## August 201 4 Ac tion Initiation List (as of 9 /

24 /201 4 )

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The following actions were initiated by EPA this month. Explanations of which EPA actions are included on this list and of ea ch

element of the table can be found at the end of this document. The two most recent Action Initiation Lists (AILs) can always be found at: http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/search/ail.html. But, they will not provide updates on the actions listed herein. Updates on priority rulemakings are available from EPA's Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker (RegDaRRT) on www.ep a.gov/rulemaking/.

If one of the rules on this AIL is in RegDaRRT, a link to the rule's profile i s included in the table below. For all rules

– those that are in RegDaRRT and those that are not

– you may obtain updates twice a year in EPA’s Semiannual Re gulatory Agenda, which

is accessible from these Web sites:

• EPA’s Laws, Regulations, Guidance and Dockets (http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/search/regagenda.html)

• RegInfo.gov (http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain)

• Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=UnifiedAgenda&agency=EPA&pubperiod=200710)

Action Initiation List

– August 201 4 Page 1 of 6Action Title Stage Contact Abstract Projected

Publication

Date

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:

The 2016 Critical Use Exemption from the

Phase

- out of Methyl

Bromide NPRM Jeremy Arling

202

- 343

- 9055 Arling.Jeremy@epa.gov Methyl bromide was phased out under the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in 2005, except for limited exemptions. This action would authorize critical uses for the 2016 control period, and the amount of methyl bromide that may be produced or imported for those uses that year. Absent this rulemaking, production and import of methyl bromide

for critical uses would be zero for 2016. EPA takes this action under the authority of the Clean Air Act to reflect consensus Decisions of the Parties to the

Montreal Protocol in November 2014. 12 months

or less

Amendments to Tier 3

Motor Vehicle Emission

and Fuel Standards, Nonroad Engine, Equipment, and Fuel Programs, and MARPOL Annex VI Implementation NPRM,

Direct Final Tia Sutton

734

- 214

- 4018 Sutton.Tia@epa.gov EPA is taking direct final actio n on three sets of amendments. First, we are making a variety of corrections to the Tier 3 motor vehicl e emission and fuel

standards. These changes generally correct or clarify various provisions from the Tier 3 rule without expanding the Tier 3 program or otherwise making any substantive changes to what was described in the April 2014 final rule. Second, we are revising the test procedures and compliance provisions for nonroad spark

- ignition engines at or below 19 kW (and for the corresponding nonroad equipment) to conform to current practices. The changes t o evaporative emission test procedures also apply to some degree to other types of nonroad equipment pow ered by volatile liquid fuels. Third, we are revising the regulations to more carefully align with current requirements that apply to marine vessels

wit h diesel engines as specified under MARPOL Annex VI. 12 months

or less

Conforming Revisions to

the Cross

- State Air

Pollution Rule Interim

Final Elyse Steiner

202

- 343

- 9141
Steiner .Elyse @epa.gov This action would only be finalized if the DC Circuit Court grants EPA's motion to

lift the Cross

- State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) stay. This is a ministerial action amending the CSAPR so that it would con form to the court's decisions. No changes would be made in the substantive requirements of the existing rule. 12 months

or less

Revisions to Regional Consistency Regulations

to Allow Variances for

Judicial Decisions NPRM Greg Nizich

919

- 541

- 3078 Nizich.Greg@epa.gov This rule will revise the R egional Consistency regulations to allow an exception for judicial decisions. The outcome of these revisions will not affect the regional consistency requirements for regulations or guidance documents other than those related to judicial decisi ons. 12 months

or less



### Action Initiation List

– August 201 4 Page 2 of 6Action Title Stage Contact Abstract Projected

Publication

Date
Toxics Release Inventory

Addition of Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD ) NPRM Daniel Bushman

202

- 566

- 0743 Bushman.Daniel@epa.gov EPA is evaluating whether to add hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) to the list of chemicals reportable under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right

- to

- Know Act (i.e., the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)). HBCD is a brominated flame retardant found world

- wide in the environment and wildlife. Human exposure is evidenced from its presence in breast milk, adipose tissue and blood. It bioaccumulate s and biomagnifies in the food chain. It persists and is transported long distances

in the environment , and is high ly toxic to aquatic organisms. HBCD is also

of concern for certain chronic human health effects. EPA has developed the following Action Plan to address concerns for releases of HBCD to the

environment : http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/actionplans/RIN2070

- AZ10_HBCD%20act ion%20plan_Final_2010

- 08

- 09.pdf . The Action Pl an includes the initiation of rulemaking to add HBCD to the TRI. 12 months

or less

Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Implementation Rule NPRM Jeffrey Kempic

202

- 564

- 4880

Kem pic.Jeffrey@epa.gov The Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act was enacted on January 4, 2011, to amend Section 1417 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA or Act) respecting the use and introduction into commerce of lead pipes, plumbing fittings or fixtures, solder and flux. The 2011 “Reduction of Lead

in Drinking Water Act” revised Section 1417 to: (1) Redefine “lead free” in SDWA Section 1417(d) to · lower the maximum lead content of plumbing products such as pipes and fixtures from 8.0% to 0.25%; · establish a statutory method for the calculation of l ead content; and · eliminate the requirement that lead free products be in compliance with voluntary standards established in accordance with SDWA 1417(e) for leaching of lead from new plumbing fittings and fixtures. (2) Create exemptions in SDWA Section 1417(a)(4) from the prohibitions

on the use or introduction into commerce for: · “pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings or fixtures, including backflow preventers, that are used exclusively for nonpotable services such as manufacturing, industrial proce ssing, irrigation, outdoor watering, or any other uses where the water is not anticipated to be used for human consumption;” (SDWA 1417(a)(4)(A)) · “toilets, bidets, urinals, fill valves, flushometer valves, tub fillers, shower valves, service saddles, or water distribution main gate valves that are 2 inches in diameter or larger.” (SDWA 1417(a)(4)(B)) EPA will propose regulations to codify the requirements in the Act. 12 months

or more



### Action Initiation List

– August 201 4 Page 3 of 6Action Title Stage Contact Abstract Projected

Publication

Date

Alaskan
Seafood Processing

Effluent

Limitations

Guidelines Final Meghan Hessenauer

202 566

- 1040

Hessenauer .Meghan@epa.gov The existing effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) for the Alaskan Seafood subcategories of

the Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing ELGs (40 CFR Part 408) which were promulgated in the 1970s required new and existing sources to meet discharge requirements that reflected a facility’s proximity to population and/or processing centers: “non

- remote” and

“remote .” As promulgated, all facilities except for those listed in the non

- remote ELGs (i.e., Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan, Kodiak, and Petersburg) are subject to requir ements for “remote” locations. For remote locations, the ELGs established numerical limits on particle size discharged (1/2 inch) based on grinding to reduce the size of the pieces prior to discharge. For the non

- remote locations, the ELGs established numerical limits for total suspended solids (TSS) and oil and grease based on screening the solids from the wastewater prior to discharge and solids handling of screened solids by some means other

tha n near shore direct discharge. These regulations were litigated and upheld in the Ninth Circuit. However, in 1980, certain members of the Alaska n seafood processing industry subsequently submitted two petitions along with new data and information to EPA requesting that it suspend the non

- remote ELGs for facilities located in Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan, and Petersburg and instead subject them to the less stringent requi rements for

“remote” locations. The non

- remote ELGs would remain in effect for Kodiak.

On May 19, 1980, EPA temporarily suspended the existing requirements for facilities in the

five “non

- remote“ centers covered in the p etition and instead subjected them to the less stringent limits based on gri nding, until October 15, 1980. On January 9, 1981, EPA issued a proposal to deny the petition to modify and amend the ELGs for Anchorage, Cordova, Ketchikan and Petersburg, but to grant the petition to remove Juneau from the non

- remote subcategories. EPA also solicited comment on subjecting additional geographic locations including two specific locations, Dutch Harbor and Kenai Peninsula, to the “non

- remote” requirements. In the 198 1 proposal, EPA stated that the May 1980 suspension would remain

in effect u ntil EPA made a final decision. The Agency has not made a final decision and the suspension has remained in effect since 1980.

On November 7, 2013, EPA provided new data and infor mation gathered since th e 1981 proposal. The notice described EPA’s recent data and information gathering; provided EPA’s preliminary analyses of the new data; and summarized what the Agency learned from the new data and analyses. It provided preliminary r esults of EPA’s analyses of the updated data for the five petition locations as well as preliminary analysis for possible additional locations. Finally, it provided preliminary indications of how these results may be reflected in EPA’s final response to pe titions submitted in 1980 by certain members of the Alaskan seafood processing industry, and in amended effluent limitations.

EPA is reviewing the comments received from the notice and is preparing responses. A final preamble and rule is expected be sign ed and published in September 2015

. 12 months

or more



### Action Initiation List

– August 201 4 Page 4 of 6Action Title Stage Contact Abstract Projected

Publication

Date

Typographical

Corrections to CWA Priority Pollutant List NPRM,

Direct

Final Adrian Hanley

202

- 564

- 1564 Hanley.Adrian@epa.gov This action contains the list of priority pollutants, which was published in the Federal Register on November 19, 1982, with corrections made to typographical errors, standardization of formating, and the clarification of

som e of the outdated nomenclature with the addition o f synonyms used by the Agency. It does not change the chemicals listed as priority pollutants. 12 months

or less

Modernization of the

Accidental Release Prevention Regulations

under Clean Air Act NPRM Jim Belke

202

- 564

- 8023 Belke.Jim@epa.gov In response to Executive Order 13650, EPA is considering potential revisions to its Risk Management Program reg ulations and related

programs. This notice may propose changes to the list of regulated substances and threshold quantities, addition of new accident prevention or emergency response program elements and/or changes to existing elements, and/or other changes to the existing regulatory provisions. 12 months

or less



### Action Initiation List

– August 201 4 Page 5 of 6

# What EPA Actions Appear on the AILs?

Generally, AILs include those actions that 1) will appear in upcoming Semiannual Regulatory Agenda and 2) have been approved for
commencement by EPA’s Regulatory Policy Officer. In rare instances, an action will not a ppear on an AIL before it appears in the Agenda

. Also, keep in mind that AILs will not post immediately. You can access a given month's list roughly 20 days after the close of the month (e.g.,
the April 201 4 AIL will post sometime around May 20 th).



# What D oes Each Column in the AIL Mean?

Title: Self

- explanatory.



## Stage: The stage of an action describes where we are in the rule writing process, from the very beginning when a rule (or other act ion) is

just an idea to the end when it is published as a final rule (or other action) in the Federal Register. For example, the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) stage announces a proposed rule or proposed mod ification to an existing rule. In the AILs, the following acronyms are

used :

• ANPRM

- Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

• NPRM

- Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

• Supplemental

- Supplemental NPRM

• Direct Final

- Direct Final Action

• Interim Final

– Interim Final Action

• Final

– Final Action

• Section 610 Review

– Agency Review under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act



## Contact: Provides the name, phone, and email address for the EPA staff person assigned to this rule. Additionally, if a rule is in EPA 's RegDaRRT ( www.epa.gov/rulemaking/ ), then a link to the rule's profile will be provided in this column.



## Abstract: A brief summary of the action and its purpose.



## Projected Publication Date: Since many variables affect how long it takes to write a rule or other act ion, it is difficult to predict a firm publication date when we have just started working on an action. Therefore, we insert one of two options in the "Projected Publication Date"

column : 1) "12 months or less" and 2) "more than 12 months." These options give you some idea of how q uickly we expect to complete an

action.



### Action Initiation List

– August 201 4 Page 6 of 6