectiveness of the LCR; and a review of the LCR implementation by States and water utilities. As a result of this multi-part review, EPA identified seven targeted rules changes and EPA promulgated a set of short-term regulatory revisions and clarifications on October 10, 2007, to strengthen implementation of the existing Lead and Copper Rule. In developing the short-term revisions, EPA identified several regulatory changes to be considered as part of identifying more comprehensive changes to the rule. These considerations are longer-term in nature as they require additional data collection, research, analysis, and stakeholder involvement to support decisions. This action addresses the remaining regulatory revisions to be completed in the 2013/2014 time frame. Changes will be made to make the rule more cost effective and more protective of public health.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 141; 40 CFR 142 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 42 USC 300f et seq Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: EPA identified several regulatory changes to be considered as part of identifying more comprehensive changes to the rule. These considerations are longer-term in nature as they require additional data collection, research, analysis, and stakeholder involvement to support decisions. Changes will be made to make the rule more cost effective and more protective of public health.

Legal Basis: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) requires EPA to establish maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) for contaminants that may have an adverse effect on the health of persons, may occur in public water systems at a frequency and level of public concern, and in the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of the contaminant would present a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems (section 1412(b)(1)(A)). The 1986 amendments to SDWA established a list of 83 contaminants for which EPA is to develop MCLGs and NPDWRs, which included lead and copper. The 1991 NPDWR for Lead and Copper (56 FR 26460, U.S. EPA, 1991a) fulfilled the requirements of the 1986 SDWA amendments with respect to lead and copper." EPA promulgated a set of short-term regulatory revisions and clarifications on October 10, 2007, to strengthen implementation of the existing Lead and Copper Rule. In developing the short-term revisions, EPA identified several regulatory changes to be considered as part of identifying more comprehensive changes to the rule. These considerations are longer-term in nature as they require additional data collection, research, analysis, and stakeholder involvement to support decisions. Changes will be made to make the rule more cost effective and more protective of public health.

Alternatives: To be determined.

Costs and Benefits: To be determined.

Risks: To be determined.
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 09/00/2013

Final Rule 05/00/2014

Additional Information: This action includes retrospective review under EO 13563; see: http://www.epa.gov/regdarrt/retrospective/history.html.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: UndeterminedFederalism: Undetermined Energy Affected: No
RIN Information URL: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/lcr/index.cfm Agency Contact: Jeffrey Kempic Environmental Protection Agency Water 4607M, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460 Phone: 202 564-4880 FAX: 202 564-3760 E-Mail: Kempic.Jeffrey@epamail.epa.gov

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

View Related Documents

Title: Clean Water Protection Rule
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 clarify which water bodies are protected under the Clean Water Act.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: Yes 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. 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 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

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 AgencyWater 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 section 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; and all new offshore oil and gas exploration facilities were later addressed in June 2006 as part of Phase III. 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 section 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. 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. Further, the court granted the request of EPA and environmental petitioners in the case to remand the existing facility portion of the rule back to the Agency for further rulemaking. EPA entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in two lawsuits related to Section 316(b) rulemakings. Under the settlement agreement, as twice modified, 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 June 27, 2013. 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 agreed 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. 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 million or more gallons per day of cooling water, with site-specific impingement controls for facilities withdrawing less than 50 million gallons per day. EPA issued two Notices of Data Availability (NODA) in June 2012 that described flexibilities EPA is considering as part of the impingement mortality limitations and that described the preliminary results of surveys of households' willingness to pay for incremental reductions in fish mortality.

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 - Riverkeeper v. EPA, 06-12987, SDNY (signed 07/17/2012) 06/27/2013

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: 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 Phase II facilities.

Legal Basis: 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. 72FR 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 Phase II 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, on a site-specific basis, 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. EPA monetized only a portion of the expected annual benefits of the rule, amounting to $18 million.

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 05/00/2013

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

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State
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: 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) Solid Waste and Emergency Response ( SWER ) RIN: 2050-AE87

View Related Documents

Title: Revisions to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; Subpart J Product Schedule Listing Requirements
Abstract: The Clean Water Act requires EPA to prepare a schedule identifying dispersants, other chemicals, and other spill mitigating devices and substances, if any, that may be used in carrying out the National Contingency Plan (NCP); and the waters and quantities in which they may be used. EPA is considering revising subpart J of the NCP to address the efficacy, toxicity, and environmental monitoring of dispersants, other chemical and biological agents, and other spill mitigating substances, as well as public, State, local, and Federal officials concerns on their authorization and use. Specifically, the Agency is considering revisions to the technical product requirements under subpart J, including amendments to the effectiveness and toxicity testing protocols, and establishing new effectiveness and toxicity thresholds for listing certain products on the Schedule. Additionally, the Agency is considering amendments to area planning requirements for agent use authorization, and advanced monitoring techniques. The Agency is also considering revisions to harmonize 40 CFR part 110.4 with the definitions for chemical and biological agents proposed for subpart J. These changes, if finalized, will help ensure that chemical and biological agents have met rigorous efficacy and toxicity requirements, that product manufacturers provide important use and safety information, and that the planning and response community is equipped with the proper information to authorize and use the products in a judicious and effective manner.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: NoCFR Citation: 40 CFR 300; 40 CFR 110 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 33 USC 1321(d)(2); 33 USC 1321(b)(3); 33 USC 1321(j) Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: The use of dispersants in response to the Deepwater Horizon incident, both on surface slicks and injected directly into the oil from the well riser, raised many questions about efficacy, toxicity, environmental trade-offs, and monitoring challenges. The Agency is considering amendments to subpart J that would increase the overall scientific soundness of the data collected on mitigation agents, take into consideration not only the efficacy but also the toxicity, long-term environmental impacts, endangered species protection, and human health concerns raised during responses to oil discharges, including the Deepwater Horizon incident. The additional data requirements being considered would aid OSCs and RRTs when evaluating specific product information and when deciding whether and which products to use to mitigate hazards caused by discharges or threatened discharges of oil. Additionally, the Agency is considering amendments to area planning requirements for dispersant use authorization, toxicity thresholds, and advanced monitoring techniques. This action is a major component of EPA's effort to inform the use of dispersants and other chemical or biological agents when responding to oil discharges based on lessons learned from the Federal Government's experiences in responding to off-shore oil discharges, including the Deepwater Horizon incident, in the Gulf of Mexico and anticipation of the expansion of oil exploration and production activities in the Arctic.

Legal Basis: The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) requires the President to prepare and publish a National Contingency Plan (NCP) for the removal of oil and hazardous substances. In turn, the President delegated the authority to implement this section of the FWPCA to EPA through Executive Order 12777 (56 FR 54757; October 22, 1991). Section 311(d)(2)(G)(i) of the FWPCA (a.k.a., Clean Water Act), as amended by the OPA, requires that the NCP include a schedule identifying "dispersants, other chemicals, and other spill mitigating devices and substances, if any, that may be used in carrying out" the NCP. Currently, the use of dispersants, other chemicals, and other oil spill mitigating devices and substances (e.g., bioremediation agents) to respond to oil discharges in U.S. waters is governed by subpart J of the NCP (40 CFR part 300 series 900).

Alternatives: The Agency is not proposing to maintain the status quo, and will consider alternatives to the current regulation that address the efficacy, toxicity, and environmental monitoring of dispersants, and other chemical and biological agents, as well as public, State, local, and Federal officials' concerns regarding their use. Specifically, the alternative requirements to the current NCP Product Schedule (Schedule) consider new listing criteria, revisions to the efficacy and toxicity testing protocols, and clarifications to the evaluation criteria for removing products from the Schedule. EPA is also considering alternatives to the current requirements for the authorities, notifications, monitoring, and data reporting when using chemical or biological agents in response to oil discharges in waters of the U.S. The alternatives to the exxisting rule being considered are intended to encourage the development of safer and more effective spill mitigating products, to better target the use of these products in order to reduce the risks to human health and the environment, and to ensure that On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs), Regional Response Teams (RRTs), and Area Committees have sufficient information to support agent preauthorization or authorization of use decisions.

Costs and Benefits: Not yet determined.

Risks: Although major catastrophic oil discharges where chemical or biological agents may be used are relatively infrequent, this proposed rulemaking under subpart J may lead to the manufacture and use of less toxic, more effective oil spill mitigating products. The use of these products may reduce the potential for human and environmental impact, emergency response duration, and costs associated with any oil discharge. However, the impacts will vary greatly depending on factors that include the size, location, and duration of an oil discharge, as well as the type of oil being discharded. While the reduction in environmental impacts associated with the use of oil spill mitigating agents driven by this action are likely small for typical oil discharges, they could be significant in the event of a large oil discharge.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 03/00/2013

Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under Executive Order 13563.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State; Tribal
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: www.epa.gov/oilspill
Sectors Affected: 325; 424; 211; 541; 562 Agency Contact: William Nichols Environmental Protection Agency Solid Waste and Emergency Response 5104A, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460 Phone: 202 564-1970FAX: 202 564-2625 E-Mail: nichols.nick@epa.gov Agency Contact: Craig Matthiessen Environmental Protection Agency Solid Waste and Emergency Response 5104A, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460 Phone: 202 564-8016 FAX: 202 564-2625 E-Mail: mattheissen.craig@epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Solid Waste and Emergency Response ( SWER ) RIN: 2050-AG60

View Related Documents

Title: Hazardous Waste Management Systems: Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Streams in Geological Sequestration Activities
Abstract: On July 25, 2008, EPA published a proposed rule under the Safe Drinking Water Act Underground Injection Control Program to create a new class of injection wells (Class VI) for geological sequestration (GS) of carbon dioxide (CO2). In response to that proposal, EPA received numerous comments asking for clarification on how the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste requirements apply to CO2 streams. EPA is considering a rule that would conditionally exclude from the RCRA requirements CO2 streams that otherwise meet the definition of hazardous waste, in order to facilitate implementation of GS, while protecting human health and the environment.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 260 to 261 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 42 USC 6912; 42 USC 6921 to 29; 42 USC 6934 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: The development of the proposed rule was the result of numerous outside stakeholder comments seeking clarity on the applicability of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste regulations to carbon dioxide (CO2) streams to be geologically sequestered in Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class VI wells. These comments, received in response to a separate proposed rulemaking establishing new UIC Class VI permitting standards, were from industry, trade groups, State and local representatives, environmental interest groups, and concerned citizens. In addition, on February 3, 2010, President Obama established an Interagency Task Force on CCS composed of 14 Executive Departments and Federal Agencies. The Task Force, co-chaired by the Department of Energy and EPA, was charged with proposing a plan to overcome the barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) within ten years, with a goal of bringing five to ten commercial demonstration projects online by 2016. One of the Task Force recommendations was that EPA propose and finalize a rulemaking to clarify the applicability of RCRA to CCS activities.

Legal Basis: 42 U.S.C. 6912, 42 U.S.C. 6921-29, and 42 U.S.C. 6934 provide the legal authority for this rule.

Alternatives:

Costs and Benefits: Due to the high level of uncertainty regarding the percent of CO2 that may be generated as RCRA hazardous waste and the uncertainty regarding the actual number of facilities potentially affected over the projected 50 year period, EPA's best estimate for the impacts of the proposed rule ranges from a low-end annualized net savings of $7.3 million (7% discount rate) to the high-end annualized net savings of $44.9 million (3% discount rate).

Risks: EPA stated in the proposal its belief that the management of CO2 streams in accordance with the proposed conditions and thus excluded from RCRA would not present a substantial risk to human health or the environment and, therefore, additional regulation pursuant to RCRA's hazardous waste regulations is unnecessary.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 08/08/2011 76 FR 48073

Notice 09/09/2011 76 FR 55846

Final Rule 04/00/2013

Additional Information: Docket #:EPA-HQ-RCRA-2010-0695. NPRM - http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail; D=EPAHQ-RCRA-2010-0695-0001; Notice - http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-RCRA-2010-0695-0054

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal; State; Tribal
Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: NoEnergy Affected: No
RIN Information URL: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/geosequester/index.htm
Sectors Affected: 211111 Agency Contact: Ross Elliott Environmental Protection Agency Solid Waste and Emergency Response 5304P, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460 Phone: 703 308-8748 FAX: 703 308-0514 E-Mail: Elliott.Ross@epa.gov Agency Contact: Melissa Kaps Environmental Protection Agency Solid Waste and Emergency Response 5304P, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460 Phone: 703 308-6787 E-Mail: kaps.melissa@epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Solid Waste and Emergency Response ( SWER ) RIN: 2050-AG62

View Related Documents

Title: Rulemaking on the Definition of Solid Waste
Abstract: EPA's reexamination of the 2008 definition of solid waste final rule identified areas that could be improved to better protect public health and the environment with a particular focus on adjacent communities. Potential regulatory changes should improve accountability and oversight of hazardous materials recycling, while allowing flexibility to promote economic and environmental benefits. Facilities affected include those that send hazardous waste offsite to be recycled and those that recycle hazardous waste onsite.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 261.2 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 42 USC 6903; RCRA sec 1004 Legal Deadline:

Action Source Description Date

NPRM Judicial The settlement agreement requires signature of the proposed rule by June 30, 2011. 06/30/2011

Other Judicial The settlement agreement requires signature of the final rule by December 31, 2012. 12/31/2012

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: The new DSW rulemaking may address concerns raised about potential adverse impacts to human health and the environment from the 2008 DSW final rule, including potential disproportionate impacts to minority and low income communities.

Legal Basis: These regulations are promulgated under the authority of sections 2002, 3001, 3002, 3003, 3004, 3007, 3010 and 3017 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 6921, 6922, 6923 and 6924. This statute is commonly referred to as "RCRA."

Alternatives: Alternatives considered include (1) no action (retain the 2008 DSW rule), and (2) additional regulatory requirements for hazardous secondary materials recycling.

Costs and Benefits: The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the 2011 DSW proposed rule estimates the future average annualized costs to industry to comply with the proposed revisions at between $7.2 million and $47.5 million per year. However, in many cases these costs are not direct costs, but rather are reduced savings from what a company might have otherwise experienced under the 2008 DSW rule. In other words, companies that are currently operating under full Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations would still experience cost savings under the 2011 DSW proposal, but not as much cost savings as they would under the 2008 DSW final rule. The RIA identifies three categories of expected future benefits for the final action consisting of: (1) reduction in future environmental damages from industrial recycling of hazardous secondary materials; (2) improved industry environmental compliance; and (3) indirect legal and financial benefits to industry consisting of reduced liability, less uncertainty for regulated facilities, and lower legal and financial credit costs. However, the RIA does not quantify or monetize these benefit categories.Risks: The 2012 DSW rule is expected to reduce overall risks to human health and the environment as compared to the 2008 DSW rule.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 07/22/2011 76 FR 44094

Notice 08/26/2011 76 FR 53376

Final Rule 04/00/2013

Additional Information: Docket #:EPA-HQ-RCRA-2010-0742

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal; State
Federalism: No Energy Affected: No

RIN Information URL: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/dsw/rulemaking.htm Public Comment URL: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQRCRA-2010-0742-0001
Sectors Affected: 61; 31-33; 54; 92 Agency Contact: Marilyn Goode Environmental Protection Agency Solid Waste and Emergency Response 5304P, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460 Phone: 703 308-8800 FAX: 703 308-0514 E-Mail: Goode.Marilyn@epa.gov Agency Contact: Tracy Atagi Environmental Protection Agency Solid Waste and Emergency Response 5304-P, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460 Phone: 703 308-8672 FAX: 703 308-0514 E-Mail: atagi.tracy@epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air and Radiation ( AR ) RIN: 2060-AP38

View Related Documents

Title: Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone
Abstract: Under the Clean Air Act, 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 March 23, 2008, the EPA published a final rule to revise the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to provide increased protection of public health and welfare. With regard to the primary standard for ozone, EPA revised the level of the 8-hour ozone standard to 0.075 ppm. With regard to the secondary ozone standard, EPA made it identical in all respects to the primary ozone standard, as revised. EPA initiated the current review in October 2008 with a workshop to discuss key policy-relevant issues around which EPA would structure the review. This review includes the preparation of an Integrated Science Assessment, Risk/Exposure Assessment, and 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.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: Yes 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: National Ambient Air Quality Standards as required by the CAA.

Legal Basis: CAA Sections 108 and 109.

Alternatives: Not yet determined.

Costs and Benefits: Not yet determined.Risks: Not yet determined.
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Notice 04/28/2011 76 FR 23755

NPRM 10/00/2013

Final Rule 09/00/2014

Additional Information: Docket #:EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0699

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/ozone/ Agency Contact: Susan Stone Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation C504-06, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711 Phone: 919 541-1146 FAX: 919 541-0237 E-Mail: stone.susan@epamail.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 standards (MACT) 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. Petroleum refineries are facilities engaged in refining and producing products made from crude oil or unfinished petroleum derivatives. 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. This action primarily proposes: 1) amendments to Refinery MACT 1 and 2 to address our obligation to assess the risk remaining after application of the original standards in accordance with CAA section 112(f)(2); and 2) amendments resulting from EPA's review of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the time the EPA adopted the refinery MACT standards in accordance with CAA sections 112(d)(6). In addition, it proposes: 1) new requirements related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction to ensure that the MACT standards are consistent with court opinions requiring that standards apply at all times and other Clean Air Act programs; and 2) technical corrections and clarifications for Refinery NSPS Ja. These technical corrections and clarifications were raised in a 2008 petition for reconsideration from the American Petroleum Institute, and we are addressing these petition issues in this action because they also affect sources subject to Refinery MACT 2. On January 16, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed a final rule addressing RTR standards for Refinery MACT 1. Upon further review, we determined that this rule may not have accurately characterized the risk posed by this source category. Therefore, we withdrew the risk and technology portions of the rulemaking (76 FR 42052, July 18, 2011). Subsequently, we began a significant effort to gather additional information in 2010 through a comprehensive industry-wide Information Collection Request (ICR) to gather data on HAP, criteria and other pollutants from all refinery processes sufficient to support both the Refinery MACT and NSPS reviews. Data received in response to the ICR will be used to support the analyses for this rulemaking.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: No
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60 and 63 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: Clean Air Act secs 111 and 112 Legal Deadline: NoneRegulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: Risk and Technology Review as required by the CAA.

Legal Basis: CAA sections 111 and 112.

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 03/00/2013

Final Rule 12/00/2013

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

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State
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 E1430-01, 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-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. 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: Proposed Rule

Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: State, Local, Or Tribal Governments; Private Sector
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 80; 40 CFR 85; 40 CFR 86; 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: CAA 202(a), 202(k), and 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-dutyvehicles 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 30-45 percent of total nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions, 20-25 percent of total volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, and 5-10 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-dutyvehicles will contribute about half of the 2030 inventory of air toxic emissions from all mobile sources. The most recent NationalScale Air Toxics Assessment in 2005, mobile sources were responsible for over 50 percent of cancer risk and noncancer hazard.

Legal Basis: The Clean Air Act section 202(a) provides EPA with general authority to prescribe vehicle standards, subject to any 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 will include an evaluation of regulatory alternatives that can be considered in addition to the Agency's primary proposal.

Costs and Benefits: Detailed analysis of economy-wide cost impacts, emissions reductions, and societal benefits will be performed during the rulemaking process.

Risks: Approximately 159 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 the absence of additional controls such as Tier 3 standards, many counties will continue to have ambient ozone and PM2.5 concentrations exceeding the NAAQS in the future. 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 03/00/2013

Final Action 12/00/2013

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

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; Tribal
Federalism: Yes Energy Affected: No
Sectors Affected: 811198; 336111; 811112; 336311; 336312; 336120; 336112; 454312; 541690; 324110; 484220; 484230 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 proposed 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 thisproposed 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: Proposed Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No
CFR 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 submission deadlines and 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 proposed rule. However, the CAA requires the nonattainment area plans addressed by this rule to be developed and submitted within two to three years after the July 20, 2012 date of nonattainment designations.

Legal Basis: CAA Section 110

Alternatives: Not yet determined.

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: Not yet determined.
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 04/00/2013

Additional Information: Docket #:EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885. Split from RIN 2060-AP24.

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) Air and Radiation ( AR ) RIN: 2060-AR69

View Related Documents

Title: Petroleum Refinery Sector Amendment for Flares
Abstract: In this action EPA plans to conduct a review of the standards dealing with overall flare performance and efficiency at petroleum refineries. Flares are often used at petroleum refineries as a control device for regulated vent streams, as well as to handle non-routine emissions (e.g., leaks, purges, emergency releases); and since the development of the current flare regulations, industry has significantly reduced the amount of waste gas being routed to flares. Generally, this reduction has affected the base load to flares and many are now receiving a small fraction of what the flare was originally designed to receive with only periodic releases of episodic or emergency waste gas that may use up to the full capacity of the flare. Many flare vent gas streams that are regulated by NESHAP and NSPS are often continuous streams that contribute to the base load of a flare; therefore, it is critical for flares to achieve good combustion efficiency at all levels of utilization. The EPA concluded an ad-hocflare peer review study in the spring of 2012, dedicated to determining parameters for properly designed and operated flares. An eight-person review panel was tasked with answering specific charge questions relating to proper design and operation of steam and air assisted flares. The available data suggest that factors that may affect combustion efficiency and overall flare performance include over-steaming of steam assisted flares, excess aeration of air assisted flares, and maintenance of a stable flame (flame velocity and wind speed). Better flare operation practices will ultimately result in improved combustion efficiencies that have the potential to improve public health by reducing emissions of air toxics and volatile organic compounds that may pose a health risk to vulnerable populations including the young, elderly, and those with respiratory problems. The EPA does not currently plan to include potential flare amendments in RIN 2060-AQ75, "the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and NSPS" (described as Item 3 of this Regulatory Plan) because the EPA is currently reviewing the results of the peer review panel and is reaching out to various stakeholders to determine the best approach to ensure a high level of combustion efficiency at flares. The EPA is also evaluating whether to amend 40 CFR part 63, subparts CC and UUU (a.k.a., Refinery Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 1 and 2) and the Refinery New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 40 CFR subpart Ja or to develop a separate set of requirements for flares since there are other industries in addition to the refining industry that rely on flares.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: No 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: CAA sec 111; CAA sec 112 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: Revising work practice standards for flares and the refining industry to assure proper operation and good combustion efficiency as part of EPA's technology review obligation under CAA section 112.

Legal Basis: CAA section 111 and 112

Alternatives: Not yet determined.

Costs and Benefits: Not yet determined.

Risks: Risk will be addressed under a separate RTR package (See RIN 2060-AQ75).

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 11/00/2013

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Federal
Federalism: Undetermined Energy Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Andrew Bouchard Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation E143-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711 Phone: 919 541-4036 FAX: 919 541-0246 E-Mail: bouchard.andrew@epamail.epa.gov Agency Contact: Penny Lassiter Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation E1430-01, 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: Greenhouse Gas New Source Performance Standard for Electric Generating Units for New Sources
Abstract: This action will amend the new source performance standards (NSPS) for electric generating units (EGUs) and will establish the first NSPS for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The rule will establish CO2 emission standards for certain new and reconstructed fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGUs).

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final RuleMajor: 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: Electric Generating Units (EGUs) are the largest stationary source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the US. Plants have a 40 plus year life, so sources that commence construction today may be emitting GHGs past 2050.

Legal Basis: In Massachusetts vs. EPA, in April of 2007 the Supreme Court found that EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. One of the logical outgrowths of the Massachusetts decision is that EPA should be addressing significant GHG emissions from stationary sources.

Alternatives: While we proposed a standard of 1000 lbs GHG/MWh, we took comment on a range of standards from 950 lbs GHG/MWh to 1100 Lbs GHG/MWh. We also proposed to allow coal-fired units to comply using a 30 year average, and took comment on various ways to average GHG emissions across time.

Costs and Benefits: Because both Energy Information Administration (EIA) and EPA do not project any new coal-fired EGUs to be constructed beyond a handful that will install CCS (as part of a DOE demonstration project), we do not project costs and benefits associated with the rule.

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

Final Rule 03/00/2013

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: Yes
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@epamail.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) Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances ( OPPTS ) RIN: 2070-AJ93

View Related Documents

Title: Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals; Chemical Information Reporting Under TSCA Section 8(a) and Health and Safety Data Reporting Under TSCA Section 8(d)
Abstract: EPA is developing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) and intends to initiate a stakeholder process to provide input on the design and scope of possible reporting under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA anticipates that States, industry, public interest groups and members of the public will be participants in the stakeholder process.The stakeholder process will bring stakeholders together to discuss the information needs and potential reporting under TSCA. As EPA considers potential reporting under TSCA, EPA intends to seek input from the stakeholders to help ensure reporting burdens and costs are minimized, and that information already available is considered in order to avoid duplication of efforts.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: PreRule Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 712; 40 CFR 716 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 15 USC 2601 et seq Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: Stakeholder input is needed on the design and scope of possible reporting requirements under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) sections 8(a) and 8(d).

Legal Basis: TSCA section 8(a) and 8(d).

Alternatives: It is expected that possible alternatives will be identified and evaluated through the ANPRM as part of the stakeholder input process.

Costs and Benefits: Costs and benefits will be evaluated during the development of an NPRM.

Risks: Potential risks will be evaluated during development of an NPRM.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

ANPRM 05/00/2013

Additional Information: Docket #:EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-1019

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined
Federalism: Undetermined Energy Affected: Undetermined
RIN Information URL: http://www.epa.gov/hydraulicfracture/ Agency Contact: Mark Seltzer Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 7405M, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460 Phone: 202 564-2910 E-Mail: Seltzer.Mark@epa.gov Agency Contact: Chenise Farquharson Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 7405M, Washington, DC 204060 Washington , DC 204060 Phone: 202 564-7768 FAX: 202 564-4775 E-Mail: Farquharson.Chenise@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. This law amends Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 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. The law further requires EPA to promulgate implementing regulations by January 1, 2013. This rulemaking includes provisions related to third-party testing and certification. EPA intends to propose a third-party certification program that will help ensure compliance with the emissions standards. A separate Regulatory Agenda entry (RIN 2070-AJ92) covers the other regulations 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: Proposed 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 sec 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).

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 is currently evaluating the costs and benefits of this action.

Risks: EPA is currently evaluating the risks presented by exposure to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products (hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard (MDF), and particleboard) in excess of the statutory limits. 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 increased risk of asthma in children. In addition, 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 01/00/2013

Final Rule 02/00/2014

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

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
Sectors Affected: 541611; 541990; 561990; 813910; 541330; 813920; 321219; 541380; 3212 Agency Contact: Erik Winchester Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 7404T, Washington, DC 20460 Washington , DC 20460 Phone: 202 564-6450 E-Mail: winchester.erik@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

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. This law amends TSCA 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. The law further requires EPA to promulgate implementing regulations by January 1, 2013. This rulemaking will address the mandate to promulgate regulations 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. As directed by the statute, EPA will also consider provisions relating to, among other things, laminated products, products made with no added formaldehyde resins, testing requirements, product labeling, chain of custody documentation and other recordkeeping requirements, and product inventory sell-through provisions. A separate Regulatory Agenda entry (RIN 2070-AJ44) covers the mandate for EPA to promulgate regulations to address requirements for accrediting bodies and third-party certifiers.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: Private Sector
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 15 USC 2697; TSCA sec 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). 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.

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 is currently evaluating the costs and benefits of this action.

Risks: EPA is currently evaluating the risks presented by exposure to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products (hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard (MDF), and particleboard) in excess of the statutory limits. 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 increased risk of asthma in children. In addition, formaldehyde is a by-product of human metabolism; therefore, endogenous levels are present in the body.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 01/00/2013

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 InformationURL: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/formaldehyde/index.html
Sectors 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