Improving Our Regulations:

Final Plan for 

Periodic Retrospective Reviews 

of Existing Regulations

By:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

August 2011
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 2 of 62

Table of Contents

1 Overview .................................................................................................................................4

This overview describes broad initiatives to help EPA achieve a 21st century, efficient regulatory 

program, including replacing outdated paper-based reporting with electronic reporting, expanding 

information disclosure to improve transparency, and more.

1.1 A 21st century approach to environmental protection 5

1.2 A more efficient approach to regulation 10

1.3 Conduct of reviews 11

2 Regulations We Plan to Review ............................................................................................14

EPA intends to undertake 35 regulatory reviews for this, our initial review period. These reviews 

are expected to lead to 16 early actions in 2011, with many more in subsequent years of the review 

period. This section describes each one.

2.1 Early actions 17

2.2 Longer term actions 31

3 Public Involvement and Agency Input for this Plan..............................................................48

In parallel efforts, EPA sought to learn how public and Agency stakeholders would recommend 

designing this plan. Both efforts are described in this section.

3.1 Public involvement in developing this Plan 48

3.2 Agency input into this Plan 50

4 EPA’s Plan for Future Periodic Regulatory Reviews............................................................51

This section defines a process that EPA intends to use for predictable, transparent future regulatory 

reviews, to be conducted every five years.

4.1 Management and oversight of the Plan 51

4.2 Process for conducting retrospective reviews 51

4.3 Criteria for regulatory reviews 52

4.4 Public involvement in future review periods 55

4.5 Reporting on each review period 56

4.6 Frequency of review periods 56

5 Evaluation of the First Review Period...................................................................................57
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 3 of 62

6 Contact Information...............................................................................................................58

Appendix: Questions offered during the public comment period to help the public formulate their 

comments......................................................................................................................................59

General Questions 59

Questions Specific to an Issue or Impact 59
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 4 of 62

Text Box 1: EPA to Undertake 

35 Priority Regulatory Reviews

In this Plan, EPA defines 35 regulatory reviews for 

our initial review period. Sixteen of them fit into the 

category of “early actions,” meaning the Agency 

intends to propose or finalize an action to modify, 

streamline, expand, or repeal a regulation or related 

program during the 2011 calendar year. The other 19 

reviews are longer term actions, whereby we will 

review the regulations in question and assess whether 

revisions are needed. See section 2 of this Plan for 

details on each of the 35 reviews.

1 Overview

EPA developed this Final Plan for Periodic 

Retrospective Reviews of Existing 

Regulations (the Plan) in response to 

President Obama’s charge in Executive Order 

13563 for each federal agency to 

“develop...a...plan, consistent with law and 

its resources and regulatory priorities, under 

which the agency will periodically review its 

existing significant regulations to determine 

whether any such regulations should be 

modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed 

so as to make the agency’s regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving 

the regulatory objectives.”1

 The Executive Order (EO) also enumerates a number of principles

and directives to guide agencies as they work to improve the Nation’s regulatory system, which 

the Agency intends to use to guide regulatory reviews and related EPA activities. 

Though EPA and its partners have made great progress in protecting the environment, the 

Agency is committed to continual improvement. EPA has a long history of thoughtfully 

examining its existing regulations to make sure they are effectively and efficiently meeting the 

needs of the American people. Both statutory and judicial obligations have compelled some of 

our reviews. Others arise from independent EPA decisions to improve upon existing regulations. 

In fact, of EPA’s current regulatory workload, almost two-thirds of our activity is a review of an 

existing regulation.

2

 Just as EPA intends to apply the principles and directives of EO 13563 to 

the priority actions listed in section 2 of this Plan, we intend to likewise apply the EO’s 

principles and directives to the regulatory reviews that appear in the Regulatory Agenda.

EO 13563 is an opportunity to take a fresh look at the Agency’s approach to protecting human 

health and the environment and an opportunity to modernize our regulatory program. What 

should a 21st century regulatory program look like? How can we better understand the impacts 

of existing regulations? How do we determine which regulations should be modified, 

streamlined, expanded, or repealed to be more effective and less burdensome? How can EPA 

improve collaborations with our partners such as state, local, and tribal governments? What new 

tools should the Agency employ to improve environmental quality? The initiatives and 

regulatory reviews described in this Plan are intended to help us thoroughly modernize 

regulations that are priorities right now, regulations we intend to review as a matter of course 

 1 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (Executive Order 13563).” 76 FR 3821 (January 21, 2011). 

Available from: the Government Printing Office’s Federal Digital System (FDsys): 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-21/pdf/2011-1385.pdf; Accessed: 08/15/11. 2 This estimate is based on active actions published in EPA’s Spring 2011 Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, and does 

not include actions in the "Completed" or "Long Term" rulemaking stages. 
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 5 of 62

because of statutory or judicial requirements, and regulations brought to our attention by the 

public.

The current Plan describes a large number of burden-reducing, cost-saving reforms, including 35 

priority initiatives. Some of these have recently been completed; others are in process; still others 

are in their earliest stages. The potential economic savings are significant. For example, a recent 

final rule exempts milk producers from regulations designed to protect against oil spills; that rule 

will save $145 million - $148 million annually. A recently proposed rule would eliminate 

redundant air pollution control requirements now imposed on gas stations; that rule would save 

$87 million annually. Taken as a whole, recent reforms, already finalized or formally proposed, 

are anticiapted to save up to $1.5 billion over the next five years. Other reforms described here, 

including efforts to streamline requirements and to move to electronic reporting, could save 

more.

EPA emphasizes that Executive Order 13563 calls not for a single exercise, but for “periodic 

review of existing significant regulations.” It explicitly states that “retrospective analyses, 

including supporting data, should be released online wherever possible.” Consistent with the 

commitment to periodic review and to public participation, EPA intends to continue to assess its 

existing significant regulations in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13563. 

EPA welcomes public suggestions about appropriate reforms. If, at any time, members of the 

public identify possible reforms to modify, streamline, expand or repeal existing regulations,

EPA intends to give those suggestions careful consideration.

1.1 A 21st century approach to environmental protection

During our 40-year history, EPA and our federal, state, local, tribal, and community partners 

have made enormous progress in protecting the Nation’s health and environment through EPA’s 

regulatory and stewardship programs. However, 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. A central 

goal, consistent with Executive Order 13563, is to identify methods for reducing unjustified 

burdens and costs.

High-speed information technologies allow real-time reporting of emissions and provide 

unprecedented opportunities for transparency and public involvement in matters affecting local 

environmental conditions. These technological advances allow us to better track environmental 

progress, apply innovative approaches to compliance and reduce regulatory costs. New emission 

control technologies allow greatly improved environmental performance. Citizens’ interest in 

living sustainably has grown, and the marketplace increasingly values green products. 

EPA’s evolving regulatory program builds upon these nationwide trends, and improvements to 

our regulatory program should be made not only through our retrospective reviews but also 

prospectively. Therefore, EPA intends to apply the principles and directives of EO 13563 to 

both retrospective reviews of existing regulations and the development of new regulations. 

While this Plan focuses on retrospective reviews, which are enumerated in section 2, it is 
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 6 of 62

important to understand the broader context within which the reviews are being conducted. 

During our retrospective reviews, EPA intends to seek ways to promote program effectiveness 

and burden reduction through the following broad initiatives:

• Electronic reporting,

• Improved transparency,

• Innovative compliance approaches, and

• Systems approaches and integrated problem-solving.

1.1.1 Electronic reporting

First, EPA intends to replace outdated paper reporting with electronic reporting. Agency 

reporting requirements are still largely paper-based, which is inefficient and unnecessarily costly 

and resource-intensive for reporting entities and states, and ineffective for compliance 

monitoring and assurance. To reduce these burdens, increase efficiency and effectiveness, 

improve compliance and reduce pollution over the long-term, the Agency needs a comprehensive 

plan to convert to 21st century electronic reporting technology while maintaining data security 

and confidentiality. This will require some short-term investments of time and technology 

development, but is expected to provide substantial long-term benefits for industry, states, EPA, 

and the public. A number of the specific regulatory reviews outlined in section 2 of this Plan 

contain as an essential element a shift to electronic submission of information. In addition to 

these specific proposals, EPA intends to move away from paper reporting and modernize EPA 

reporting processes as follows:

• By conducting a targeted review to convert key existing paper reporting requirements to 

electronic reporting, perhaps through an omnibus rule. As part of this targeted review, 

EPA may identify some outdated paper reporting requirements that can be eliminated or 

streamlined once electronic reporting is in place. For example, we are developing a 

proposed rule for converting existing selected paper-based National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) reporting obligations to a national electronic reporting 

format. The NPDES e-reporting rule will allow us to eliminate the current annual and 

quarterly reporting requirements from the states since this information will be generated 

by the NPDES data systems. The rule will also require the regulated community to 

submit their Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) electronically reducing the need for 

manual data entry. These changes represent a significant reduction in paper-based 

reporting required to be managed and reported by the states. EPA could convert existing 

paper-based reporting by regulated facilities for other environmental programs to a 

similar nationally consistent electronic reporting format. 

Several program areas in EPA either have recently added electronic reporting 

requirements to their regulations or have recently proposed adding this requirement. 

EPA recently promulgated the following Clean Air Act (CAA) rules that require 

electronic reporting: Coal Preparation and Processing Plants rule (74 FR 51950, Oct. 8, 

2009); the Portland Cement rule (75 FR 54970, Sept. 9, 2010); and the Gold Mine Ore 

rule (76 FR 9450, Feb. 17, 2011). EPA is considering expanding the electronic reporting 

concept to existing rules in additional program areas under the Safe Drinking Water Act 
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 7 of 62

Text Box 2: EPA Creatively Structures 

Regulations to Efficiently and 

Cost Effectively Increase Compliance

EPA already has experience demonstrating that 

creative approaches can increase compliance while 

reducing cost. For example, we learned in the 

1970’s that the most effective way to ensure 

compliance with new unleaded gasoline 

requirements was not widespread inspections, but 

simply changing the size of the nozzle used to fill 

gas tanks. Following the 1996 Safe Drinking 

Water Act amendments, researchers found that the 

simple requirement of mailing Consumer 

Confidence Reports to consumers resulted in a 30-

50% increase in utilities’ compliance rates with 

drinking water requirements in Massachusetts. 

While we are aware that the provision of 

Consumer Confidence Reports is a means of 

increasing compliance, we are also aware that their 

production and distribution can be burdensome on 

water purveyors and states. EPA intends to review 

these reporting requirements to determine if 

burden may be reduced while compliance is 

maintained or increased; this review is described in 

detail later in the Plan.

(SDWA), parts of the CAA, or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA).

• By developing a strategy for ensuring that new rules incorporate the most efficient 

electronic reporting techniques.

• By encouraging private sector development of reporting tools to drive innovation, reduce 

costs, and help regulated entities to comply. Based on the successful Internal Revenue 

Service model for enabling private vendors to build reporting tools, EPA intends to 

conduct a proof-of-concept pilot project to see if private vendors could create electronic 

tools for regulated entities to electronically report their environmental compliance data 

using an open platform approach. If feasible, this could create opportunities for 

innovation by private sector entrepreneurs to develop such electronic tools along with 

incentives for starting and growing companies to commercialize them and create new 

jobs.

1.1.2 Improved Transparency

Second, in order to improve regulatory effectiveness, EPA intends to enhance transparency by 

striving to expand public disclosure of pollution, compliance, and other regulatory information to 

more efficiently provide information to the public upon which choices can be made. Disclosure 

of pollution, compliance, and other regulatory information can drive better results for health and 

the environment, and provides communities with information they need about environmental 

problems that affect them. Improved 

transparency can help to level the playing field 

by helping facilities, governments, and the 

public know what is being accomplished or 

required in other locations. Both when 

reviewing existing regulations and when 

developing new regulations, EPA intends to 

seek ways to expand public disclosure of 

pollution, compliance, and other regulatory 

information to improve the actual results of 

regulatory requirements and more efficiently 

provide the public with information necessary 

to participate in the regulatory process. 

1.1.3 Innovative Compliance 

Approaches

Third, the Agency intends to reduce pollution 

by improving compliance with EPA regulations 

in ways that are more effective and efficient 

while reducing burden. EPA will seek ways to 

achieve greater compliance both when 

reviewing existing regulations and when 

developing new regulations. Effective 
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 8 of 62

Text Box 4: Integrated Problem Solving:

A Drinking Water Example

EPA is seeking a new approach to expand public health 

protection for drinking water by going beyond the 

traditional framework that addresses contaminants one at a 

time. The Agency has conducted a national conversation 

to identify better ways to address contaminants in groups, 

improve drinking water technology, and more effectively 

address potential risks to give Americans greater 

confidence in the quality of their drinking water.

EPA is focused on four principles that will provide greater 

protection of drinking water. These are:

• Address contaminants as groups rather than one 

at a time so that enhancement of drinking water 

protection can be achieved cost-effectively.

• Foster development of new drinking water 

technologies to address health risks posed by a

broad array of contaminants.

• Use the authority of multiple statutes to help 

protect drinking water.

• Partner with states to share more complete data 

from monitoring at public water systems (PWS).

Text Box 3: Promoting the Green Economy 

and Innovation

Pollution prevention efforts across EPA have helped 

protect children and families in this country from exposure 

to harmful pollutants and has significantly reduced the 

amount of contaminants released into the environment. 

These ongoing efforts include Energy Star, WasteWise, 

Plug-In To eCycling, WaterSense, and our Green 

Electronics, Green Chemistry, Green Engineering, Design 

for the Environment (DfE), and Economy, Energy and 

Environment (E3) programs. EPA intends to improve 

coordination among these programs to maximize their 

effectivenss. 

EPA engaged the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to 

convene national experts and prepare a report on how to 

make sustainability operational at EPA. One charge to the 

academy was to identify the critical tools, methods, and 

scientific approaches needed to advance sustainability. 

While the concept of sustainability science has evolved 

over the past two decades, it has not been formerly 

incorporated into EPA's operational framework. The NAS 

Report (the so-called Green Book) was made publically 

available on August 2. EPA has begun to review the 

recommendations and will aim for timely responses in the 

months ahead.

enforcement of environmental regulations

promotes the welfare of Americans by 

protecting the air we breathe and the water 

we drink, and assuring that complying 

facilities are not at a competitive 

disadvantage with those that violate the 

law. However, due to the sheer number of 

regulated facilities, the increasing 

contributions of large numbers of smaller 

sources to important environmental 

problems, and federal and state budget 

constraints, we can no longer rely 

primarily on the traditional single facility 

inspection and enforcement approach to 

ensure compliance across the country. 

EPA needs to embed innovative 

mechanisms in the structure of its rules to 

do a better job of encouraging compliance 

on a wide scale. (See text box 2.) 

To supplement traditional compliance 

approaches, EPA plans to routinely 

structure federal regulations and permits as 

effectively as possible to achieve 

compliance, through adequate monitoring 

requirements, public disclosure, 

information and reporting mechanisms,

and other structural flexibilities, including 

self-certification, and third-party 

verification. 

1.1.4 Systems Approaches 

and Integrated 

Problem-Solving

Fourth, the Agency intends to design a 21st

century approach to environmental 

regulation by using systems approaches 

and integrated problem-solving strategies 

to accelerate pollution prevention and 

other beneficial environmental outcomes. 

A primary way to promote pollution 

prevention and sustainable outcomes is 

through broader adoption of problemsolving approaches that bring to bear all 

relevant tools – regulatory and nonregulatory – to provide integrated and 
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 9 of 62

comprehensive solutions to priority 

environmental problems. 

EPA’s research and development activities 

can help provide a strong scientific 

foundation for innovative solutions. 

Strategic sequencing of regulations as they 

are developed will allow us to consider the 

cumulative impacts of our rules and to 

regulate more efficiently. Use of systems 

and life cycle analyses allows us to pinpoint 

the most effective points for policy 

intervention. Applying the full spectrum of 

policy tools available to the Agency can 

maximize environmental results while 

reducing costs. (See text box 3.) 

Another example where the Agency has 

successfully applied this integrated 

approach is in the CAA area source rule for 

auto body shops. A technology based 

control limit was complemented by a nonregulatory pollution prevention approach. 

Partners in the Design for Environment’s

Safer Product Labeling Program developed 

an alternative solvent that does not require 

emissions control technology, thus 

providing industry a way to avoid the costs 

of installing pollution control equipment by 

using alternative chemicals. A third 

example is EPA’s current efforts to develop an integrated approach to drinking water protection. 

(See text box 4.)

One final example of EPA’s commitment to integrated solutions is EPA’s strong support and 

promotion of the use of green infrastructure (GI) approaches to manage wet weather through 

infiltration, evapotranspiration, and rainwater harvesting. EPA is using GI in National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, as well as remedies designed to comply with 

the Clean Water Act (CWA), recognizing that green infrastructure can be a cost-effective, 

flexible, and environmentally-sound approach to reduce stormwater runoff and sewer overflows 

and to meet CWA requirements. Green infrastructure also provides a variety of community

benefits including economic savings, green jobs, neighborhood enhancements and sustainable 

communities. Because of these benefits, EPA is working with communities around the country 

to incorporate green designs into NPDES permits and enforcement agreements. (See text box 5.)

Text Box 5: Integrated Problem Solving: Green 

Infrastructure and Management of Municipal 

Wastewater Systems

EPA continues to work closely with many communities to 

develop pragmatic and effective solutions, including 

green infrastructure (GI) and traditional engineering that 

address both long-term and daily management of their 

wastewater systems. EPA recognizes the need to provide 

municipalities with flexibility to implement GI so that the 

solutions can be sustained over the long term and 

communities can realize the multiple benefits of GI, 

including neighborhood enhancements, green jobs, and 

energy savings. EPA also incorporates flexibility into 

both performance criteria and implementation schedules 

as evidenced by recent settlements with the cities of 

Kansas City, Cleveland, and St. Louis. More information 

on St. Louis appears below. For information on:

• Cleveland, see: 

http://www.epa.gov/agingepa/press/epanews/201

0/2010_1222_2.htm

• Kansas City, see: 

http://epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/c

wa/kansascity.html 

St. Louis, MO - The St. Louis proposed consent decree, 

includes a $100 million green infrastructure storm water 

retrofit program, focused in low income neighborhoods. 

This will reduce CSO flows to the Mississippi River by 10 

percent annually or approximately 85 million gallons per 

year, beyond the gray infrastructure portion of the 

remedy. The green infrastructure program will start with 

a pilot project to determine the most effective green 

infrastructure techniques, such as green roofs, green 

streets and green parking retrofits. 
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 10 of 62

1.2 A more efficient approach 

to regulation

EPA recognizes that there is potential for 

regulatory overlap and contradiction 

between various jurisdictional 

requirements. (See Executive Order 13563, 

section 3, on integration and innovation.) 

In this setting, regulations often appear to 

be excessive. Businesses are concerned 

with inconsistency and duplication across 

varying jurisdictions. The Agency is 

seeking ways to introduce greater 

efficiencies into our regulatory program 

and achieve greater harmonization among 

related regulations, both among EPA 

regulations and among the regulations of 

other federal, state, local, and tribal 

agencies. With the broad initiatives 

outlined previously, as well as the 

regulatory reviews described in section 2, 

EPA will look for ways to protect human 

health and the environment more 

efficiently and effectively.

As an example, and consistent with 

Executive Order 13563, section 3, EPA is 

examining ways to harmonize its vehicle 

regulations with those of California and 

other federal agencies in the following 

areas: 

1. Fuel economy labeling with the 

California Air Resources Control 

Board (CARB) and the Federal 

Trade Commission; 

2. Vehicle greenhouse gas standards 

and fuel-economy standards in 

conjunction with the Department of Transportation (DOT) and CARB; and 

3. Vehicle testing and compliance standards with CARB. 

Another example is described in the text box 6. By using a flexible systems approach to vehicle 

and fuel regulations, EPA has spurred a sustainable transportation market and given the industry 

the flexibility to design innovative technological responses to regulatory requirements.

Text Box 6: Making Transportation More Sustainable: 

A Flexible Systems Approach

The substantial emission reductions achieved through 

vehicle and fuel standards depends on extensive 

collaboration between EPA and vehicle, engine, and fuel 

manufacturers; state and local governments; 

transportation planners; and individual citizens. EPA 

takes a systems approach, setting standards for both 

vehicles and fuels. For example, the Vehicle Tier 2 

standards were combined with low sulfur gasoline 

standards to enable cleaner vehicle technologies. This 

results in greater emissions reductions at lower costs. 

Vehicle, engine, and fuel regulations include a number of 

flexibilities to help industry achieve the standards and 

reduce compliance costs, such as averaging, banking and 

trading, early credits, phase-in schedules, exemptions, and 

hardship relief. Compliance reports by vehicle 

manufacturers, fuel producers and others are virtually all 

submitted electronically. This flexible approach to mobile 

source emission control is responsible for greatly reducing 

mobile source air pollution during the last 30 years.

The transportation industry has responded to this flexible 

systems approach with improvements to engine and 

vehicle technologies that help to make transportation 

more sustainable. These improvements include:

• Designing highly efficient combustion systems 

to minimize exhaust pollution.

• Introducing vapor recovery systems to capture 

evaporating gasoline.

• Using computer technologies to monitor and 

control engine performance.

• Developing effective "after treatment" 

technologies, such as catalytic converters and 

particulate filters, that remove pollutants from 

the exhaust stream before they can escape into 

the atmosphere.

• More recently, reducing greenhouse gases and 

improving fuel economy through engine 

improvements like gasoline direct injection and 

use of turbochargers, increased production of 

hybrids and initial commercialization of electric 

vehicles.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 11 of 62

The technological advances of the 

Information Age also provide an 

opportunity to make 

environmental protection more 

data-driven and analytically 

rigorous while still collecting data 

and analyzing performance in a 

more efficient way. (As an 

example, see text box 7.) As the 

costs of acquiring, analyzing, and 

disseminating data is reduced, it 

becomes easier for EPA to costeffectively achieve its mission. 

EPA is committed to moving the 

regulatory process into alignment 

with the opportunities presented 

by new information technology. 

Simultaneously, EPA is working 

to be responsive to President's 

memorandum “Administrative 

Flexibility, Lower Costs, and 

Better Results for State, Local, 

and Tribal Governments.”3

 This 

memorandum is complementary 

to EO 13563 as it encourages 

agencies to identify ways to 

reduce unnecessary regulatory

and administrative burdens on 

state, local and tribal partners, 

and redirect resources to services 

that are essential to achieving 

better outcomes at lower cost.

1.3 Conduct of reviews

On a predictable, transparent, 

five-year cycle, EPA intends to 

ask the public to nominate 

additional regulations for review 

and intends to commit to new 

 3 “Administrative Flexibility, Lower Costs, and Better Results for State, Local, and Tribal Governments, February 

28, 2011 (Presidential Memorandum from President Barack Obama to Heads of Executive Departments and 

Agencies)” Daily Compilation of Presidential Documents, No. 201100123. Available from: FDsys, 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/DCPD-201100123/pdf/DCPD-201100123.pdf; Accessed: 08/15/11.

Text Box 7: Technological Advances Lead to Cheaper and 

Cleaner Outcomes: Onboard Diagnostics

By capitalizing on advances in information technology for vehicle 

diagnostics, the Agency has helped to achieve cheaper and cleaner 

outcomes in our automotive emissions control program. Vehicles are 

equipped with a “Check Engine Light” that illuminates if a 

component failure could cause emission problems. The use of 

Onboard Diagnostic Systems (OBD) has resulted in dramatic 

improvements in the performance and operation of motor vehicles, 

reducing emissions significantly, reducing costs associated with 

emission control, and improving durability and maintenance. OBD 

systems set the dashboard light which is visible to the owner at the 

point in time either a malfunction of an emission related component 

or an actual emission problem occurs. This provides a vehicle owner 

the opportunity to fix the problem when it occurs shortening the 

amount of time the problem exists. In addition, in areas with 

inspection and maintenance programs vehicles with such a light on 

must be repaired prior to passing the inspection. In both cases OBD 

identifies potential emission problems prior to the point in time such 

problems would have been identified by prior testing technologies. It 

has also made it easier for motorists and repair technicians to identify 

and correct problems as they arise, before problems compound and 

develop into more serious and costly situations. As a result of Clean 

Air Act requirements, all 1996 and newer cars and trucks were 

required to include onboard diagnostic systems (OBD) that use 

sensors and computer technology to monitor the performance of the 

engine and emission control systems on vehicles. EPA issued 

regulations to implement the OBD program in 1993.

A simple OBD scan tool can now determine if there are problems 

with the emission control system and can replace equipment costing 

100 times more. Correspondingly, the cost of vehicle inspection has 

dropped from around $25 per vehicle to about $10 per vehicle in most 

areas doing only OBD testing, leading to major savings to motorists. 

Vehicle emissions inspections are also conducted much more quickly, 

saving time for motorists. 

EPA recently expanded the implementation of OBD to include heavyduty vehicles. It is anticipated that OBD systems will reduce 

emissions from this segment of the vehicle fleet, reduce costs 

associated with controlling heavy-duty vehicle emissions, and 

improve the quality and longevity of emission related repairs on such 

vehicles.

For more information, see:

• "Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and 

New Motor Vehicle Engines (Final Rule)." 58 FR 9468 

(February 19, 1993). Print.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 12 of 62

reviews to supplement those described in this Plan. As explained in section 4 of this Plan, future 

review priorities will be determined by:

• Comments gathered from the public, other federal agencies, and EPA experts; 

• The expertise of the EPA offices writing the regulations;

• Agency and Administration priorities, such as judicial rulings, emergencies, etc.; 

• The principles and directives of EO 13563; and 

• Agency resources. 

EPA plans to use the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda and relevant portions of the EPA website

to regularly report on the reviews that are underway.

With regard to EPA’s initial list of initiatives and retrospective reviews, and with regard to future 

reviews, the Agency intends to reduce costs, promote simplification, and to:

• Maintain focus on EPA’s mission. First and foremost, EPA intends to focus our 

regulatory reviews on protecting human health and safeguarding the environment as 

efficiently and effectively as possible.

• Meet the Agency’s current obligations. This Plan recognizes the Agency’s existing 

statutory and judicial requirements for regulatory reviews. As EPA moves forward, we 

intend to ensure that resources continue to be available to meet these mandatory 

obligations while still addressing the many discretionary reviews identified in this Plan. 

As we conduct regulatory reviews, EPA will follow any statutory and/or judicial 

requirements that apply to the particular regulation(s) under review. Statutes may 

affirmatively require the Agency to consider specific factors in reviewing regulations or 

contain express limitations on the factors the Agency may take into account. 

• Make the Plan predictable. EPA managers, who are responsible for budgeting for the 

Plan, as well as EPA staff who implement it and external stakeholders who want to 

participate, need to be able to forecast and plan for the upcoming work. 

• Make the Plan flexible and responsive to priority needs. Despite the desire to keep to

a predictable schedule, EPA retains the discretion to modify the schedule as new 

priorities, emergencies, resource constraints, and other considerations arise. 

• Follow statutorily mandated procedural requirements. This Plan establishes the 

means by which EPA intends to select candidates for regulatory review, but once a 

regulation is selected, the Agency intends to follow our established, comprehensive 

regulatory development process to discern what, if any, revisions are necessary and to 

develop the revisions. The Agency intends to follow the procedures set out in, and 

conduct the analyses required by, the Administrative Procedure Act, other applicable 

administrative statutes, applicable Executive Orders, and internal EPA rulemaking 

procedures that constitute the legal and policy framework for EPA’s rule development 

activities. In revising regulations, EPA intends to follow its established policies to 

provide meaningful opportunities for public involvement, evaluate direct and indirect 
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 13 of 62

public health and environmental implications, and analyze the benefits and costs of its 

rules.

• Provide leadership regarding environmental justice issues. Consistent with EO 

12898 and the Administrator's priorities, EPA also intends to continue its leading role on 

environmental justice matters to ensure that, in the development of its regulations, EPA 

considers overburdened communities and vulnerable populations, as well as the potential 

for adverse disproportionate impacts to low income, minority, and tribal populations. 

Further EPA intends to continue advancing environmental justice across the federal 

government through the actions outlined in Plan EJ 2014’s draft implementation plans, 

the Agency’s overarching strategy for integrating environmental justice in its programs, 

policies and activities, as well as through its review of other federal EO 13563 plans. 

• Provide leadership regarding children’s health issues. Consistent with EO 13045, 

EPA’s Children’s Health Policy, EPA’s FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan, and the 

Administrator’s priorities, EPA will continue to lead efforts to protect children from 

environmental health risks. 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. The Agency’s strategy for integrating 

children’s health protection is described in EPA’s FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan, CrossCutting Fundamental Strategy, “Working for Environmental Justice and Children’s 

Health.” EPA utilizes the document, “Guide to Considering Children's Health When 

Developing EPA Actions,” to implement EO 13045 and EPA's Policy on Evaluating 

Health Risks to Children.

4

• Strengthen intergovernmental partnerships. Consistent with the principles 

underpinning EO 13132 (Federalism), and in recognition of the fact that environmental 

professionals at the state, local, and tribal government level play a critical role in the 

implementation of federal environmental regulations, EO 13563 - through its rule 

identification and revision processes - provides EPA and its intergovernmental partners 

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

effectively pursue their shared goal of protecting the nation's environmental and public 

health.

 4 United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Guide to Considering Children’s Health When Developing EPA 

Actions.” Washington: EPA, October 2006. Available from: EPA website, 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/ADPguide.htm/$File/EPA_ADP_Guide_508.pdf; Accessed:

08/15/11.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 14 of 62

Text Box 8: Meeting the Principles of EO 

13563: The Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule

The SPCC amendments for the dairy industry 

are a good example of how the Agency strives to 

meet the principles of the EO, such as 

minimizing cumulative burden, maximizing net 

benefits, eliminating direct regulation when 

alternatives exist, and simplifying and 

harmonizing regulations across federal agencies. 

On January 15, 2009, EPA proposed 

amendments to the SPCC rule to tailor and 

streamline requirements for the dairy industry by 

excluding from the SPCC requirements milk 

containers and associated piping and 

appurtenances. The rule proposed to address 

concerns raised specifically by the dairy farm 

sector on the applicability of the SPCC 

requirements to milk containers. In April 2011, 

EPA finalized this action and excluded all milk 

and milk product containers, and associated 

piping and appurtenances, from the SPCC 

requirements, including an exclusion of the 

capacity of these milk and milk product 

containers from a facility's total oil storage 

capacity calculation to determine if the facility is 

subject to SPCC. EPA estimates that dairy 

farms and milk product manufacturing plants 

will incur savings of $145 - 148 million per year

(2010$). 

For more information, see:

• “Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention, 

Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) 

Rule— Amendments for Milk and Milk 

Product Containers; Final Rule,” 76 FR 

21652. Available from: FDsys

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-04-

18/pdf/2011-9288.pdf; Accessed 

08/15/2011.

2 Regulations We Plan to Review

EPA intends to undertake 35 regulatory reviews for this, our initial review period. Of these, 

EPA is statutorily required to conduct two; all of the rest are discretionary reviews that may 

make EPA’s regulatory program more effective or 

less burdensome. Sixteen of them fit into the 

category of “early actions,” meaning the Agency 

intends to take a specific step which could lead to 

modifying, streamlining, expanding, or repealing

a regulation or related program during the 2011 

calendar year. The other 19 reviews are longer 

term actions; the Agency intends to review the 

regulations in question and assess whether 

revisions are needed. Each action is described in 

this section, and the next milestone for each action

is included where available. 

It is important to keep in mind that the 35 reviews 

in this section are our priority activities for 

meeting the principles of EO 13563, but the 

Agency is undertaking many more reviews than 

this, and it is expected that a number of these will 

reduce costs. Of the approximately 200 active 

actions that are listed in EPA’s Spring 2011 

Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, roughly 60% are 

reviews of existing regulations.5

 

Although many of these ongoing reviews already 

meet the spirit and principles of EO 13563, the 

Agency is also considering the thoughtful public 

comments we received during our public 

involvement process (described in section 3). 

Those, too, are serving to inform the reviews. 

EPA views EO 13563 as an opportunity to 

improve the way the Agency does business – to 

help create a more efficient, 21st century 

regulatory program. 

The Agency has recently completed a number of

actions, consistent with Executive Order 13563,

that are illustrative of efforts we intend to pursue 

under this Plan:

 5 This estimate is based on active actions published in EPA’s Spring 2011 Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, and does 

not include actions in the "Completed" or "Long Term" rulemaking stages. 
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 15 of 62

• The Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) amendments for the dairy 

industry are a good example of a review which met EO principles such as minimizing 

cumulative burden, maximizing net benefits, and simplifying and harmonizing 

regulations across federal agencies, while producing annual cost savings of $145 to $148

million (in 2010 dollars (2010$)).

6 (See text box 8.)

• On March 29, 2011, EPA finalized a regulation7 pertaining to alternative fuel conversions 

of vehicles and engines. The regulation responded to concerns that the approval process 

for converting gasoline or diesel vehicles to operate on alternative fuels (e.g., natural gas, 

propane, alcohol, or electricity) is too costly and cumbersome. The Agency adopted a 

new approach that streamlines and simplifies the process by which manufacturers of 

clean alternative fuel conversion systems may qualify for exemption from the CAA

prohibition against tampering. The new options reduce some economic and procedural 

impediments to clean alternative fuel conversions while maintaining environmental 

safeguards to ensure that acceptable emission levels from converted vehicles and engines 

are sustained. For light-duty engines, the broad average cost of compliance for one 

certificate prior to the issuance of this regulation was about $43,687 (2010$); but as a 

result of EPA’s regulatory review, the estimated cost under the same assumed conversion 

scenario would be about $36,177 for new light-duty engines and $12,972 for 

intermediate-age and older light-duty engines. For heavy-duty engines, the cost savings

are expected to be even greater. Total annual cost savings are estimated at $1.1 million

(2010$).

• On July 15, 2011, EPA finalized a regulation that modified the Lead Renovation, Repair 

and Painting Rule.

8 Common renovation activities like sanding, cutting, and demolition 

can create hazardous lead dust and chips by disturbing lead-based paint, which can be 

harmful to adults and children. To protect against this risk, on April 22, 2008, EPA 

issued the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program rule (Lead RRP) requiring the 

use of lead-safe practices and other actions aimed at preventing lead poisoning.9 Under 

the rule, beginning April 22, 2010, contractors performing renovation, repair, and 

painting projects that disturb lead-based paint in homes, child care facilities, and schools 

built before 1978 must be certified and must follow specific work practices to prevent 

lead contamination. On May 6, 2010, EPA proposed additional requirements designed to 

ensure that renovation work areas are adequately cleaned after renovation work is 

 6 Cost savings estimates provided in the final rule are in 2009$. All cost savings estimates in this Plan are presented 

in 2010$ and therefore may differ from those presented in the rule’s original analyses. 7 “Clean Alternative Fuel Vehicle and Engine Conversions (Final Rule).” 76 FR 19830 (April 08, 2011). Available 

from: FDsys, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-04-08/pdf/2011-7910.pdf; Accessed: 08/15/11. 8 “Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (Final 

Rule).” 76 FR 47918 (August 05, 2011). Available from: FDsys, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-

05/pdf/2011-19417.pdf; Accessed: 08/15/11. 9 “Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (Final Rule).” 73 FR 21692 (April 22, 2008). Available from: 

FDsys, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-04-22/pdf/E8-8141.pdf; Accessed: 08/15/11.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 16 of 62

finished and before the areas are re-occupied.10 The proposed rule would have added 

requirements including dust wipe testing after renovations and additional cleaning, if 

needed, designed to ensure that renovation work areas meet clearance standards before 

re-occupancy. The cost of EPA's proposed additional testing requirements were between 

$278 million to $300 million per year (2010$).11 After carefully weighing the issues and 

considering the comments from over 300 stakeholders, EPA has determined that there are 

currently no data or information that call into question the reliability, safety, and efficacy 

of the lead safe work practices established in the 2008 RRP rule. Therefore, EPA did not 

finalize additional “clearance” requirements that contractors obtain lead-dust testing and 

laboratory analysis of the results for renovation jobs. EPA believes that if certified and 

trained renovation contractors follow EPA’s 2008 RRP rule by using lead-safe work 

practices and following the cleaning protocol after the job is finished, lead-dust hazards 

will be effectively reduced.

• Working in coordination with DOT, EPA finalized changes to the fuel economy label that 

consumers see on the window of every new vehicle in dealer showrooms.12 This 

summer, EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

unveiled the most dramatic overhaul to fuel economy labels since they were introduced 

35 years ago. When the new labels start to appear in showrooms and online, shoppers 

will have more information at their fingertips than ever before. The redesigned label, 

representing a harmonized and coordinated effort with DOT, will provide the public with 

new information on vehicles’ fuel economy, energy use, fuel costs, and environmental 

impacts. For the first time, for instance, comparable fuel economy and environmental 

ratings will be available for all new vehicles, including advanced technology vehicles like 

electric cars. Consumers will be able to make comparisons – car by car – to ensure they 

have the best information to help save on fuel costs and reduce emissions. 

• In June 2011, EPA issued direct final amendments to the air toxic standards for the 

plating and polishing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP). Toxic air pollutants, or air toxics, are known or suspected to cause cancer 

and other health problems. Area sources are smaller facilities who emit less than the 

"major source" threshold of 10 tons per year of pollution, but whose emissions jointly 

contribute to pollution problems. The direct final amendments clarify that the plating and 

polishing NESHAP does not apply to any bench-scale activities. It was not our intent to 

include those activities in the original rule because these emissions are too small to 

accurately measure and it would be an unreasonable burden to the public to do so. Benchscale is defined to be any operation that is small enough to be performed on a bench, 

table, or similar structure so that the equipment is not directly contacting the floor. The 

 10 “Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program 

(Proposed Rule).” 75 FR 25038 (May 06, 2010). Available from: FDsys, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-

05-06/pdf/2010-10102.pdf; Accessed: 08/15/11. 11 To achieve comparable estimates across regulations, this cost savings estimate was updated to 2010$. The 

analysis for this particular rulemaking originally used 2009$.

12 “Revisions and Additions to Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Label (Final Rule).” 76 FR 39478 (July 06, 2011). 

Available from: FDsys, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-06/pdf/2011-14291.pdf; Accessed: 08/15/11.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 17 of 62

direct final amendments also make several technical corrections and clarifications to the 

rule’s text to reduce misinterpretations. These corrections and clarifications do not make 

material changes in the rule’s requirements. The Direct Final Rule published June 20, 

2011, along with a related proposal that invited public comments. 

These sorts of efforts, where we worked with stakeholders and other agencies to achieve a 

positive outcome for the regulated community while protecting human health and the 

environment, is what the Agency will strive to replicate in the priority activities described later in 

this section. EPA expects to realize substantial cost and burden reductions as a result of a 

number of our reviews. Table 1 provides cost and other savings estimates associated with our 

completed reviews and draft cost savings estimates for some of the ongoing priority reviews

described in the rest of this section. We estimate that EPA will achieve between $309.1 and 

$360.1 million (2010$) in costs savings annually from the four completed and proposed

retrospective reviews listed in Table 1. Taken as a whole, recent reforms, already finalized or 

formally proposed, are anticipated to save up to $1.5 billion over the next five years. Keep in 

mind that there are a total of five completed and 35 ongoing regulatory reviews in this Plan. 

EPA expects the total cost savings of all of the reviews to be greater than shown in this table; 

however, we are unable to provide draft cost saving estimates for many of our ongoing reviews 

since it is too soon in the review process.

Table 1: Savings Estimates from Review of EPA Regulations

Review Cost Savings 

(Millions 2010$)

Completed

Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure amendments for the dairy 

industry

$145 - $148

Alternative fuel conversions of vehicles and engines $1.1

Proposed

Vehicle vapor recovery systems (#2.2.1) $87

E-Manifest (#2.2.4) $76- $124

Total $309.1 - $360.1

Reexamined Proposal

Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program clearance standards $278 - $300

Draft Estimates from Ongoing Reviews

Consumer confidence reports for primary drinking water regulations 

(#2.2.6)

$1

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): coordinating 

permit requirements and removing outdated requirements (#2.1.8)

$1.6

2.1 Early actions

Of the 35 priority regulatory reviews presented in this section, the following 16 are early actions 

that are intended to yield in 2011 a specific step toward modifying, streamlining, expanding, or 

repealing a regulation or related program. Asterisks (**) preceding the heading of a review 

indicate those reviews which were suggested during the public comment periods held for this 

Plan. 
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 18 of 62

1. ** Gasoline and diesel regulations: reducing reporting and recordkeeping

2. ** Equipment leak detection and repair: reducing burden

3. Regulatory certainty for farmers: working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) and states

4. ** Modern science and technology methods in the chemical regulation arena: reducing 

whole-animal testing, reducing costs and burdens, and improving efficiencies

5. ** Electronic online reporting of health and safety data under the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); and 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA): reducing burden and improving 

efficiencies

6. ** National Priorities List rules: improving transparency

7. Quick changes to some TSCA reporting requirements: reducing burden

8. ** National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): coordinating permit 

requirements and removing outdated requirements

9. ** National primary drinking water regulations – Long Term 2 Enhances Surface Water 

Treatment: evaluating approaches that may maintain, or provide greater, public health 

protection

10. ** Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) and integrated planning for wet weather 

infrastructure investments: providing flexibilities

11. ** Vehicle regulations: harmonizing requirements for:

a. Greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards

b. Vehicle emission standards 

12. Multiple air pollutants: coordinating emission reduction regulations and using innovative 

technologies

13. ** NSPS reviews and revisions under the CAA: setting priorities to ensure updates to 

outdated technologies

14. ** CAA Title V Permit programs: simplifying and clarifying requirements

15. Innovative technology: seeking to spur new markets and utilize technological innovations

16. ** The costs of regulations: improving cost estimates

2.1.1 **13 Gasoline and diesel regulations: reducing reporting and 

recordkeeping

Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to review existing gasoline and diesel regulations that apply 

to fuel producers, ethanol blenders, fuel distributors, and others for areas where recordkeeping 

and reporting obligations can be modified to reduce burden. This is consistent with EO 13563’s 

directive to relieve regulatory burden.

Background: EPA intends to conduct this review in conjunction with the rulemaking on the next 

set of vehicle emission and fuel standards, known as “Tier 3 motor vehicle emission and fuel 

standards,” informed by public comments received in the EO 13563 public outreach process. 

 13 Asterisks (**) preceding the heading of a review indicate those reviews which were suggested during the public 

comment periods held for this Plan.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 19 of 62

Next step: EPA expects to propose modifications to gasoline and diesel regulations in late 2011.

2.1.2 ** Equipment leak detection and repair: reducing burden 

Reason for inclusion: The associated actions are included in the EO Plan so that EPA can 

reduce the burden on industry and streamline leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs. This 

is done in support of EO 13563, which promotes innovative technologies while upholding EPA’s 

mission to protect human health and the environment. These goals are expected to be achieved 

by creating uniform equipment leak standards and removing regulatory overlap. 

Background on the action: Currently, there are many rules (both NESHAP and NSPS) 

applicable to sources in the Chemical and Petroleum Refining sectors that establish LDAR 

requirements. These rules often vary, but generally include requirements for periodic monitoring 

via Method 21, which specifies the use of a hand-held probe to detect leaks.

Two primary efforts are underway with respect to LDAR. First, we are developing “Uniform 

Standards” for Equipment Leaks. These standards are intended to establish uniform equipment 

leak definitions, monitoring frequencies and uniform requirements for reporting, recordkeeping, 

and repair. A referencing subpart, such as the Chemical Sector rule or the Refinery Sector rule

would then point to the LDAR Uniform Standards. The end result is expected to be a consistent 

set of requirements across these industries.

The second effort is the Alternative Work Practice (AWP) to Detect Leaks from Equipment, 

which was promulgated in 2008 as a voluntary AWP for LDAR. The AWP includes using an 

optical gas imaging camera and annual Method 21 screening for leak detection. We received a 

request for administrative reconsideration of the AWP from the American Petroleum Institute in 

2009 to remove the Method 21 requirement. We are currently considering our response.

Next step: We are currently considering comments received on the AWP petition. We intend to

evaluate the comments related to the proposed Oil and Gas NSPS, using this feedback to respond 

to the AWP petition. 

We plan to propose the Equipment Leak Uniform Standards in fall 2011. 

2.1.3 Regulatory certainty for farmers: working with the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) and states

Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to work with USDA and state governments to explore 

flexible, voluntary approaches for farmers to achieve water quality improvements, consistent 

with EO 13563’s directives of achieving greater coordination across agencies and allowing for 

flexibility.

Background: In conjunction with USDA and several states, EPA is exploring “certainty”

mechanisms that encourage farmers to implement voluntary practices that reduce impacts on 
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 20 of 62

water quality. In particular, if farmers' actions result in quantifiable and verifiable improvements 

in water quality and resource conservation, EPA and USDA could work with states to develop 

programs that can provide assurances that the farmers' actions are, for a reasonable, fixed period 

of time, consistent with state plans to improve water quality. EPA and USDA's efforts are 

intended to allow states flexibility to increase farmers’ and other landowners’ interest and 

willingness to adopt the most effective land stewardship practices by providing incentives that 

increase the pace and extent to which resource conservation and verifiable water quality 

improvements are achieved. 

Next step: EPA expects that the project will be up and running at the state level with USDA 

partners by the end of the calendar year.

2.1.4 ** Modern science and technology methods in the chemical 

regulation arena: reducing whole-animal testing, reducing 

costs and burdens, and improving efficiencies

Reason for inclusion: This review is included in the Plan because EPA intends to seek ways to 

more efficiently assess the health and environmental hazards, as well as the exposure potential, 

of chemicals while reducing costs and burdens. Reducing the costs associated with wholeanimal testing is consistent with EO 13563’s directive to relieve regulatory burden.

Background: The identification, evaluation, and regulation of chemicals to protect human health 

and the environment is central to EPA’s mandate. Given the challenge of assessing more 

chemicals with greater speed and accuracy, and to do so using fewer resources and experimental 

animals, new approaches in biological and computational sciences are needed to ensure that 

relevant information is available to meet the challenges of prioritization, targeted testing, and 

risk assessment.14

Prioritization can focus resources on chemicals that are believed to pose the greatest risk to 

human health and/or the environment. There are also many chemicals for which a substantial 

amount of information is known about hazard and/or exposure, but more testing is needed. A 

more efficient science-based approach to determine testing needs for these chemicals can reduce 

the use of experimental animals and testing burdens, as well as facilitate the timely development 

of risk assessments and ultimately informed and timely regulatory decisions that are based on 

sound science. 

EPA is drafting a work plan to develop and move towards adoption of new science-based 

approaches like computational toxicology tools to: 

 14 See also the 2007 report from the National Research Council. Citation: ---. National Research Council of the 

National Academies. Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Washington: National Academies 

Press, 2007. Available from: The National Academies Press website, 

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11970; Access: 08/15/11. 
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 21 of 62

• Prioritize chemicals for risk assessment/management purposes. The objective is to 

identify chemicals or groups of chemicals with the highest potential for exposure and/or 

human health/environmental effects and focus resources on those chemicals. 

• Develop the tools to base chemical risk management decisions about potential human 

health and ecological risks on sufficient, credible data and on information that is tailored 

around the specific compound as well as the needs of the risk assessment and risk 

management decisions. 

This work plan is expected to describe the major steps needed to develop and transition to the 

decision support tools (i.e., computational toxicology methods) for priority setting and targeted 

testing, and is expected to propose three case studies relevant to industrial chemicals, water 

contaminants, and pesticides. In addition, EPA intends to identify the steps needed to satisfy the 

validation requirements related to regulatory acceptance of these new approaches for use in 

screening under the Endocrine Disruptors Screening Program (EDSP) in the near future. 

Next step: In 2011, EPA intends to expand its efforts to engage interested stakeholders in this 

project.

2.1.5 ** Electronic online reporting of health and safety data under 

the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); and Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA): reducing burden and 

improving efficiencies

Reason for inclusion: This review is included in the Plan so that EPA can explore ways to 

reduce regulatory burden by transitioning from paper-based reporting to electronic reporting for 

industries that report chemical-related health and safety data under TSCA, FIFRA, and FFDCA. 

Existing TSCA regulations tied to this review include the 2010 TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture 

and Significant New Use Notification Electronic Reporting rule and the 2011 TSCA Inventory 

Update Reporting Chemical and Data Reporting rule. 

Background: EPA currently collects a variety of chemical-specific health and safety data under 

several different regulations issued pursuant to TSCA, FIFRA, and FFDCA. When consulting 

with the public as this Plan was developed, industry suggested that electronic online reporting 

could help to reduce overall reporting and recordkeeping burdens, although some also expressed 

concern that the information continue to be protected as statutorily required. EPA has already 

begun efforts to incorporate online electronic reporting of information it collects under the TSCA 

regulations. Furthermore, we initiated an electronic reporting pilot project several years ago that 

accepted electronic copies of some pesticide information submitted under FIFRA and FFDCA. 

As part of our current retrospective review, we intend to consider lessons learned from 

stakeholders involved in this pilot project and identify a timeline and process for expanding the 

project.

Estimated potential cost or burden reduction: Online electronic reporting can reduce burden 

and costs for the regulated entities by eliminating the costs associated with printing and mailing 
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 22 of 62

this information to EPA, while at the same time improving EPA’s efficiency in reviewing 

regulations. The regulated community has indicated that these savings could be substantial. 

Next steps: Later this year, the Agency expects to propose revisions to implement electronic 

reporting for the submission of health and safety data under TSCA. Additionally, within the next 

12 months, EPA intends to develop a workplan to consider electronic reporting options under 

FIFRA and FFDCA for pesticide information. For the consideration of electronic reporting 

options for pesticide submissions, in 2011 EPA intends to begin developing a workplan for 

completing this review effort. 

2.1.6 ** National Priorities List rules: improving transparency

Reason for inclusion: This review is part of the Plan so that EPA can consider ways to further 

ensure meaningful and substantial state involvement in decisions to place sites on the National 

Priorities List (NPL), in keeping with EO 13563’s directive to provide an “open exchange of 

information and perspectives among State, local, and tribal officials.” 

Background: When consulting with the public as this Plan was developed, the National 

Governors Association commented on the need for EPA to share information that we rely upon 

to determine whether sites should be placed on the NPL. The NPL is the list of national 

priorities among the sites with known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, 

pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States and its territories. The NPL is intended 

primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation. EPA is 

working to improve state and other stakeholder involvement to ensure that information is 

available to support Superfund listing determinations or other state or federal cleanup options. 

Since state environmental agencies conduct roughly half of the Superfund site assessment reports 

completed each year, states’ environmental staff are generally aware of specific site conditions as 

sites move towards the NPL listing phase. For those reports not produced by states, EPA 

routinely makes them available to the state partners so that both parties have the information 

necessary to hold collaborative discussions on the need for potential NPL listing. EPA intends to 

redouble its effort to make sure states, tribes, and other stakeholders are fully informed regarding 

EPA’s NPL process. 

Next step: EPA intends to address this programmatic concern through the ongoing Integrated 

Cleanup Initiative from the third quarter of fiscal year 2011 through the first quarter of FY 2012. 

2.1.7 Quick changes to some TSCA reporting requirements: reducing 

burden

Reason for inclusion: EPA is developing a proposal to make a few quick changes to three 

existing reporting requirements under TSCA. The changes are intended to reduce reporting 

burdens and to clarify reporting to provide for more efficient review of health and environmental 

data and more effective protection of public health and the environment. This is consistent with 

EO 13563’s directive to reduce regulatory burden.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 23 of 62

Background: The anticipated changes involve 40 CFR 790.5, entitled "Submission of 

Information;” 40 CFR 792.185, entitled "Reporting of Study Results;” and 40 CFR 712.28, 

entitled "Forms and Instructions." The changes under consideration include:

• the elimination of the requirement for 6 copies to be submitted, replaced by submission 

of a single electronic copy; 

• the addition of a requirement for including "Robust Summaries" of test results with the 

submission of test data; and 

• the use of the Inventory Update Reporting Form to format the submission of preliminary 

assessment information in response to chemical information rules. 

Next step: EPA expects to propose changes to reporting requirements by the end of 2011.

2.1.8 ** National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): 

coordinating permit requirements and removing outdated 

requirements

Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to review the regulations that apply to the issuance of 

NPDES permits, which are the wastewater permits that facility operators must obtain before they 

discharge pollutants to any water of the United States. EPA intends to revise or repeal outdated 

or ineffective regulatory requirements for wastewater facilities, which is consistent with EO 

13563’s directive to “determine whether...regulations should be modified, streamlined, 

expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency’s regulatory program more effective or less 

burdensome.”

Background: EPA plans to review NPDES permitting regulations in order to find provisions 

that are outdated or ineffective. EPA expects the review to most likely focus on: 

a) eliminating inconsistencies between regulations and application forms; 

b) improving the consistency between the application forms; 

c) updating the application forms to address current program practices; 

d) clarifying the existing regulations and modifying or repealing permitting, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements that have become obsolete or outdated due to programmatic and 

technical changes that have occurred over the past 20 years; and 

e) modifying permit documentation and objection procedures to improve the quality and 

transparency of permit development. 

As an example of an outdated regulation which could be changed to reduce burden, as well as 

improve transparency and public access to information, EPA is considering whether to revise the 

public notice requirements to allow a state to post notices and draft NPDES permits under the 

Clean Water Act on their state agency websites in lieu of traditional newspaper posting. 

Estimated potential cost or burden reduction: EPA estimates that public notice of draft 

permits in newspapers for NPDES major facilities, sewage sludge facilities and general permits 
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 24 of 62

currently costs approximately $1.6 million per year15 (this excludes the costs of preparing the 

content of the NPDES public notice, and the costs of the other methods to provide notice besides 

newspaper publication, such as direct mailing). Any savings from EPA's planned rule, however, 

are likely to be less than this amount. The new rule would allow, but not require states and the 

Federal Government to use electronic public notice instead of newspaper publication. Some 

states would continue to publish at least some notifications in newspapers. In addition, there 

would be offsetting costs to provide electronic notice, and EPA does not currently have estimates 

of those costs. 

Next step: EPA expects to propose modifications to NPDES permit regulations by the end of 

2011.

2.1.9 **National primary drinking water regulations - Long Term 2 

Enhanced Surface Water Treatment: evaluating approaches 

that may maintain, or provide greater, public health protection

Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to evaluate effective and practical approaches that may 

maintain, or provide greater protection of, the water treated by public water systems and stored 

prior to distribution to consumers. EPA plans to conduct this review expeditiously to protect 

public health while considering innovations and flexibility as called for in EO 13563. 

Background: The purpose of the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment (LT2) rule 

is to reduce illness linked with the contaminant Cryptosporidium and other disease-causing 

microorganisms in drinking water. The rule supplements existing regulations by targeting 

additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements to higher risk systems. This rule also 

contains provisions to reduce risks from uncovered finished water reservoirs and to ensure that 

systems maintain microbial protection when they take steps to decrease the formation of 

disinfection byproducts that result from chemical water treatment. 

LT2 requires public water systems that store treated water in open reservoirs to either cover the 

reservoir or treat water leaving the reservoir to inactivate viruses, Giardia, and 

Cryptosporidium.

16 This requirement applies to all public water systems, regardless of what 

treatment or filtration methods are used, because the requirements address open reservoirs that 

store drinking water that has already been treated and is intended to be distributed directly to 

consumers without further treatment. The LT2 uncovered finished water reservoir requirement 

is intended to protect against the potential for re-contamination of treated water with disease 

causing organisms, specifically Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and viruses.

 15 EPA used $1,000 (in 2010$) as the publication cost for a public notice in a newspaper. We assume that there are 

1,600 NPDES permit actions that require public notice via newspaper publication each year; thus, we arrive at the 

$1.6 million per year estimate. 16 “National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (Final 

Rule).” 71 FR 654 (5 January 2006). Available from: FDsys, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2006-01-05/pdf/06-

4.pdf; Accessed: 08/15/11.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 25 of 62

The 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) require EPA to review the 

existing national primary drinking water regulations at least every six years and revise the 

regulations as appropriate. Section 300g-1 specifies that any revision must maintain or provide 

for greater protection of the health of persons.17 EPA plans to review the LT2 regulation as part 

of the upcoming Six Year Review process using the protocol developed for this effort. As part 

of the review, EPA would assess and analyze new data/information regarding occurrence, 

treatment, analytical methods, health effects, and risk from all relevant waterborne pathogens to 

evaluate whether there are new or additional ways to manage risk while assuring equivalent or 

improved protection, including with respect to the covering of finished water reservoirs. Also, 

EPA intends to explore best practices that meet the SDWA requirements to maintain or improve 

public health protection for drinking water, while considering innovative approaches for public 

water systems.

Next step: The review process for LT2 is expected to begin in 2011 when EPA begins to update 

the 6-year review protocol to address microbial issues. Further, EPA plans to hold stakeholder 

meetings on LT2 in 2012, and before the end of 2011 expects to issue a Federal Register notice 

with more information about these meetings. 

2.1.10 ** Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) and integrated planning 

for wet weather infrastructure investments: providing 

flexibilities

Reason for inclusion: This review is included in the Plan so that EPA can gather additional 

information on how we can better promote Green Infrastructure (GI), ensure practical and 

affordable remedies to CSO violations, and identify additional approaches with accountability to 

ensure that communities can see noticeable improvements to their water quality and reduced 

risks to human health through prioritizing infrastructure investments. When consulting with the 

public as this Plan was developed, several commenters requested that EPA address CSOs. 

Background: EPA believes that the incorporation of GI and other innovative approaches into 

CSO long term control plans can result in improved water quality while potentially saving 

taxpayers money when compared to traditional approaches and providing additional benefits to 

communities. Many communities are exploring and implementing GI solutions to help address 

their storm water and wastewater control needs. For example, New York and Philadelphia have 

developed GI plans and are discussing with EPA how these plans can best help to meet their 

wastewater management needs now and into the future. Some communities have also expressed 

an interest in evaluating CSO investments along with other wastewater and stormwater 

investments to determine the most cost effective approach to improving water quality.

 17 42 USC sec. 300g-1(b)(9) (2009). Note: Laws such as the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) are codified in the 

U.S. Code. Some people may be more familiar with the public law citation for this section, which is SDWA Sec. 

1412(b)(9). The text of 42 USC sec. 300g-1(b)(9) is available from: FDsys, 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title42/pdf/USCODE-2009-title42-chap6A-subchapXII-partBsec300g-1.pdf; Accessed: 08/15/11.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 26 of 62

Next steps: In fall 2011, EPA intends to initiate a process to conduct additional outreach with 

respect to how to improve the implementation of the CSO Policy. In particular, EPA intends to

support and encourage the use of green infrastructure as part of an integrated approach to reduce

stormwater flows in the CSO system and develop an approach for prioritizing wet weather 

investments into integrated permitting or other vehicles with accountability. In addition, EPA 

intends to consider approaches that allow municipalities to evaluate all of their CWA 

requirements and develop comprehensive plans to meet these requirements.

2.1.11 ** Vehicle regulations: harmonizing requirements

Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to review existing vehicle regulations for areas where greater 

harmonization with California and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) can be 

achieved. This is in keeping with EO 13563’s directive to achieve greater coordination across 

federal agencies to reduce redundant regulatory requirements.

Background: Activities to achieve greater harmonization among vehicle regulations include:

• Vehicle greenhouse gas and fuel-economy standards compliance harmonization with 

DOT and CARB – EPA and NHTSA are developing a joint rulemaking to propose 

greenhouse gas (GHG) and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for 

model years 2017-2025 light-duty vehicles. Harmonizing compliance could include 

streamlining reporting and credit trading systems and updating testing protocols to meet 

the needs of all three agencies. As part of this process, EPA and DOT intend to take 

comment on opportunities to further harmonize compliance requirements of the two 

agencies. This was recommended by an auto industry representative during the public 

comment process for this Plan. 

• Vehicle and fuel standards compliance harmonization with CARB – EPA plans to 

assess and take comment on opportunities to harmonize testing and compliance 

requirements with CARB’s vehicle emission standards. This review is expected to be 

done in conjunction with the rulemaking on the next set of vehicle and fuel standards, 

known as Tier 3 motor vehicle emission and fuel standards, informed by public 

comments received during the public outreach process. 

Next steps: EPA intends to propose GHG standards in September 2011. Also, EPA expects to 

propose new vehicle and fuel standards in late 2011. 

2.1.12 Multiple air pollutants: coordinating emission reduction 

regulations and using innovative technologies

Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to explore ways to reduce emissions of multiple air 

pollutants through the use of technologies and practices that achieve multiple benefits, such as 

controlling hazardous air pollutant emissions while also controlling particulate matter and its 
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 27 of 62

precursor pollutants. This is in keeping with EO 13563’s directives to harmonize related 

regulatory requirements and to promote innovation.

Background: EPA intends to issue a proposed rulemaking for the Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Risk and Technology Review for Pulp and Paper Industry (Subpart S).

It is important that the Kraft NSPS and other MACT regulations for the pulp and paper industry 

be considered together to account for the interactions and collateral benefits or dis-benefits 

between the emitted criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Subpart S is 

under court ordered deadlines so coordination opportunities are limited. However, the greatest 

opportunity to address multiple air pollutants, enhance innovation, and reduce regulatory 

compliance efforts would be with a combined rulemaking where Kraft NSPS and Subpart MM 

regulations are considered together. Both regulations focus on combustion sources, and EPA 

intends for them to immediately follow the Subpart S rulemaking. 

This industry-specific “sector approach” is intended to:

• Avoid “stranded” costs associated with piecemeal investment in control equipment for 

individual pollutants from multiple, successive rulemakings.

• Tailor results based on source-specific fuel inputs (e.g., non-condensable gases, 

wastewater treatment residuals) versus general inputs (e.g., coal, wood, oil, gas).

• Promote industry-specific technology-based solutions (e.g., energy efficiency).

• Provide flexibility in compliance alternatives.

EPA intends to take a similar approach for the chemical sector. We intend to perform a risk and 

technology review for the following MACT standards: miscellaneous organic national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants (MON), ethylene, pesticide active ingredients, polyether 

polyols, polymers and resins IV, and organic liquid distribution. We also intend to conduct the 

periodic technology review for the hazardous organic national emission standards for hazardous 

air pollutants (NESHAP) (HON). Furthermore, we are evaluating emissions from vinyl chloride 

facilities (covered by the HON) to see if additional emissions limitations are needed. Finally, we 

plan to review the five chemical sector NSPS and consolidate these requirements into a single 

sector rule. We currently plan to revise these MACT and NSPS rules to point to a set of 

uniform standards for equipment leaks, wastewater, tanks , control devices, and heat exchangers. 

Through this coordinated approach, we intend to establish consistent requirements across the 

entire chemical industry.

Next step: Proposed rules are anticipated in December 2011 for pulp and paper and November 

2011 for the chemical industry rules. 

2.1.13 ** New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) reviews and 

revisions under the CAA: setting priorities to ensure updates to 

outdated technologies

Reason for inclusion: This review is included in the Plan to ensure that EPA prioritizes NSPS 

reviews to focus on those that, in keeping with EO 13563, promote innovative technologies

while upholding EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 28 of 62

Background: The CAA requires EPA to review and update NSPS every eight years for over 70 

different industrial source types. In conducting such reviews in the past, the usefulness of the 

reviews varied greatly across the different source types. For some source types, we have seen 

significant improvements in processes and emission control technologies, along with significant 

numbers of new sources. For others, we found little change in prevailing technologies and/or 

little growth in the industry. Accordingly, we intend to establish priorities for the review and 

revision of NSPS based on the opportunities for meaningful improvements in air quality and 

public health, giving lesser importance to those categories where little or no opportunity for such 

improvements realistically exists. This approach is intended to make the NSPS review process 

more efficient, so that both public and private resources can be focused where it makes the most 

sense.

Next step: EPA intends to issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking projected for 

summer of 2011 that presents an approach that includes a streamlined process to consider 

whether an NSPS requires a review. If the standard remains effective in meeting the 

requirements of the CAA, then we would not conduct a review and redirect both public and 

private resources to the rules that provide the greatest public health protection and are most 

likely to warrant revision.

2.1.14 ** CAA Title V Permit programs: simplifying and clarifying 

requirements

Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to review the Title V implementation process to determine 

whether changes can be made to simplify and clarify the process for industry, the public, and 

government resources, which is in keeping with EO 13563’s directive to simplify regulatory 

requirements.

Background: Operating permits are legally enforceable documents that permitting authorities 

issue to air pollution sources after the source has begun to operate. As required under Title V of 

the CAA, most large sources and some smaller sources of air pollution are required to obtain an

operating permit. A Title V permit lists all of the air quality-related rules and requirements that 

apply to the particular source, and specifies how compliance will be monitored. States are 

required to give public notice of the draft permits and some permit revisions, and typically post 

permits on their websites. This provides transparency in the permitting process and minimizes 

misunderstandings between the source, regulatory agencies, and the public living around the 

source. 

The Title V program was the focus of many of the public comments received as part of the 

outreach EPA conducted as it developed this Plan. EPA continues to draw on the Title V 

implementation ideas generated by its Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC), including 

those developed by a CAAAC task force in 2006.18 Taking advantage of advice and ideas from 

 18 ---. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Report to the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee: Title V 

Implementation Experience. Washington: EPA, April 2006. Available from: the EPA website, 

http://www.epa.gov/oar/caaac/tvtaskforce/title5_taskforce_finalreport20060405.pdf; Accessed: 08/15/11.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 29 of 62

all of these sources, EPA intends to review the Title V implementation process to determine 

whether changes can be made to help all permitting participants understand the program better. 

EPA also intends to streamline the process to be more efficient in terms of industry, public, and 

government resources. Among other things, EPA may consider electronic filing of applications, 

including supporting material such as reports. 

Estimated potential cost or burden reduction: Although potential cost reductions associated 

with this action cannot be predicted until the areas for improvement are identified, EPA believes 

the improvements will reduce burden on the public, the permitting agencies and the permittees. 

The changes are intended to also increase transparency in the process as well as give greater 

certainty to the permittees. EPA recently completed a rulemaking to help streamline the 

implementation of the Title V program which resulted in an estimated total annual cost savings 

of approximately $32,000,000 (2010$).19 This action should realize a benefit of $200 to $300 

per permit revision when fully implemented, or approximately $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 (2010$)

for each cycle of permit renewal nationally.

Next step: EPA intends to begin the review process to implement this recommendation during 

the fall/winter of 2011.

2.1.15 Innovative technology: seeking to spur new markets and utilize 

technological innovations

Reason for inclusion: This review is part of the Plan to evaluate how best EPA can “seek to 

identify, as appropriate, means to achieve regulatory goals that are designed to promote 

innovation” per EO 13563.

Background: Available and affordable technology choices define the potential range of 

environmental solutions for many environmental problems. Moreover, technology innovation 

can lead not only to better environmental outcomes, but better economic opportunities and 

outcomes, too. EPA efforts in the past 40 years have spurred technology developments 

responsible for profound improvements in environmental protection through preventing, 

reducing, and sequestering pollutants, and monitoring environmental conditions. EPA has a 

number of efforts underway to promote innovative technology including the following:

• During retrospective reviews and new rulemakings, EPA intends to assess innovative 

technology to help encourage continued development of new sustainable technologies to 

achieve improved environmental results at lower costs. Such innovative technologies 

 19 As an example of potential cost savings associated with this review, EPA considered an existing rule that was 

implemented as a result of recommendations made by the 2006 Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) Task 

Force. The Flexible Air Permitting rule (FAP), implemented in October 2009 (74 FR 51418 (October 06, 2009), 

available from: FDsys, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-10-06/pdf/E9-23794.pdf), revises the air permitting 

program under Title V. This final rule is illustrative of the policy improvements that the retrospective review aims to 

achieve, as it clarifies existing requirements and allows regulated entities to seek additional flexibility for their Clean 

Air Act permits. 
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 30 of 62

will foster new market opportunities for green technology and infrastructure and will also 

provide new opportunities for the creation of more flexible and cost-effective means of 

compliance. The first step in this process is to conduct a technology opportunity and 

market assessment of two pending regulations in order to begin developing a framework 

for considering such information during the regulatory process.20 

• Monitoring and testing certification procedures and regulations are often codified and 

then, over time, can become outdated. Where feasible, EPA plans to continue to make 

changes to update monitoring and testing protocols through flexible approaches such as 

alternative method approval procedures, which can allow more immediate use of new 

methods based on new scientifically sound technology that meet legally supported 

criteria. In future rulemakings, EPA intends to continue to augment codified protocols by

utilizing established requirements, such as the National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act, to add by reference, methods developed by voluntary consensus 

organizations, where appropriate. 

• EPA has taken steps already to support technological innovation in the water sector 

through cooperation with a newly formed regional water technology cluster. The water 

technology innovation cluster intends to develop and commercialize innovative 

technologies to solve environmental challenges and spur sustainable economic 

development and job growth through the expansion, creation, and attraction of water 

technology companies and investment. EPA co-hosted a workshop with the regional 

Water Technology Innovation Cluster (WTIC) on May 23, 2011, where the Agency 

worked to identify major challenges and technology needs faced by the different water 

sectors. 

Next steps: EPA intends to begin a technology opportunity and market assessment of two 

regulations by the end of fiscal year 2011.

2.1.16 ** The costs of regulations: improving cost estimates

Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to evaluate why and to what degree compliance cost 

estimates developed prior to the issuance of a regulation (ex-ante compliance costs) differ from 

actual compliance costs realized after a regulation takes effect (ex-post compliance costs). EO 

13563 requires each agency to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated, present, 

and future costs of its regulations as accurately as possible. The overall goal of this project is to 

improve EPA’s ability to estimate ex-ante compliance costs to increase regulatory efficiency. 

 20 For more information, see EPA’s FY 2011 Strategic Action Plan for Advancing Science, Research and 

Technological Innovation. Citation: ---. Environmental Protection Agency. “Advancing Science, Research, and 

Technological Innovation,” in FY2011 – 2015 EPA Strategic Plan, pp. 32 – 33. (Publication No. EPA-190-B-10-

002). Washington, EPA: September 2010. Available from: the EPA website, 

http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan.html; Accessed: 08/15/11.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 31 of 62

Background: EPA intends to explore, through an analysis initially focusing on 5 rules, possible 

sources of uncertainty and reasons why ex-ante cost estimates and estimates of ex-post costs 

diverge. One of the goals of the project is to determine if any systematic biases exist in EPA’s 

ex-ante cost estimates, and if so, why. One potentially important reason for the difference 

between ex-ante and ex-post costs is unanticipated technological innovation that occurs between 

the time a rule is promulgated and when the regulated community must begin complying with 

the regulation. While we recognize that benefits estimates may also change as a result of 

technological innovation, we will focus our analysis here on costs with the overall goal of 

identifying ways EPA can improve estimates of compliance costs to better inform regulation. 

The five rules included in this study are:

• National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance and 

New Source Contaminants Monitoring;

21

• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Pulp and 

Paper Production; Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source 

Performance Standards: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category;

22

• Revision of Standards of Performance for Nitrogen Oxide Emissions From New Fossil-Fuel 

Fired Steam Generating Units; Revisions to Reporting Requirements for Standards of 

Performance for New Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generating Units; 23

• Emission Standards for Locomotives and Locomotive Engines;

24 and

• Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for Strawberry Fruit Grown 

in Open Fields (Submitted in 2003 for the 2006 Use Season).

25

Next step: The Agency plans to complete a draft report on the first five rules by fall 2011.

2.2 Longer term actions

The 19 regulatory reviews listed here are part of EPA’s initial list of 35 priority regulatory 

reviews. These actions are on a longer term schedule relative to the early actions listed in the 

previous section. Descriptions for each follow. Asterisks (**) preceding the heading of a review 

 21 “National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source 

Contaminants Monitoring (Final Rule)." 66 FR 6976 (January 22, 2001). Available from: FDsys, 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2001-01-22/pdf/01-1668.pdf; Accessed: 08/15/11. 22 “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production; 

Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards: Pulp, Paper, and 

Paperboard Category: Final Rules.” 63 FR 18504 (April 15, 998). Available from: FDsys, 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1998-04-15/pdf/98-9613.pdf: Accessed; 08/15/2011. 23 “Revision of Standards of Performance for Nitrogen Oxide Emissions From New Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam 

Generating Units; Revisions to Reporting Requirements for Standards of Performance for New Fossil-Fuel Fired 

Steam Generating Units: Final Rule.” 63 FR 49442 (September 16, 1998). Available from: FDsys, 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1998-09-16/pdf/98-24733.pdf; Accessed: 08/15/2011. 24 “Emission Standards for Locomotives and Locomotive Engines: Final Rule.” 63 FR 18978 (April 16, 1998). 

Available from: FDsys, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1998-04-16/pdf/98-7769.pdf: Accessed: 08/15/2011. 25 “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Process for Exempting Critical Uses From the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide.” 

69 FR 76982 (December 23, 2004). Available from FDsys, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2004-12-23/pdf/04-

27905.pdf: Accessed: 08/15/2011.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 32 of 62

indicate those reviews which were suggested during the public comment periods held for this 

Plan. 

1. Vehicle fuel vapor recovery systems: eliminating redundancy

2. ** New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) under the CAA for grain elevators, 

amendments: updating outmoded requirements and relieving burden

3. ** Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) and peak flow wet weather discharges: clarifying 

permitting requirements 

4. ** E-Manifest: reducing burden

5. Electronic hazardous waste Site ID form: reducing burden

6. ** Consumer confidence reports for primary drinking water regulations: providing for the 

open exchange of information

7. ** Reporting requirements under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA): 

reducing burden

8. ** Export notification for chemicals and pesticides: reducing burden and improving 

efficiencies

9. ** Water quality trading: improving approaches

10. ** Water quality standard regulations: simplifying and clarifying requirements

11. ** State Implementation Plan (SIP) process: reducing burden

12. ** National primary drinking water regulations for lead and copper: simplifying and 

clarifying requirements

13. Adjusting threshold planning quantities (TPQs) for solids in solution: reducing burden 

and relying on scientific objectivity

14. Integrated pesticide registration reviews: reducing burden and improving efficiencies

15. ** Certification of pesticide applicators: eliminating uncertainties and improving 

efficiencies

16. ** Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) reforms: improving efficiencies and effectiveness

17. ** Hazardous waste requirements for retail products: clarifying and making the program 

more effective

18. Contaminants under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): coordinating regulatory 

requirements

19. **Section 610 reviews: coordinating requirements

2.2.1 Vehicle fuel vapor recovery systems: eliminating redundancy

Reason for inclusion: This ongoing retrospective review is included in the Plan because EPA 

intends to seek burden reductions for gas stations by eliminating regulatory requirements that 

call for the use of redundant technology. This review is in keeping with EO 13563’s directive to 

eliminate redundant requirements.

Background: Onboard refueling vapor recovery technology on today’s gasoline-powered 

vehicles effectively controls harmful air emissions as cars and trucks refuel, thereby eliminating 

the need for controls at the gas pump. This ongoing review is intended to eliminate the gas 
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 33 of 62

dispenser-based vapor control requirements that have become redundant due to this onboard 

technology, and thereby relieve states of the obligation to require pump-based Stage II vapor 

recovery systems at gasoline stations. EPA issued a proposed rule on July 15, 2011.26 

Estimated potential cost or burden reduction: Taking into consideration the costs associated 

with the removal of vapor recovery equipment and the use of less expensive conventional 

equipment on the gasoline dispensers, as well as the reductions in record-keeping requirements 

and other operating costs, EPA estimates the long-term cost savings associated with this rule to 

be approximately $87 million per year (2010$). 

Next step: EPA intends to issue a final rule in summer 2012.

2.2.2 **27 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) under the 

CAA for grain elevators, amendments: updating outmoded 

requirements and relieving burden

Reason for inclusion: This review is part of the Plan because EPA intends to evaluate the 

technology that is used to determine the regulation’s stringency, in keeping with EO 13563’s 

directive to revise or repeal outmoded or burdensome regulatory requirements.

Background: EPA is undertaking this review in response to comments from the NSPS Subpart 

DD Coalition, which is made up of six organizations: the Corn Refiners Association, the North 

American Millers' Association, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the National Grain 

and Feed Association, the National Oilseed Processors Association, the USA Rice Federation, 

and the National Oilseed Processors Association. The comments call on EPA to review the 

NSPS for grain elevators which was promulgated in 1978 and last reviewed in 1984. The 

Coalition comments that the basis EPA used to determine applicability and rule stringency have 

changed fundamentally, and that a review is needed. 

EPA agrees that since promulgation there have been a number of changes in the technology used 

for storing and loading/unloading grain at elevators. Moreover, the rule has seen increased 

activity of late, due to the increase in ethanol production that has led to increased corn 

production and grain storage. For these reasons, EPA intends to review the existing NSPS for 

grain elevators to ensure the appropriate standards are being applied consistently throughout the 

industry. 

Next step: We expect to propose amendments by December 2012.

 26 ”Air Quality: Widespread Use for Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery and Stage II Waiver (Proposed Rule).” 76 

FR 41731 (July 15, 2011). Available from: FDsys, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-15/pdf/2011-

17888.pdf; Accessed: 08/15/11. 27 Asterisks (**) preceding the heading of a review indicate those reviews which were suggested during the public 

comment period helds for this Plan.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 34 of 62

2.2.3 ** Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) and peak flow wet weather 

discharges: clarifying permitting requirements

Reason for inclusion: This review is included in the plan so that EPA can gather additional 

information about the most effective way to manage wastewater that flows through municipal 

sewage treatment plants during heavy rains or other wet weather periods that cause an increase in 

the flow of water (these are collectively known as “peak flows”). EPA intends to evaluate 

options that are appropriate for addressing Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) and peak flow wet 

weather discharges and determine if a regulatory approach, voluntary approach, or other 

approach is the best path forward. This is consistent with EO 13563’s directive to clarify 

regulatory requirements.

Background: During periods of wet weather, wastewater flows received by municipal sewage 

treatment plants can significantly increase, which can create operational challenges for sewage 

treatment facilities. Where peak flows approach or exceed the design capacity of a treatment 

plant they can seriously reduce treatment efficiency or damage treatment units. 

One engineering practice that some facilities use to protect biological treatment units from 

damage and to prevent overflows and backups elsewhere in the system is referred to as “wet 

weather blending.” Wet weather blending occurs during peak wet weather flow events when 

flows that exceed the capacity of the biological units are routed around the biological units and 

blended with effluent from the biological units prior to discharge. Regulatory agencies, sewage 

treatment plant operators, and representatives of environmental advocacy groups have expressed 

uncertainty about National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements 

concerning peak flows.

In June and July 2010, EPA held listening sessions to gather information on issues associated 

with SSOs and peak flow wet weather discharges.28 EPA received extensive verbal and written 

comments. Subsequently, EPA held a stakeholder workshop on July 14 and 15, 2011,

29 in which 

designated representatives from the following stakeholder organizations participated in a 

facilitated discussion on the issues most important to them in regulating SSOs and peak flow 

discharges:

• Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, 

• National Association of Clean Water Agencies, 

• American Rivers, 

• Natural Resources Defense Council, 

• Cahaba River Society, and 

 28 “Stakeholder Input; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Requirements for 

Municipal Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems, Municipal Satellite Collection Systems, Sanitary Sewer Overflows, 

and Peak Wet Weather Discharges From Publicly Owned Treatment Works Treatment Plants Serving Separate 

Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems (Notice).” 75 FR 30395 (June 01, 2010). Available from: FDsys, 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-01/pdf/2010-13098.pdf; Accessed: 08/15/11.

29 “Notice of EPA Workshop on Sanitary Sewer Overflows and Peak Wet Weather Discharges; Notice,” 76 FR 

35215 (June 16, 2011). Available from: FDsys, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-06-16/pdf/2011-15003.pdf; 

Accessed: 08/15/11.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 35 of 62

• Water Environment Federation. 

In addition to the designated representatives, over 70 members of the public attended the 

workshop.

The workshop provided representatives of key stakeholder groups an opportunity to provide their 

view on potential NPDES requirements for SSOs and peak flows at publicly owned treatment 

works (POTWs) served by sanitary sewers. All of the representatives at the workshop supported 

an EPA rulemaking to clarify NPDES permit requirements for SSOs that addressed reporting; 

recordkeeping; public notice; capacity, management, operation and maintenance (CMOM) 

programs; and requirements for municipal satellite collection systems. While there was 

agreement on core provisions that should be included in NPDES permits and the need to regulate 

municipal satellite collection systems, stakeholders had differing views on a number of issues, 

including which if any basement backups should be reported, whether to excuse or allow SSOs 

caused by extreme events, and the appropriate role of peak excess flow treatment facilities 

located in the collection system. Stakeholders also discussed the use of high-efficiency sidetreatment of wet weather diversions around secondary treatment units.

Next Step: By summer 2012, EPA intends to consider the comments received from our 

workshop participants in determining next steps.

2.2.4 ** E-Manifest: reducing burden 

Reason for inclusion: EPA is exploring ways to reduce burden for hazardous waste generators, 

transporters, and permitted waste management facilities by transitioning from a paper-based 

reporting system to electronic reporting. This is consistent with EO 13563’s directive to reduce 

regulatory burden.

Background: Currently, hazardous waste generators, transporters, and permitted waste 

management facilities must complete and carry a 6-ply paper manifest form as the means to 

comply with the “cradle-to-grave” tracking requirements required for off-site hazardous waste 

shipments under Section 6922(a)(5) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

statute.30 EPA and our stakeholders advocate developing electronic hazardous waste manifesting 

services that EPA would host as a national system. This electronic system would allow 

stakeholders the option of using electronic manifests in lieu of the current 6-ply paper forms. 

Stakeholders recommended in 2004 that EPA develop a national electronic manifest system 

hosted by the Agency as a means to implement a consistent and secure approach to completing, 

submitting, and keeping records of hazardous waste manifests electronically.

 30 42 USC sec. 6299(a)(5) (2009). Note: Laws such as RCRA are codified in the U.S. Code. Some people may be 

more familiar with the public law citation for this section, which is RCRA Sec. 3002(a)(5). The text of 42 USC sec. 

6299(a)(5) is available from: FDsys, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title42/pdf/USCODE-2009-

title42-chap82-subchapIII-sec6922.pdf; Accessed: 08/15/11.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 36 of 62

Electronic manifests could be downloaded to mobile devices, and tracking data distribution 

could be carried out electronically. Waste handlers could accomplish nearly real-time tracking 

of waste shipments, EPA and states could maintain more effective oversight of hazardous waste 

shipments, data quality and availability would be greatly improved, and the Agency could collect 

and manage manifest data and Biennial Reporting data much more efficiently. The hazardous 

waste industry is on record supporting a user fee funded approach to developing and operating 

the e-Manifest system, and the Administration supports establishing an e-Manifest system. 

Estimated potential cost or burden reduction: The development of a national e-Manifest 

system would entail total intramural and extramural system development costs ranging from 

$11.5 million to $20.7 million, depending on the chosen system design. For EPA's preferred 

system design option, involving mobile PC devices that link to and exchange manifest data with 

a national system, system development costs would total about $11.3 million (2010$) and 

average annual operation and maintenance costs would total about $3.6 million (2010$). EPA 

believes that such a system would produce annual savings to waste handlers and regulators 

ranging between $76 million and $124 million (2010$). 

Next steps: In the FY 2012 President’s Budget EPA requested $2 million to begin the 

development of an electronic hazardous waste manifest system. The Administration also 

submitted to Congress a legislative proposal to collect user fees to support the development and 

operation of this system. As part of the regulatory review plan, EPA proposes including the 

efforts to finalize the rule that will allow tracking of hazardous waste using the electronic 

manifest system. 

2.2.5 Electronic hazardous waste Site ID form: reducing burden

Reason for inclusion: EPA is exploring ways to reduce burden for hazardous waste generators, 

transporters, and permitted waste management facilities by transitioning from a paper-based site 

ID application system to an electronic application system. This is consistent with EO 13563’s 

directive to reduce regulatory burden.

Background: RCRA requires individuals who (1) generate or transport hazardous waste or (2) 

operate a facility for recycling, treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous waste, to notify EPA 

or their authorized state waste management agency of their regulated waste activities and obtain 

a RCRA Identification (ID) Number. The RCRA ID Number is a unique identification number, 

assigned by EPA or the authorized state waste management agency, to hazardous waste handlers 

(see categories described above) to enable tracking of basic site information and regulatory 

status. 

Currently, the Hazardous Waste Site ID form is an electronically-fillable PDF form. However, 

after a facility types in their information, the facility must print the form, sign it, and then mail it 

to the state or EPA Region. This is because the Site ID form requires a facility operator's wet 

signature. Similar to submitting tax forms online, this process can be streamlined if EPA can 

enable Site ID forms to be signed and submitted electronically. Electronically submitting Site ID 

forms would: 1) save in mailing costs; 2) enable better data quality as the data would be entered 

by the facility itself; 3) increase efficiency of the notification process as the facility could easily 
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 37 of 62

review its past submissions and submit updates to the Site ID form (rather than repeatedly filling 

out the form again and again); and 4) enable states and EPA to receive the updated data faster. 

As every Small Quantity Generator facility; Large Quantity Generator (LQG) facility; and 

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) facility is required to use the Site ID form to obtain an 

EPA ID number and to submit changes to facility information, electronically submitting Site ID 

forms could potentially impact 50,000-100,000 facilities nationwide. In 2010, there were 97,610 

submissions. As part of the Biennial Report, LQG and TSD facilities have to re-notify every two 

years. State renewals are state-specific, but it is noted that several states require annual renotifications. 

Next step: EPA estimates an electronic Site ID form could be implemented within a year after 

the decision is made to move forward.

2.2.6 ** Consumer confidence reports for primary drinking water 

regulations: providing for the open exchange of information

Reason for inclusion: This action is included in the Plan so that EPA can explore ways to 

promote greater transparency and public participation in protecting the Nation’s drinking water, 

in keeping with EO 13563’s directive to promote participation and the open exchange of 

information.

Background: Consumer Confidence Reports are a key part of public right-to-know in the 

SDWA. The Consumer Confidence Report, or CCR, is an annual water quality report that a 

community water system is required to provide to its customers. Community Water Systems 

(CWSs) serving more than 10,000 persons are required to mail or otherwise directly deliver these 

reports. States may allow CWSs serving fewer than 10,000 persons to provide these reports by 

other means. The report lists the regulated contaminants found in the drinking water, as well as 

health effects information related to violations of the drinking water standards. This helps 

consumers make informed decisions. 

As stakeholders discussed during the development of this Plan, there has been a major increase 

and diversity in communication tools since 1998. EPA will consider reviewing the Consumer 

Confidence Report Rule to look for opportunities to improve the effectiveness of communicating 

drinking water information to the public, while lowering the burden of water systems and states. 

One example suggested by water systems is to allow electronic delivery through e-mail, thereby 

reducing mailing charges. This may also improve the readership of CCRs. 

Estimated potential cost or burden reduction: EPA estimates a cost savings of approximately 

$1,000,000 (2010$) per year, based on the anticipated reduction in postage and paper costs for 

systems serving ≥10,000 customers.31

 31 “Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Public Water

System Supervision Program (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 0270.43, OMB Control No. 2040–0090,” 73 FR 32325 (June 

6, 2008). Available from FDsys, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-06-06/pdf/E8-12709.pdf; Accessed: 

[cont’d. on next page]
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 38 of 62

Next step: EPA estimates that a retrospective review of the CCR could be completed within 12-

16 months after the review cycle begins in fiscal year 2012.

2.2.7 ** Reporting requirements under Section 303(d) of the Clean 

Water Act (CWA): reducing burden

Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to explore ways to reduce the burden on state governments 

when reporting on the quality of the Nation’s water bodies, per EO 13563’s directive to reduce 

regulatory burden.

Background: On April 1 of every even numbered year, states report to EPA on the status of the 

nation’s waters to fulfill reporting requirements under CWA sections 303(d) and 305(b). The 

requirement for states to report on the condition of their waters every two years under Section 

305(b) is statutory. However, the requirement for states to identify impaired waters that need a 

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) every two years under Section 303(d) is regulatory. States 

have raised concerns that reporting this information every two years is a significant 

administrative burden. 

Next step: EPA intends to work with the public and states to identify alternative approaches for 

reducing the burden associated with water quality reporting requirements and to evaluate the 

impact of changing this reporting cycle under either or both CWA Sections 303(d) and 305(b). 

EPA plans to review this activity by June 2012. 

2.2.8 ** Export notification for chemicals and pesticides: reducing 

burden and improving efficiencies

Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to explore ways to reduce regulatory burden on pesticide 

exporters and the foreign countries monitoring the exports, in keeping with EO 13563’s directive 

to reduce regulatory burden.

Background: The regulations issued pursuant to Section 12(b) of TSCA specify export 

notification requirements for certain chemicals subject to regulation under TSCA Sections 4, 5,

6, and 7. The purpose of the export notification requirements of Section 12(b) of TSCA is to 

ensure that foreign governments are alerted when EPA takes certain regulatory actions on 

chemical substances being exported from the United States to those foreign countries, and to 

communicate relevant information concerning the regulated chemicals. In addition, Section 

17(a) of FIFRA requires that the foreign purchaser of a pesticide that is not registered by EPA 

sign a statement, prior to export, acknowledging that the purchaser understands that the pesticide 

 08/15/11. The total annual cost estimate of delivering CCRs as bill inserts for systems serving ≥ 10,000 customers 

was reported in 2007$ and adjusted for inflation with the GDP deflator, providing a total annual cost estimate of $1 

million (2010$). This figure is considered potential cost savings, because water systems could avoid these paper 

delivery expenses as a result of electronic CCR reporting.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 39 of 62

is not registered for use in the United States and cannot be sold in the United States. The 

purpose of the export notification requirements of Section 17(a) is to ensure that foreign 

purchasers and the regulatory authorities in the importing country know these pesticides do not 

have an EPA registration; EPA registration carries a high degree of significance in other 

countries. Under both the TSCA and FIFRA regulations, the export notifications must be 

transmitted to an appropriate official of the government of the importing country, and is intended 

to provide them with notice of the chemical’s export and other relevant information, e.g. the 

chemical’s regulatory status in the U.S. and whether other information is available about the 

chemical. 

During the public involvement process for this Plan, industry reported that these export 

notification requirements have resulted in a significant, and growing, number of export 

notifications, which is burdensome both for them, and also for EPA and the receiving foreign 

countries. Yet industry suggested that these requirements do not appear to provide comparable 

benefits to public health or the environment. 

EPA intends to review the implementing regulations to determine whether there are any 

opportunities to reduce overall burden on exporters, the Agency, and receiving countries, while 

still ensuring that the statutory mandates are followed. For example, EPA is considering whether 

some or all of the transaction could be accomplished through electronic media and whether other 

changes to the process could provide efficiencies that would benefit all parties. 

Next step: EPA is currently developing a workplan for completing this review effort within the 

next 12 months. The Agency intends to identify a timeline and process for engaging 

stakeholders in this review.

2.2.9 ** Water quality trading: improving approaches

Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to review the 2003 Water Quality Trading Policy to 

determine whether revisions could help increase adoption of market-based approaches, in which 

trading is a leading example, to increase the implementation of cost-effective pollutant 

reductions. This is in keeping with EO 13563’s directive to reduce burden and the principle of 

maximizing net benefits.

Background: In 2003, EPA issued its final Water Quality Trading Policy,32 which provides a 

framework for trading pollution reduction credits to promote cost-effective improvements in 

water quality, consistent with the goals and requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA). This 

policy has been a success in encouraging states and stakeholders to give greater attention to 

market-based approaches for achieving water quality-based pollutant reductions beyond the 

technology-based requirements of the Act, as well as ancillary environmental benefits including 

carbon sequestration, habitat protection, and open space preservation. Based upon public input 

 32 See EPA’s 2003 Water Quality Trading Policy. Citation: ---. Environmental Protection Agency. “Water Quality 

Trading Policy.” Washington: EPA, January 13, 2003. Available from: the EPA website, 

http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/trading/tradingpolicy.cfm; Accessed: 08/15/11.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 40 of 62

and EPA’s support and review of water quality trading programs over the past eight years, EPA 

believes that significant, cost-effective pollutant reductions, particularly from non-point sources, 

remain untapped, and will explore ways to revise the policy to reflect new understanding and 

innovation. One area of innovation being considered by many stakeholders is stormwater 

trading. 

EPA intends to begin this process with a workshop or other forum to solicit ideas from the public 

on barriers to trading and other market-based approaches under the current policy, and ways to 

reduce these barriers. 

Next step: EPA intends to begin this process with a workshop or other forum to be held in 2012.

2.2.10 ** Water quality standard regulations: simplifying and 

clarifying requirements

Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to review water quality standard (WQS) regulations to

identify ways to improve the Agency’s effectiveness in helping restore and maintain the Nation’s 

waters and to simplify standards. This is consistent with EO 13563’s directive to simplify 

regulatory requirements. 

Background: Water Quality Standards are the foundation of the water quality-based pollution 

control program mandated by the Clean Water Act. The WQS define the goals for a waterbody 

by designating its uses, setting criteria to protect those uses, and establishing provisions such as 

antidegradation policies to protect waterbodies from pollutants. Since the current WQS 

regulation was last revised in 1983, a number of issues have been raised by stakeholders or 

identified by EPA in the implementation process that could benefit from clarification and greater 

specificity. The proposed rule is expected to provide clarity in six key program areas

(summarized in greater detail below), and EPA intends to better achieve program goals by 

providing enhanced water resource protection and clearer and simplified requirements. 

Key policy issues associated with the action:

1. Administrator’s determination that new or revised WQS are necessary: Establish a 

more transparent process for the Administrator to announce a determination that new or 

revised WQS are necessary under Section 303(c)(4)(B) of the Act.

2. Designated uses: Ensure states and tribes are striving to meet water quality goals even 

where full attainment of Clean Water Act standards is unattainable.

3. Triennial review requirements: Ensure states’ and tribes’ WQS are continuously 

updated and reflect EPA’s latest criteria recommendations. 

4. Antidegradation: Enhance state and tribal implementation of antidegradation and help 

better maintain and protect high quality waters.

5. Variances to WQS: Provide regulatory flexibility and boundaries to allow states and 

tribes to achieve water quality improvements before resorting to a use change.

6. Authorizing compliance schedules: Clarify that, in order to issue compliance 

schedules, states and tribes must first authorize compliance schedules in their WQS. 
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 41 of 62

Next step: EPA intends to propose a targeted set of revisions to the WQS regulation in early 

winter 2011/2012, and a final rulemaking in early summer 2012.

2.2.11 ** State Implementation Plan (SIP) process: reducing burden

Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to reduce hard copies, ensure that certain hearings are held 

only when needed, minimize the number of expensive newspaper advertisements providing 

public notice, and explore the potential for certain regulatory changes to be made with less 

process. This is in keeping with EO 13563’s directive to reduce regulatory burden. The 

improvements to the SIP development process that are under consideration as a result of these 

actions are expected to reduce cost and burden to states and EPA Regional Offices. These 

actions should help to simplify the process, and are expected to conserve state and federal 

resources. Improvements such as reduced newspaper publication and hard copy submittals, 

elimination of unnecessary public hearings, and increased use of letter notices are expected to

result in an ongoing cost savings. To the extent that final decisions on SIPs are made more 

quickly as a result of the process improvements, they are expected to provide greater certainty to 

stakeholders and to the general public. 

Background: EPA and states are working together to review the administrative steps that states 

must follow when they adopt and submit plans to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

These plans describe how areas with air quality problems will attain and maintain the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

EPA recently shared a number of simplifying changes to SIPs with the states via guidance.33 

These changes will minimize or eliminate (1) formal hearings on matters of no public interest, 

(2) expensive advertisements in newspapers with low readership, and (3) shipment of multiple 

hard copies of documents. Additionally, a state-EPA working group is considering (1) training 

tools that would assist states developing nonattainment SIPs for the first time, and (2) ways to 

provide states with information that will better equip them to deal with SIPs (e.g. SIP 

status/approval information, information on innovative measures).

We are also considering additional changes:

• Exploring options for reducing the paper submittals of SIP revisions in favor of electronic 

submittals.

• Determining whether and how the process for making minor plan revisions might be 

simplified.

Next step: The timeframes for these milestones will be determined at a later date.

 33 “Regional Consistency for the Administrative Requirements of State Implementation Plan Submittals and the Use 

of “Letter Notices,” April 6, 2011 (Memorandum from Office of Air and Radiation Deputy Assistant Administrator 

Janet McCabe to EPA Regional Administrators).” Available from: the EPA website. 

http://www.epa.gov/glo/pdfs/20110406mccabetoRAs.pdf; Accessed 08/15/11. 
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 42 of 62

2.2.12 ** National primary drinking water regulations for lead and 

copper: simplifying and clarifying requirements

Reason for inclusion: Efforts to revise the Lead and Copper Rule (also referred to as the LCR)

have been ongoing but this review is part of the Plan because EPA intends to seek ways to 

simplify and clarify requirements imposed on drinking water systems to maintain safe levels of 

lead and copper in drinking water. This is in keeping with EO 13563’s directive to simplify 

regulatory requirements.

Background: On June 7, 1991, EPA published LCR to control lead and copper in drinking 

water.34 The treatment technique for the rule requires community water systems and nontransient non-community water systems to monitor drinking water at customer taps. If lead and 

copper concentrations exceed action levels in more than 10% of customer taps sampled, the 

system must undertake a number of additional actions to reduce lead levels. If the action level 

for lead is exceeded, the system must also inform the public about steps they should take to 

protect their health. 

While LCR is an important means for reducing children's exposure to lead, stakeholders have 

commented that the rule is hard to understand and implement. Under the LCR review, EPA has 

been evaluating ways to improve public health protections provided by the rule as well as

streamline rule requirements by making substantive changes based on topics that were identified 

in the 2004 National Review of the LCR. 

Next step: EPA currently expects to issue a proposed rulemaking in 2012. 

2.2.13 Adjusting threshold planning quantities (TPQs) for solids in 

solution: reducing burden and relying on scientific objectivity

Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to revise TPQs for chemicals that are handled as nonreactive solids in solution. EPA is undertaking this review in order to align regulatory 

requirements with best available science and reduce regulatory burden, as called for in EO 

13563.

Background: The extremely hazardous substances (EHSs) list and its TPQs, developed pursuant 

to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), are intended to help 

communities focus on the substances and facilities of most immediate concern for emergency 

planning and response.35 EPA is considering an alternative approach for the TPQs for chemicals 

on the EHSs list that are handled as non-reactive solids in solution. EPA is pursuing this 

approach in part based on industry's request to revisit the TPQ rationale for the chemical 

 34 ---. Environmental Protection Agency. “Lead and Copper Rule: A Quick Reference Guide.” (Publication No. 

EPA-816-F-08-018). Washington: EPA, June 2008. Available from: the EPA website, 

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/lcr/upload/LeadandCopperQuickReferenceGuide_2008.pdf; Accessed: 

08/15/11.

35 More information about TPQs for EHSs: http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/epcra/epcra_ammend.htm.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 43 of 62

paraquat dichloride (handled as a solid in aqueous solution). These regulatory revisions reflect 

EPA's use of best current science, and offer streamlining for facilities while maintaining 

environmental safeguards since solids in solutions are less likely to be dispersed into the air in 

event of an accidental release and have less impact on the off-site community. 

Next step: EPA intends to complete a final rule by fall 2012.

2.2.14 Integrated pesticide registration reviews: reducing burden and 

improving efficiencies

Reason for inclusion: EPA is reviewing the pesticide registration process, outlined in Section 3 

of FIFRA, as well as other FIFRA requirements, in order to achieve efficiencies for pesticide 

producers and other registrants, the public, and the Agency, in keeping with EO 13563’s 

directive to relieve regulatory burden. 

Background: Under the FIFRA, EPA reviews all current pesticide registrations every 15 years 

to ensure they continue to meet the protective FIFRA standard in light of new information and 

evolving science. To efficiently manage this very large effort, we are bundling chemicals by 

classes of pesticides with similar modes of operation or uses (e.g., neonicitinoids, pyrethroids). 

This has significant efficiency benefits for registrants, the public, and EPA, such as:

• Cost savings resulting from evaluating similar chemicals at the same time – Instead

of EPA reviewing data and developing multiple independent risk assessments for 

individual chemicals, a number of similar chemicals can be cost-effectively evaluated at 

the same time. Registrants have greater certainty of a “level playing field” as the policies 

and state-of-the-science are the same at the time all of the pesticides in a class are 

evaluated. Registrants can form task forces to share the cost of producing data and to 

negotiate the design of any special studies required for a family of pesticides. 

• Higher quality and more comprehensive assessment of cumulative impacts –

Grouping classes of pesticides for consideration enhances our ability to meet our 

responsibilities in areas such as considering the impacts on endangered species and 

consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in the Department of the Interior 

and the National Marine Fisheries Service in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) in the Department of Commerce. Because FWS and NOAA 

could also consider a class of pesticides on a common timeframe, there is a greater 

likelihood that they would recommend consistent Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives in 

their Biological Opinions should consultation be required, which would provide benefits 

to pesticide registrants and users. 

• Reduced burden for registrants by minimizing redundant data submissions and 

allowing comprehensive discussion of issues and risk management approaches – For 

instance, a registrant task force could coordinate production of data for common 

degradates, and possibly demonstrate to the Agency how data for a subset of pesticides in 

a class could be bridged to provide sufficient information for the entire class of 

pesticides. 
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 44 of 62

• Enhanced public participation – Bundling chemicals can also benefit public 

participation in the registration review process. Rather than tracking actions, providing 

data and providing input on individual chemicals, the public can more effectively engage 

on entire groups of chemicals. 

• More flexible prioritization – Bundling chemicals for review makes it easier to adjust 

priorities if circumstances demand. If new information or risk concerns demonstrate the 

need for accelerated review, it is easier to adjust resources and schedules when similar 

chemicals are already grouped together for action. For instance, when California 

accelerated their re-evaluation of pyrethroid registrations after the publication of new 

stream sediment monitoring data, the Agency was in a position to coordinate data 

requirements and study designs with California because it had already scheduled the 

registration review of pyrethroids as a class for the near future. 

Next step: Some near-term examples of this chemical bundling include initiating registration 

reviews for the neonicotinoid insecticides and sulfonylurea herbicides in the next 12-18 months.

2.2.15 ** Certification of pesticide applicators: eliminating 

uncertainties and improving efficiencies

Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to review regulations for certification and training of 

pesticide applicators (40 CFR 171) to help clarify requirements and modify potentially redundant 

or restrictive requirements, in keeping with EO 13563’s directive to reduce regulatory burden.

Background: By law, certain pesticides may be applied only by or under the direct supervision 

of specially trained and certified applicators. Certification and training programs are conducted 

by states, territories, and tribes in accordance with national standards. EPA has been in extensive 

discussions with stakeholders since 1997, when the Certification and Training Assessment Group 

(CTAG) was established. CTAG is a forum used by regulatory and academic stakeholders to 

discuss the current state of, and the need for improvements in, the national certified pesticide 

applicator program. In July of 2004, well over a million private, state, federal, and tribal 

commercial certified applicators had active pesticide applicator certificates in the U.S.

Based on extensive interactions with stakeholders, EPA has identified the potential for 

streamlining activities which could reduce the burden on the regulated community by promoting 

better coordination among the state, federal, and tribal partnerships; clarifying requirements; and 

modifying potentially redundant or restrictive regulation. This review would also consider 

strengthening the regulations to better protect pesticide applicators, the public, and the 

environment from harm due to pesticide exposure. In addition, resources and time permitting, 

EPA intends to consider the use of innovative technology tools (e.g., investigation of the use of 

educational tools such as web based tools), including consideration of the need to ensure 

communication and training is available to non-English speakers. 

Next step: EPA intends to propose improvements to these regulations in 2012.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 45 of 62

2.2.16 ** Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) reforms: improving 

efficiencies and effectiveness

Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to examine existing PCB guidance and regulations to 

harmonize regulatory requirements related to harmful PCB uses and to PCB cleanup. This is in 

keeping with EO 13563’s directive to simplify and harmonize rules.

Background: EPA regulations governing the use of PCBs in electrical equipment and other 

applications were first issued in the late 1970s and have not been updated since 1998. EPA has 

initiated a rulemaking to reexamine these ongoing PCB uses with an eye to ending or phasing out 

uses that can no longer be justified under Section 6(e) of the Toxics Substances and Control Act 

(TSCA), which requires that EPA determine certain authorized uses will not present an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment. In addition, EPA recognizes that its 

cleanup program for PCBs may create barriers to the timely cleanup of sites that are 

contaminated with PCBs and other toxic constituents under EPA’s other cleanup programs. 

Thus, EPA intends to look for opportunities to improve PCB regulations and related guidance to 

facilitate quicker and more effective PCB cleanups, for example with respect to PCBcontaminated caulk. EPA has already started looking for opportunities to improve PCB cleanup 

guidance and intends to work with states to identify areas for focus and plans to describe those 

results in future updates of our retrospective reviews. 

Next step: EPA intends to look in the future (not earlier than 2013), after guidance revision 

opportunities are completed, at whether there are remaining issues that need regulatory revisions 

to facilitate quicker and more effective PCB cleanups.

2.2.17 ** Hazardous waste requirements for retail products: clarifying 

and making the program more effective

Reason for inclusion: A national retailer submitted comments on the regulatory review plan and 

outlined during the public listening sessions a number of issues that retailers face in complying 

with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste regulations. EPA 

intends to gather data that could, in the future, inform a potential review of RCRA hazardous 

waste requirements to determine how they might be clarified or modified for retail products, 

consistent with EO 13563’s directive to make regulatory programs more effective or less 

burdensome.

Background: Retailers face uncertainty in managing the wide range of retail products that may 

become wastes if unsold, returned, or removed from shelves for inventory changes. The issues 

raised include how to determine when unsold materials and materials returned by consumers 

become waste, how to make hazardous waste determinations for the many different kinds of 

materials that may become waste, and how the regulations apply to pharmaceuticals from retail

pharmacies. 

Next steps: The Agency is taking several steps to address these issues. First, EPA intends to 

review its regulations to determine whether to issue guidance in the short term concerning certain 

pharmaceutical containers.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 46 of 62

Second, EPA intends to review the data and information in our possession about pharmaceutical 

products that may become wastes to address these issues as part of a rulemaking on 

pharmaceutical waste management. 

Third, EPA intends to analyze relevant information to identify what the issues of concern are, 

what materials may be affected, what the scope of the problem is, and what options may exist for 

addressing the issues. EPA would then determine what future actions, if any, may be appropriate 

based on EPA's evaluation of the data gathered.

2.2.18 Contaminants under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): 

coordinating regulatory requirements

Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to coordinate drinking water regulatory requirements and 

regulate more cost-effectively by addressing contaminants as groups. 

Background: On March 22, 2010, EPA announced a new Drinking Water Strategy, which was 

aimed at finding ways to strengthen public health protection from contaminants in drinking 

water.36 This collaborative effort across EPA program offices is intended to streamline decisionmaking and expand protection under existing laws, and to enable EPA to provide more robust 

public health protection in an open and transparent manner, assist small communities to identify 

cost and energy efficient treatment technologies, and build consumer confidence by providing 

more efficient sustainable treatment technologies to deliver safe water at a reasonable cost. To 

obtain input on the strategy, EPA held four public listening sessions around the country, hosted a 

web-based discussion forum, and met with the National Drinking Water Advisory Council. In 

addition, EPA held a web dialogue and stakeholder meeting focused on the first goal of the 

strategy. The first goal of the strategy is to address contaminants as groups rather than one at a 

time, so that enhancement of drinking water protection can be achieved cost-effectively. 

The Agency announced in February 2011 that it plans to develop one national drinking water 

regulation (NDWR) covering up to sixteen carcinogenic Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). 

EPA intends to propose a regulation to address carcinogenic contaminants as groups rather than 

individually in order to provide public health protections more quickly and also allow utilities to 

more effectively and efficiently plan for improvements. This action is part of the Agency's 

Drinking Water Strategy to help streamline implementation of drinking water rules for the 

regulated community. 

Next step: EPA expects to issue a proposed rulemaking in the fall of 2013.

 36 See http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/dwstrategy/index.cfm
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 47 of 62

2.2.19 **Section 610 reviews: coordinating requirements

Reason for inclusion: This review is included in the Plan because EPA intends to coordinate 

retrospective reviews that arise from a variety of statutory and Presidential mandates. Where 

appropriate, EPA intends to coordinate our small business retrospective reviews, required by 

Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, with other required reviews (e.g., under the Clean 

Air Act). This will aid in meeting EO 13563’s directive to reduce or eliminate redundant, 

inconsistent, or overlapping requirements.

Background: Under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA is required to review 

regulations that have or will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities (SISNOSE) within ten years of promulgation. Section 610 specifically requires review 

of such regulations to determine the continued need for the rule; the nature of complaints or 

comments received concerning the regulation from the public since promulgation; the 

complexity of the regulation; the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with 

other federal regulations, and, to the extent feasible, with state and local government regulations; 

and the length of time since the regulation has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, 

economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the regulation. These 

areas effectively promote many of the same principles of transparency, streamlining, and 

flexibility outlined in EO 13563. To the extent practicable, EPA plans to use the opportunity 

under this Plan to combine our Section 610 reviews with other reviews. 

Next steps: EPA’s upcoming 610 reviews include:

• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent 

Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations due by February 

2013; 

• NESHAP: Reinforced Plastic Composites Production due by April 2013; and

• Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel due by 

June 2014.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 48 of 62

3 Public Involvement and Agency Input for this Plan

EPA developed this Plan by gathering input from the public during two public comment periods, 

one of which was held before the preliminary Plan was released and one held afterwards. We 

also sought input from the Agency’s subject matter experts who, outside of this retrospective 

review effort, often interact with businesses, states, and other regulated entities, as well as other 

stakeholders interested in EPA regulations. In parallel efforts, we sought to learn how public 

stakeholders and Agency experts would recommend designing EPA’s Preliminary Plan for 

Periodic Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations. The regulatory reviews described in 

section 2 respond to a number of the comments submitted by the public both in this forum and in 

public outreach efforts conducted by EPA.

3.1 Public involvement in developing this Plan

Through EPA’s public involvement process, the Agency gathered verbal and written public 

comments on the design of the Plan and on regulations that should be candidates for 

retrospective review. EPA opened two public comment periods during the development of this 

Plan. The first was held from February 18, 2011, to April 4, 2011 and gathered the public’s 

written comments on how the Plan should be designed. During the first comment period, EPA 

also held a series of meetings to gather additional input. The second comment period was held 

from May 26, 2011, to June 27, 2011. It was held after the release of EPA’s preliminary Plan 

and invited additional public comments on the Plan. 

3.1.1 Public Comment Period #1

EPA posted the “Improving Our Regulations” website 

(http://www.epa.gov/improvingregulations) on February 18, 2011. The site provided direct links 

to a total of fifteen dockets established in Regulations.gov where members of the public could 

submit written comments about how EPA should design the Plan during the first comment 

period. Many commenters also suggested regulations as candidates for retrospective review. 

Fourteen of the dockets allowed the public to submit ideas by:

• Issue or impact:

o Benefits and costs (Docket # EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0158)

o Compliance (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0166)

o Economic conditions / market (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0167)

o Environmental justice / children’s health / elderly (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0168)

o Integration and innovation (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0161)

o Least burdensome / flexible approaches (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0165)

o Science / obsolete / technology outdated (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0162)

o Small business (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0164)

o State, local and tribal governments (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0163)

• Program area:

o Air (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0155)

o Pesticides (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0157)

o Toxic substances (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0159)

o Waste (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0160)
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 49 of 62

o Water (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0154)

A fifteenth docket collected general comments (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156) that spanned more 

than one issue/impact or program area. Also, we established an email account where members 

of the public could submit their ideas: ImprovingRegulations.SuggestionBox@epa.gov. And 

finally, EPA issued a Federal Register (FR) notice37 to ensure that people who lacked Internet 

access could read EPA’s call for public comment.

The website, dockets, and FR notice included guiding questions based on the principles of EO 

13563 and EPA’s priorities. The Agency provided these questions to guide the public in 

formulating their ideas, not to restrict their comments. (See the questions in the appendix.) 

Written comments were initially solicited from February 18 – March 20, 2011. After hearing 

many requests from the public to extend the comment period, EPA extended the due date to 

April 4, 2011. Hundreds of submissions were made to the public dockets. To advertise the 

public comment process and the public meetings, we issued a press release, publicized on our 

Open Government website and other key websites, and posted on the Agency’s Facebook and 

Twitter pages. 

3.1.2 Public Meetings

Verbal comments were solicited at a series of twenty public meetings. On March 14, EPA held a 

day-long public meeting in Arlington, Virginia, focused on all aspects of the Plan. The first half 

of the day focused on how to design the Plan. The second half was divided into targeted, 

concurrent sessions that focused on five areas: air, pesticides, toxic substances, waste, and water. 

Additionally, EPA held nineteen more town halls and listening sessions targeting specific 

programs areas (e.g. solid waste and emergency response) and EPA Regions. In total, 

approximately 600 members of the public attended. 

3.1.3 Public Comment Period #2

The preliminary version of this Plan was released on May 26, 2011. That same day, in keeping 

with OMB guidance,38 EPA opened a second public comment period that ended on June 27, 

 37 EPA issued a Federal Register (FR) notice on February 23, 2011, to announce the first public comment period 

and public meeting. EPA subsequently issued a second FR notice on March 18th to extend the first comment period. 

The respective citations are:

• “Improving EPA Regulations; Request for Comment; Notice of Public Meeting (Request for comment; 

notice of public meeting).” 76 FR 9988 (February 23, 2011). Available from: FDsys, 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-23/pdf/2011-4152.pdf; Accessed: 08/15/11.

• “Extension of Comment Period: EPA’s Plan for Retrospective Review Under Executive Order 13563 

(Extension of comment period.)” 76 FR 14840 (March 18, 2011). Available from: FDsys, 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-03-18/pdf/2011-6413.pdf; Accessed: 08/15/11. 38 "Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations, April 25, 2011 (Memorandum from Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs Administrator Cass R. Sunstein)." Available from: the Office of Management and Budget,

website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2011/m11-19.pdf; Accessed 08/15/2011.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 50 of 62

2011. The second comment period gave the public the opportunity to provide written comments 

after reading the preliminary document. During this second comment period, the public could 

submit comments via our general comments docket (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156). In total, 

between this comment period and the first one, EPA received over 800 comments.

39

Although EPA is unable to conduct – all at one time – the many reviews that were suggested 

during our two public comment periods and in the public meetings, the comments will be 

retained in our publicly accessible Regulations.gov dockets and EPA intends to once again 

review the comments in the future five-year review periods described in section 4. 

3.2 Agency input into this Plan

While EPA’s public involvement process was underway, the Agency also engaged in an 

extensive process to tap the expertise of regulatory professionals throughout EPA and 

complement ideas gathered from the public. A cross-Agency workgroup helped craft the Plan 

and collected nominations for retrospective reviews from EPA’s rule-writing experts, as well as 

those who work on regulatory enforcement and compliance. Staff and managers in EPA’s ten 

Regional offices hold responsibilities for executing EPA’s programs within the Nation’s states, 

territories, and tribal nations. The Regions also assisted with the design of the Plan and 

indentified regulations that should be candidates for retrospective review.

Moreover, EPA combined efforts in the development of this Plan during preparation of the 

Spring 2011 Semiannual Regulatory Agenda. The Agenda describes a broad universe of 

regulatory activities under development or review, as well as recently completed regulations. 

This comprehensive report of regulations currently under development includes a number of 

activities that EPA identified as responsive to EO 13563. EPA has a long history of reviewing 

regulations and related activities in an effort to continually improve its protection of human 

health and the environment. It is the Agency’s ongoing responsibility to listen to regulated 

groups and other stakeholders, rely on EPA expertise and quality scientific and economic 

analyses, address petitions for regulatory revisions, and otherwise respond to public and internal 

cues that indicate when reviews are necessary. 

EPA determined which ongoing activities listed in our upcoming Spring 2011 Semiannual 

Regulatory Agenda are themselves a retrospective review. While some of these regulatory 

reviews are required by statute, many others are being examined by EPA as a discretionary 

measure. EPA intends to apply the principles and directives of EO 13563 to these ongoing 

reviews.

 39 The preliminary version of this plan stated that EPA received over 1,400 public submissions during the first round 

of public comments. Between the development of the preliminary plan and this final version, the 

www.Regulations.gov system changed how submissions are counted; therefore, the total number decreased.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 51 of 62

4 EPA’s Plan for Future Periodic Regulatory Reviews 

EPA has selected an initial list of regulations that are expected to be reviewed during our first 

review period. However, EO 13563 also calls for “a...plan, consistent with law and its resources 

and regulatory priorities, under which the agency will periodically review its existing significant 

regulations...” (emphasis added).40 Consistent with the commitment to periodic review and to 

public participation, the EPA intends to continue to assess its existing significant regulations in 

accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13563. We welcome public suggestions 

about appropriate reforms. If, at any time, members of the public identify possible reforms to 

modify, streamline, expand or repeal existing regulations, we will give those suggestions careful 

consideration. This section of the Plan therefore defines a process that EPA intends to use for

predictable, transparent future reviews, to be conducted every five years. 

4.1 Management and oversight of the Plan

EPA’s Regulatory Policy Officer (RPO) was responsible for developing this Plan for the EPA 

Administrator. Going forward, the RPO intends to manage and oversee the execution of future 

retrospective reviews; report on EPA’s progress; and evaluate the Plan. EPA's RPO is the 

Associate Administrator for the Office of Policy. Organizationally, the Office of Policy (OP) is 

situated in the EPA Administrator's office and is independent from those parts of EPA that 

routinely write and implement regulations (such as the Office of Air and Radiation and the 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention). OP is not a regulatory development office, 

but it is responsible for a number of regulatory coordination, management, policy, and review

functions. Among other tasks, OP reviews the economic and scientific underpinnings of 

regulations to help ensure consistency and sound decision-making, serves as the Administrator’s 

regulatory policy advisor, and liaises with the Office of Management and Budget and the Office 

of Federal Register to ensure interagency review and publication of regulatory documents. 

Given OP’s role providing regulatory analysis, advice, and management – independent of other 

offices’ responsibility to promulgate and implement regulations – it is fitting that the RPO 

oversees the implementation of this plan and the execution of future retrospective reviews.

4.2 Process for conducting retrospective reviews

EPA plans to ask the public about our full range of regulations – soliciting comments on what 

the public recommends for review – on a five-year cycle. The RPO also intends to ask for input 

from EPA’s subject matter experts who, outside of this retrospective review effort, often interact 

with businesses, states, and other regulated entities, as well as other stakeholders interested in 

EPA regulations. Every five years, the Agency intends to follow a four-step process for 

retrospective reviews:

 40 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (Executive Order 13563).” 76 FR 3821 (January 21, 2011). 

Available from: the Government Printing Office’s Federal Digital System (FDsys): 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-21/pdf/2011-1385.pdf; Accessed: 08/15/11.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 52 of 62

In each review period, the first three steps are expected to take approximately one year to 

complete, giving the Agency the remaining four years, or more if needed, to complete 

modifications as warranted.

4.3 Criteria for regulatory reviews

In each review period, EPA intends to use the principles and directives of EO 13563 both to help 

determine which of the suggested regulations should be reviewed (Step 2 in subsection 4.2) and 

to evaluate regulations under review (Step 3 in subsection 4.2) Consistent with applicable 

Step 3: Conduct Retrospective Reviews

• Rule-writing offices plan to review the selected regulations using the criteria described in 

subsection 4.3.

• The Agency intends to establish a docket for each regulation under review in order to 

collect public comments on whether to revise the regulation, and if so, how.

• EPA intends to announce which regulations are under review in the Semiannual 

Regulatory Agenda and on the EPA website.

Step 4: Make Necessary Modifications

• After collecting comments from the public and conducting our own analyses, EPA 

intends to make modifications to any regulation that warrants it, as determined during 

Step 3.

• The Agency plans to announce such modifications in the Federal Register, the EPA 

website, and the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.

Step 2: Select Regulations for Review

• From the nominees, EPA intends to select a discrete number of regulations for review. To 

the extent permitted by law, selections are intended to be based on:

o Comments gathered in Step 1; 

o The expertise of the EPA offices writing the regulations;

o Priorities of the day, such as judicial rulings, emergencies, etc.; 

o Criteria described in subsection 4.3, and 

o Agency resources. 

Step 1: Solicit Nominations 

• At the start of each new review period, EPA plans to ask the public, other federal agencies,

and EPA experts to nominate regulations that are in need of review.

• EPA plans to announce the new nomination period via the Semiannual Regulatory 

Agenda, a press release, and related outreach tools.

• EPA intends to collect public input via a Regulations.gov docket.

• EPA plans to collect input from EPA experts via a staff-level “Regulatory Review 

Workgroup,” as well as senior management meetings.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 53 of 62

statutory requirements, during Step 2, the Agency intends to assess in a general way whether the 

principle or directive is likely to have a bearing on the regulation’s review; while during Step 3, 

the Agency intends to analyze each regulation more fully and answer the questions that appear 

under each heading below. 

For example, the first principle listed in EO 13563 is: “[T]o the extent permitted by law, each 

agency must, among other things propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are 

difficult to quantify).”41 This principle corresponds to the “Benefits justify costs” heading below. 

To the extent permitted by law, during Step 2, EPA intends to answer a general question such as 

“Are there benefit and cost estimates related to this regulation that warrant review at this time?” 

If yes, then during Step 3, the Agency intends to conduct a benefit-cost analysis to understand if 

the benefits of continuing the regulation still justify its costs. 

• Benefits justify costs

o Now that the regulation has been in effect for some time, do the benefits of the 

regulation still justify its costs?

• Least burden

o Does the regulation impose requirements on entities that are also subject to 

requirements under another EPA regulation? If so, what is the cumulative burden 

and cost of the requirements imposed on the regulated entities?

o Does the regulation impose paperwork activities (reporting, recordkeeping, or 

third party notifications) that could benefit from online reporting or electronic 

recordkeeping? 

o If this regulation has a large impact on small businesses, could it feasibly be 

changed to reduce the impact while maintaining environmental protection? 

o Do feasible alternatives to this regulation exist that could reduce this regulation’s 

burden on state, local, and/or tribal governments without compromising 

environmental protection? 

• Net benefits

o Is it feasible to alter the regulation in such a way as to achieve greater cost 

effectiveness while still achieving the intended environmental results? 

• Performance objectives

o Does the regulation have complicated or time-consuming requirements, and are 

there feasible alternative compliance tools that could relieve burden while 

maintaining environmental protection? 

o Could this regulation be feasibly modified to better partner with other federal 

agencies, state, local, and/or tribal governments? 

 41 Ibid. 
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 54 of 62

• Alternatives to direct regulation

o Could this regulation feasibly be modified so as to invite public/private 

partnerships while ensuring that environmental objectives are still met?

o Does a feasible non-regulatory alternative exist to replace some or all of this 

regulation’s requirements while ensuring that environmental objectives are still 

met? 

• Quantified benefits and costs / qualitative values

o Since being finalized, has this regulation lessened or exacerbated existing impacts 

or created new impacts on vulnerable populations such as low-income or minority 

populations, children, or the elderly? 

o Are there feasible changes that could be made to this regulation to better protect 

vulnerable populations? 

• Open exchange of information

o Could this regulation feasibly be modified to make data that is collected more 

accessible?

o Did the regulatory review consider the perspectives of all stakeholders?

• Coordination, simplification, and harmonization across agencies

o If this regulation requires coordination with other EPA regulations, could it be 

better harmonized than it is now? 

o If this regulation requires coordination with the regulations of other federal or 

state agencies, could it be better harmonized with those regulations than it is now?

• Innovation

o Are there feasible changes that could be made to the regulation to promote 

economic or job growth without compromising environmental protection? 

o Could a feasible alteration be made to the regulation to spur new markets, 

technologies, or jobs? 

o Have new or less costly methods, technologies, and/or innovative techniques 

emerged since this regulation was finalized that would allow regulated entities to 

achieve the intended environmental results more effectively and/or efficiently? 

• Flexibility

o Could this regulation include greater flexibilities for the regulated community to 

encourage innovative thinking and identify the least costly methods for 

compliance?

• Scientific and technological objectivity

o Has the science of risk assessment advanced such that updated assessments of the 

regulation’s impacts on affected populations such as environmental justice 

communities, children or the elderly could be improved?

o Has the underlying scientific data changed since this regulation was finalized such 

that the change supports revision to the regulation? 
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 55 of 62

o Has the regulation or a portion(s) of the regulation achieved its original objective 

and become obsolete? 

o Does the regulation require the use of or otherwise impose a scientific or technical 

standard? If so, is that standard obsolete or does it otherwise limit the use of 

updated or improved standards?

4.4 Public involvement in future review periods

Just as the public has been involved in the development of this Plan, EPA plans to routinely 

involve the public in our periodic retrospective review process. The Agency intends to ensure 

regular public involvement by:

• Starting each review period by soliciting input from the public – As we did for this 

initial review period, EPA intends to collect public comments at the start of each fiveyear review period to begin identifying nominees for regulatory review. This public 

involvement process is described in section 4.2.

• Using the existing tools to aid the public in tracking our review activities. EPA plans 

to publicize our regulatory review schedule in the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda. In 

this twice yearly publication, we plan to announce upcoming review periods and provide

status updates of the reviews underway. At this time, EPA expects to begin its next 

review period in spring 2016. 

Between the twice yearly publications of the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, EPA will 

provide updates to Agency reviews on relevant portions of the EPA website. For 

example, EPA intends to link the tracking tools for this Plan to EPA’s Open Government 

website for seamless integration of the Agency’s retrospective review efforts and broader 

transparency efforts. Also, EPA will share information about the plan on 

http://www.epa.gov/improvingregulations/.

42

• Making data and analyses available, whenever possible. Data.gov catalogs federal 

government datasets and increases the ability of the public to easily find, download, and 

use datasets that are generated and held by the federal government. EPA will strive to 

make available, to the extent possible, the raw data used to conduct retrospective analyses 

on www.data.gov. The Agency also intends to continue to provide access to underlying 

analyses in the Regulations.gov docket established for a regulation.

• Providing notice-and-comment opportunities as the Agency makes modifications to 

regulations. As is typically the case for new rulemakings, EPA intends to issue a Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for each modification resulting from a retrospective 

 42 This is the web address for the “Improving Regulations” website referenced in section 3 of this plan. The website 

will be redesigned over time to incorporate ongoing updates to EPA’s efforts.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 56 of 62

review, during which the Agency would invite public comment on the proposed 

modifications. 

• Providing ways to contact EPA’s RPO staff. At any time, the public may submit a 

comment to RPO staff members about the Agency’s Plan via the general comments

docket (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156). The Agency intends to make the docket easily 

accessible on its website and in all materials and media related to the Plan. 

4.5 Reporting on each review period

As touched on in subsection 4.4, EPA intends to regularly report on its progress. EPA plans to 

report on the regulations under review, as well as modifications resulting from the reviews, by 

using EPA’s Semiannual Regulatory Agenda. Also, the Agency intends to provide more 

frequent updates on relevant portions of the EPA website and link online information to EPA’s 

Open Government website for seamless integration of the Agency’s retrospective review efforts 

and broader transparency efforts.

4.6 Frequency of review periods

EPA plans to begin a new retrospective review period every five years. The first review period 

is expected to last from spring 2011 to spring 2016, the next period would then span spring 2016 

to spring 2021, and subsequent periods would continue on five-year cycles. EPA intends to 

begin each review period with a public solicitation, during which time EPA would ask the public 

to nominate any of the Agency’s existing regulations for retrospective review. The public 

nomination process would be coupled with an internal effort to capture the nominations of EPA 

experts.

At any time, EPA maintains the discretion to add to the list of nominated rules gathered from the 

public, and EPA intends to select regulations for review using considerations that go beyond 

those identified by the public. (See the considerations described in step 2, subsection 4.3.) The 

Agency may choose to make changes to respond to public suggestions, judicial rulings, 

emergencies, or other unexpected issues. 
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 57 of 62

5 Evaluation of the First Review Period

In late 2016, as directed by OMB, EPA plans to lead an evaluation of the first review period to 

identify the best practices and areas of improvement for the Plan. Among other things, EPA 

plans to evaluate:

• Whether the criteria used for retrospective reviews (listed in subsection 4.3) should be 

expanded or otherwise modified.

• The resources required to conduct the first review period, and the feasibility / 

consequences of expending the same level of resources on an ongoing basis.

• The results of the review (e.g., how many regulations were revised? in what ways?).

The results of this evaluation will be made available to the public via an announcement in EPA’s 

Regulatory Agenda, as well as the other, regular reporting mechanisms described in subsection 

4.5.
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 58 of 62

6 Contact Information

For more information about EPA’s Plan and retrospective reviews, contact RPO staff at:

Email: ImprovingRegulations.SuggestionBox@epa.gov 

Mail:

Regulatory Policy Officer

Re: Retrospective Review of Regulations

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest (Mail Code 1803A)

Washington, DC 20460
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 59 of 62

Appendix: Questions offered during the public comment 

period to help the public formulate their comments

The following questions – both general questions and questions categorized by issue or impact –

were published on EPA’s Improving Our Regulations website and added to the fifteen dockets 

that collected public comments during EPA’s first public comment period that ran from 

02/18/2011 to 04/04/2011. EPA provided this non-exhaustive list of questions to help the public 

formulate their ideas; these questions were not intended to restrict the issues that the public may 

wish to address.

General Questions

• How should we identify candidate regulations for periodic retrospective review?

• What criteria should we use to prioritize regulations for review?

• How should our review plan be integrated with our existing requirements to conduct 

retrospective reviews?

• How often should we solicit input from the public?

• What should be the timing of any given regulatory review (e.g., should a regulation be in 

effect for a certain amount of time before it is reviewed)?

Questions Specific to an Issue or Impact

Benefits and Costs

(Regulations.gov Docket #EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0158)

• Which regulations have high costs and low benefits? What data support this?

• Which regulations could better maximize net benefits (including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity)? What data support this? What quantitative and qualitative benefits and costs justify 

your suggestion (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify)? 

Compliance 

(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0166)

• Which regulations have complicated or time consuming requirements? To what extent are 

alternative compliance tools available? Could the regulations be modified to improve 

compliance? What data support this?

• Which regulations or regulated sectors have particularly high compliance? How could the 

factors or approaches that lead to high compliance be utilized in other regulations and 

sectors? What data is available to support this? 
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 60 of 62

Economic Conditions/ Market

(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0167)

• Which regulations have impacted an industry sector(s) that was hard hit by high 

unemployment in the past three years? What changes to the regulation would promote 

economic growth or job creation without compromising environmental protection? What 

data support this?

• How can regulations spur new markets, technologies, and new jobs? What suggestions do 

you have to support this idea?

• Which regulations have impeded economic growth in an affected industry sector? What 

information is available to support this? How could the regulations be modified to improve 

both economic growth and environmental protection? What data support this? 

• Where can EPA examine market-based incentives as an option to regulation? What program 

would you design that utilizes market-based incentives and ensures environmental objectives 

are still met? 

• How can a regulation be improved so as to create, expand or transform a market?

• Which regulations could be modified so as to invite public/private partnerships, and how?

Environmental Justice / Children’s Health / Elderly 

(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0168)

• Which regulations have exacerbated existing impacts or created new impacts on vulnerable 

populations such as low-income or minority populations, children, or the elderly? Which 

ones and how? What suggestions do you have for how the Agency could change the 

regulations? What data support this?

• Which regulations have failed to protect vulnerable populations (minority or low-income, 

children or elderly) and why? 

• Which regulations could be streamlined, modified, tightened, or expanded to mitigate or 

prevent impacts to vulnerable populations (minority or low-income, children or elderly)? 

What suggestions do you have for changing the regulations? What data support this? 

Integration and Innovation 

(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0161)

• Which regulations could achieve the intended environmental results using less costly 

methods, technology, or innovative techniques? How could the regulations be changed? 

What data support this?
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 61 of 62

• Which regulations could be improved by harmonizing requirements across programs or 

agencies to better meet the regulatory objectives? What suggestions do you have for how the 

Agency can better harmonize these requirements?

• Which regulations have requirements that are overlapping and could be streamlined or 

eliminated? What suggestions do you have for how the Agency could modify the 

regulations? Be specific about how burden can be reduced from gained efficiencies related to 

streamlining the requirements.

• What opportunities exist for the Agency to explore alternatives to existing regulations? How 

can these alternatives be designed to ensure that environmental objectives are still met? 

Least Burdensome / Flexible Approaches

(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0165)

• Which regulations have proven to be excessively burdensome? What data support this? How 

many facilities are affected? What suggestions do you have for reducing the burden and 

maintaining environmental protection?

• Which regulations impose paperwork activities (reporting, recordkeeping, or 3rd party 

notifications) that would benefit from online reporting or electronic recordkeeping? Tell us 

whether regulated entities have flexibility in providing the required 3rd party disclosure or 

notification. What data support this? What suggestions do you have for how the Agency 

could change the regulation?

• Which regulations could be made more flexible within the existing legal framework? What 

data support this? What suggestions do you have for how the Agency could change the 

regulations to be more flexible?

Science / Obsolete / Technology Outdated

(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0162)

• Which regulations could be modified because the underlying scientific data has changed 

since the regulation was issued, and the change supports revision to the original regulation? 

What data support this? What suggestions do you have for changing the regulations?

• Which regulations have achieved their original objective and have now become unnecessary 

or obsolete? What data support this? What suggestions do you have for how the Agency 

could modify, streamline, expand, or repeal the regulation?

• Have circumstances surrounding any regulations changed significantly such that the 

regulation’s requirements should be reconsidered? Which regulations? What data support 

this? What suggestions can you provide the Agency about how these regulations could be 

changed?
EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews Page 62 of 62

• Which regulations or reporting requirements have become outdated? How can they be 

modernized to accomplish their regulatory objectives better? What data support this? What 

suggestions do you have for how the Agency could change the regulations?

• Which regulations have new technologies that can be leveraged to modify, streamline, 

expand, or repeal existing requirements? What data support this? What suggestions do you 

have for how the Agency could change these regulations? 

Small Business

(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0164)

• Which regulations have large impacts on small businesses? How could these regulations be 

changed to reduce the impact while maintaining environmental protection? Are there 

flexible approaches that might help reduce these impacts? Which of these regulations have 

high costs and low benefits? What data support this?

• Are there any regulations where flexible approaches for small businesses have proven 

successful and could serve as a model? Where else and how could these approaches be 

utilized? 

State, Local and Tribal Governments

(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0163)

• Which regulations impose burden on state, local or tribal governments? How could these 

regulations be changed to reduce the burden without compromising environmental 

protection? 

• What opportunities are there within existing regulations to better partner with state, local 

and/or tribal governments? If so, do you have suggestions for how to better utilize those 

opportunities?