ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) 

Statement 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 From reducing mercury and other toxic air pollution from outdated power 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 

in 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.

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

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

Storage (CCS) activities. The proposed rule, if finalized, will conditionally exclude CO2 streams from 

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

streams, 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, 

offered 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. EPA 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 

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

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

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

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

Regulatory 

Identifier 

Number 

(RIN) 

Rulemaking Title 

2060-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 also

receive 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.gov
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Water ( WATER ) RIN: 2040-AF14

 View Related Documents

Title: Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category

Abstract: EPA establishes national technology-based regulations, called effluent limitations guidelines and standards, to

reduce discharges of pollutants from industries to waters of the U.S. These requirements are incorporated into National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permits issued by EPA and States and through the national

pretreatment program. The steam electric effluent 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.gov
Agency Contact: Jezebele Alicea Environmental Protection Agency

Water

4303T, Washington, DC 20460

Washington , DC 20460 

Phone: 202 566-1755 

FAX: 202 566-1053

E-Mail: alicea.jezebele@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

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: Undetermined
Federalism: 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 Agency
Water

4502T, Washington, DC 20460

Washington , DC 20460 

Phone: 202 566-1452 

E-Mail: Fertik.Rachel@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Water ( WATER ) RIN: 2040-AE95

 View Related Documents

Title: Criteria and Standards for Cooling Water Intake Structures

Abstract: Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to ensure that the location, design, construction, and

capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental

impacts. Under a consent decree with environmental organizations, EPA divided the 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. 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.

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: No
CFR 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: 202 564-1970 
FAX: 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: No
Energy 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: None
Regulatory 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-duty
vehicles are responsible for a significant portion of the precursors to these pollutants and are large contributors to ambient air

toxic pollution. In many nonattainment areas, by 2014, cars and light trucks are projected to contribute 30-45 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-duty

vehicles 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 this
proposed 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-hoc
flare 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 Rule
Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: CAA 111

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: 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 Substances

Control 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 Substances

Control 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 of

elements 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 Information
URL: 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