### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC TION AGENCY (EPA)

Statement of Priorities

Overview

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

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

4 decades, EPA has confr onted health and environmental challen ges, fostered innovations, and cleaned

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

The EPA remains strongly committed to protecting health and the environment through:

 Taking action on climate change;

 Improving air quality;

 Assuring the safety of chemicals;

 Cleaning up our communities;

 Protecting America's waters;

 Expanding the conversation on environmentalism an d working for environmental justice; and

 Building strong State and tribal partnerships.

EPA and its Federal, State, local, and community partners have m ade enormous progress in

protecting the Nation’s health and environment. From reducing mercury and other toxic air pollution from

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

thousands of lives each year. Further, EPA has removed over a billion tons of pollution from the air and

produced hundreds of billions of dollars in benefits for the American people. For example:

 The number of Americans receiving water that m eets health standards has gone from 79 percent in

1993 to 92 percent in 2008.

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

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

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

 Today, new cars are 98 percent cleaner in terms of smog-forming pollutants than they were in 1970.

###  Meanwhile, American families and businesses have g one from recycling about 10 percent of trash in

1980 to more than 33 percent in 2008. Eighty-thr ee million tons of trash are recycled annually—the

equivalent of cutting greenhouse gas emission s from more than 33 million automobiles.

Highlights of EPA's Regulatory Plan

EPA’s 40 years of environmental and health protec tion demonstrate our Nation ’s ability to create jobs

while we clean our air, water, and land. Clean air, clean water, and healthy workers are all essential to

American businesses. Moreover, innovations in cl ean technology are creating new jobs right now.

Addressing climate change calls for coordinated natio nal and global efforts to research alternative fuels

and other emission reduction technologies and requir es strong partnerships across economic sectors and

around the world. Similarly, energy consumpti on and higher costs underscore the need to promote

alternative energy sources and invest in new technologies.

Seven Guiding Priorities

The EPA’s success depends on supporting innovation and creativity in both what we do and how we

do it. To guide the Agency’s efforts, Administrato r Lisa P. Jackson has established seven guiding

priorities. These priorities are enumerated in the lis t that follows, along with recent progress and future

objectives for each.

1. Taking Action on Climate Change

While the EPA stands ready to help Congress cr aft strong, scienc e-based climate l egislation that

addresses the spectrum of issues, the Agency will depl oy existing regulatory tool s as they are available

and warranted. Using the Clean Air Act, EPA will conti nue to develop greenhouse gas standards for both

mobile and stationary sources.

Greenhouse Gas Emission St andards for Automobiles and Trucks. Last year, EPA issued joint

regulations with the National Highway Traffic Safe ty Administration that will improve fuel economy and

reduce GHG emissions from light-duty vehicles fo r the 2012 to 2016 model years and from heavy-duty

engines and vehicles. Building on that success, the two agencies are now developing a rule that will

require further improvements in light-duty vehicles for the model years 2017 to 2025.

### Greenhouse Gas Emission St andards for Power Plants. In 2012, EPA will also continue to develop

common-sense solutions for reducing greenhouse gas em issions from large stationary sources like power

plants.

2. Improving Air Quality

Since passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990, nationwide air quality has improved

significantly for the six criteria air pollutants for which there are national ambient air quality standards.

Long-term exposure to air pollution can cause cancer and damage to the immune, neurological,

reproductive, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems.

Reviewing and Implementing Air Quality Standards. Despite progress, millions of Americans still live

in areas that exceed one or more of the national standards. Ground-level ozone and particle pollution still

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

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

Tier 3 Vehicle and Fuel Standards. EPA plans to propose new vehicle em ission and fuel standards to

further reduce NOx, PM, and air toxics. These standards will address the Energy Independence and

Security Act (EISA) “anti-backsliding” provision, which requires the Agency to assess the air quality

impacts of renewable fuel mandates and take steps to mitigate them. These standards will also help

states to achieve air quality standards.

Cleaner Air From Improved Technology. EPA continues to address toxic air pollution under authority

of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The centerpi ece of this effort is the "Maximum Achievable

Control Technology" (MACT) program, which requires t hat all major sources of a given type use emission

controls that better reflect t he current state of the art.

3. Assuring the Safety of Chemicals

One of EPA’s highest priorities is to make si gnificant and long-overdue progre ss in assuring the safety

of chemicals. Using soun d science as a compass, EPA protects individuals, families, and the environment

from potential risks of pestic ides and other chemicals.

### Enhancing EPA’s Current Chemicals Management Program Under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

EPA continues to target priority chemicals for action and to identify both concerns that the chemicals may

present and actions the Agency w ill take to address those concerns . EPA is undertaking a range of

actions to address potential risks, including establishi ng for the first time criter ia for the use of TSCA’s

section 5(b)(4) authority and propos ing actions under TSCA to gather additional information on nanoscale

chemical materials.

Enhancing Agricultural Worker Protection and Strengthening Pe sticide Applicator Safety. EPA is

developing a proposal to strengthen the existing agri cultural worker protection regulation, which is

designed to protect agricultural farm workers and pe sticide handlers by improving pesticide safety training

for workers and protec tions from exposure during work activi ties. This proposal w ill also address key

environmental justice concerns for a population that is disproportionately affected by pesticide exposure.

In addition, EPA expects to propose changes to the existing re gulations for certifyi ng the competency of

pesticide applicators to apply pesticides safely. Both of these rules also aim to protect child and

adolescent agricultural workers.

4. Cleaning Up Communities

EPA supports urban, suburban, and rural commu nity goals of improving environmental, human health,

and quality-of-life outcomes through partnerships that also promote economic opportunities, energy

efficiency, and revitalized neighborhoods. Sustainable communities balance their economic and natural

assets so that the diverse needs of local resid ents can be met now and in the future with limited

environmental impacts. EPA accomplishes these outco mes by working with communities, other Federal

agencies, States, and national experts to develop and encourage development strategies that have better

outcomes for air quality, water quality, and land preservation and revitalization.

5. Protecting America’s Waters

### We have made considerable progress in cleani ng up many of America’s waters, but water quality and

enforcement programs face on-going challenges . These challenges demand both traditional and

innovative strategies.

Clean Water Protection. After U.S. Supreme Co urt decisions in SWANCC and Rapanos, the scope of

“waters of the U.S.” protected under all CWA prog rams has been an issue of considerable debate and

uncertainty. The Act has a single definition for “waters of the United States.” As a result, these decisions

affect the geographic scope of all CWA programs. SWANCC and Rapanos did not invalidate the current

regulatory definition of “waters of the United States.” U.S. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are

developing a proposed rule for determining whether a water is protected by the Clean Water Act.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. EPA proposed a regulation that would collect information

about concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). CAFOs are a significant source of nutrient

pollution and pathogens in U.S. watersheds. The in formation that would be collected under the proposed

rule would allow EPA to increase water quality prot ection through better implementation of the NPDES

permitting program for CAFOs. The proposed regulation would apply to all permitted and unpermitted

CAFOs. EPA co-proposed a regulation that would only collect information from CAFOs in targeted areas,

if EPA determined such collection was necessary based on sp ecified factors, such as water quality

concerns.

Streamlining. EPA intends to review the regulations that apply to the issuance of National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, which are the wastewater permit s that facility operators

must obtain before they discharge pollutants to any water of the United States. EPA plans to update

specific elements of the existing NPDES in order to better harmonize regulations and application forms,

improve permit documentation and transparency, and prov ide clarifications to the existing regulations.

6. Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for Environmental Justice.

Environmental Justice in Rulemaking. EPA re leased “Plan EJ 2014” in September 2011. This Plan,

which marks the 20 th 

### anniversary of the signing of Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice, is

EPA’s overarching strategy for advancing environmental justice. It seeks to protect the environment and

health in overburdened communities, empower communities to take action to improve their health and

### environment, and establish partnerships with local, State, tribal, and Federal governments, and

organizations to achieve healthy and sustainable communities. The Plan is an important and positive

step toward meeting EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jacks on’s priority to work for environmental justice and

protect the health and safety of communities that have been disproportionately impacted by pollution.

Children’s Health. EPA continues to lead efforts to protec t children from environmental health risks,

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

approaches, including regulation, enforcement, re search, outreach, community-based programs, and

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

human health hazards.

7. Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships

EPA's success depends more than ever on working with incr easingly capable and environmentally

conscious partners. While the Agency works with t he States and tribes on the day-to-day mission of

environmental protection, declining tax revenues and fiscal challenges are pressuring State agencies and

tribal governments to do more with fewer resources. EPA is supportive of State and tribal capacity to

ensure that programs are consistent ly delivered nationwide. This pr ovides EPA and its intergovernmental

partners with an opportunity to further strengthen thei r working relationship and, thereby, more effectively

pursue their shared goal of protecting the Nation's environment and public health.

Recognizing the Right of Tribes as Sovereign Nations. In FY 2009, EPA Administrator Jackson reaffirmed the Agency’s Indian Policy, which recognizes that the United States has a unique legal relationship

with tribal governments based on treaties, stat utes, Executive orders, and court decisions. EPA

recognizes the right of tribes as sovereign gover nments to self-determinat ion and acknowledges the

Federal Government’s trust responsibility to tribes.

* * * * * * * * *

The priorities described above will guide EPA’s work in the years ahead. They are built around the

challenges and opportunities inherent in our miss ion to protect health and the environment for all

Americans. This mission is carried out by respecting EPA’s core values of science, transparency, and the

### rule of law. Within these parameters, EPA carefully considers the impacts its regulatory actions will have

on society.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

Just as today’s economy is vastly different from that of 40 year s before, EPA’s regulatory program is

evolving to recognize the progress that has alr eady been made in environmental protection and to

incorporate new technologies and approaches that al low us to accomplish our mission more efficiently

and effectively. A central goal, consistent with Januar y’s Executive Order 13563, is to identify methods for

reducing unjustified burden s and costs. In August, EPA released a pl an for periodically reviewing EPA’s

existing regulations. The Agency intends to apply th e principles and directives of EO 13563 to both

retrospective reviews of existing regulations and t he development of new regulations. As called for by

Executive Order 13563, EPA intends to seek wa ys “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 in achieving the regulatory objectives.”

The EPA’s Final Plan for Retr ospective Reviews of Ex isting Regulations (Retro spective Review Plan)

describes a large number of burden-reducing, cost-savi ng reforms, including 35 priority initiatives. Some

of these have recently been complet ed; others are in process; still others are in their earliest stages. The

potential economic savings are significant. For ex ample, a recently proposed rule may eliminate

redundant air pollution control requirements now imposed on gas stations; that rule would save $87

million annually. Taken as a whole, recent reforms, al ready finalized or formally proposed, are anticipated

to save up to $1.5 billion over the next 5 years. Other reforms described in the Retrospective Review

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

Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review" (Jan.

18, 2011), the following Regulation Identifier Numb ers (RINs) have been identified as associated with

retrospective review and analysis in EPA’s final Retros pective Review Plan. Some of the entries on this

list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory Plan . However, more information

can be found about these completed rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda

### on Reginfo.gov in the Completed Actions section for the Agency. These rulemakings can also be found

on Regulations.gov. The final Agen cy plan can be found at: http://w ww.epa.gov/regdarrt/retrospective/.

2060-AQ86 Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and

Fuel Standards

2060-AQ54 Joint Rulemaking To Establish 2017 and Later Model Year Light Duty Vehicle

GHG Emissions and CAFE Standards

2060-AQ41 Risk and Technology Review for Na tional Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants From the Pulp and Paper Industry

2060-AO60 New Sour ce Performance Standards (NSPS) Review Under CAA Section

111(b)(1)(B)

2060-AR00 Uniform Standards for Equipment Lea ks and Ancillary Systems, Closed Vent

Systems and Control Devices, Storage Vessels and Transfer Operations, and

Wastewater Operations

2070-AJ20 Pesticides; Certificat ion of Pesticide Applicators

2070-AJ63 TSCA Reporting Requi rements; Minor Revisions

2040-AF25 National Pollutant Discharge E limination System (NPDES) Application and

Program Updates Rule

2050-AG50 Oil Pollution Prevention: Spill Prevent ion, Control, and Countermeasure Rule

Requirements--Amendments for Milk Containers

2060-AP64 Clean Alternative Fuel Vehicle and Engine Conversions

Rules Expected to Affect Small Entities

By better coordinating small business activi ties, EPA aims to improve its technical assistance and

outreach efforts, minimize burdens to small businesse s in its regulations, and simplify small businesses'

participation in its voluntary programs. Actions t hat may affect small entities can be tracked on EPA’s

### Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker (http://www.epa.gov/r egdarrt/) at any time.

This Plan includes a number of rules that may be of particular interest to small entities:

2060-AR13 National Emission Standards for Haza rdous Air Pollutants for Major Sources:

Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; Proposed

Reconsideration

2060-AP52 National Emission Standards for Hazard ous Air Pollutants From Coal- and Oil-fired

Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Electric

Utility Steam Generating Units

2060-AQ86 Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and

Fuel Standards

2070-AJ56 Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Pain ting Program for Public and Commercial

Buildings

2070-AJ44 Formaldehyde Emissions From Pressed Wood Products

2050-AG61 Financial Responsibility Requirements Under CERCLA Section 108(b) for Classes

of Facilities in the Ha rd Rock Mining Industry

2040-AF13 Stormwater Regulations Revision To Address Discharges from Developed SitesThe 24 Actions Described in the Regulatory Plan

Title Regulation Identifier Number Rulemaking Stage

NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 2020-AA47 Proposed Rule Stage

Stormwater Regulations Revision To Address Discharges From Developed Sites 2040-AF13 Proposed Rule Stage

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

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Reporting Rule 2040-AF22 Proposed Rule Stage

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Application and Program Updates Rule 2040-AF25 Proposed Rule Stage

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

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

Risk and Technology Review for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Pulp and Paper Industry 2060-AQ41 Proposed Rule Stage

Joint Rulemaking To Establish 2017 and Later Model Year Light Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE Standards 2060-AQ54 Proposed Rule Stage

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

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

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

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group IV Polymers and Resins, Pesticide Active Ingredient Production, and Polyether Polyols Production Risk and Technology Review 2060-AR02 Proposed Rule Stage

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; Proposed Reconsideration 2060-AR13 Proposed Rule Stage

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; Reconsideration and Proposed Rule Amendments 2060-AR14 Proposed Rule Stage

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units; Reconsideration and Proposed Amendments 2060-AR15 Proposed Rule Stage

Review of the Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur 2060-AO72 Final Rule Stage

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units 2060-AP52 Final Rule Stage

Oil and Natural Gas Sector--New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 2060-AP76 Final Rule Stage

Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators 2070-AJ20 Proposed Rule Stage

Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions 2070-AJ22 Proposed Rule Stage

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

Mercury; Regulation of Use in Certain Products 2070-AJ46 Proposed Rule Stage

Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program for Public and Commercial Buildings 2070-AJ56 Proposed Rule Stage

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

View Related Documents

Title: NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

Abstract: The EPA has responsibility to ensure that the Clean Water Act's (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program is effectively and consistently implemented across the country. This regulation would identify the essential information that EPA needs to receive electronically, primarily from NPDES permittees with some data required fromNPDES agencies (NPDES-authorized States, territories, and tribes) to manage the national NPDES permitting and enforcement program. Through this regulation, EPA seeks to ensure that such facility-specific information would be readily available, accurate, timely, and nationally consistent on the facilities that are regulated by the NPDES program. In the past, EPA primarily obtained this information from the Permit Compliance System (PCS). However, the evolution of the NPDES program since the inception of PCS has created an increasing need to better reflect a more complete picture of the NPDES program and the diverse universe of regulated sources. In addition, information technology has advanced significantly so that PCS no longer meets EPA's national needs to manage the full scope of the NPDES program or the needs of individual States that use PCS to implement and enforce the NPDES program.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 123, 403, and 501 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: CWA secs 304(i) and 501(a), 33 USC 1314(i) and 1361(a) Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: As the NPDES program and information technology have evolved in the past several decades, the Permit Compliance System (PCS)--EPA's NPDES national data system, which has been in use since 1985--has become increasingly ineffective in meeting the full scope of EPA's and individual States' needs to manage, direct, oversee, and report on the implementation and enforcement of the NPDES program. Therefore, a NPDES component of EPA's existing Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS), ICIS-NPDES, was designed and constructed based upon EPA and State input to manage data for the full breadth of the NPDES program. This rulemaking would identify essential NPDES-specific information EPA needs to receive from NPDES agencies (authorized States and tribes, as well as EPA regions). This information would be sought in a format compatible with the new NPDES component of the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) in order to better enable EPA to ensure the protection of public health and the environment, effectively manage the national NPDES permitting and enforcement program, identify and address environmental problems, and ultimately replace PCS. This action would be of interest primarily to NPDES permittees, NPDES-authorized States, and to the public at large, which would ultimately have increased access to this NPDES information.

Legal Basis: In 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). The Clean Water Act established a comprehensive program for protecting and restoring our Nation's waters. The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants from a point source to waters of the United States except when authorized by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The Clean Water Act established the NPDES permit program to authorize and regulate the discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. EPA has issued comprehensive regulations that implement the NPDES program at 40 CFR parts 122 to 125, 129 to 133, 136, and subpart N. Under the NPDES permit program, point sources subject to regulation may discharge pollutants to waters of the United States subject to the terms and conditions of an NPDES permit. With very few exceptions (40 CFR 122.3), point sources require NPDES permit authorization to discharge, including both municipal and industrial discharges. NPDES permit authorization may be provided under an individual NPDES permit, which is developed after a process initiated by a permit application (40 CFR 122.21), or under a general NPDES permit, which among other things, applies to one or more categories of dischargers (e.g., oil and gas facilities, seafood processors) with the same or substantially similar types of operations and the same effluent limitations, operating conditions, or standards for sewage sludge use or disposal. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has the primary responsibility to ensure that the NPDES program is effectively and consistently implemented across the country, thus ensuring that public health and environmental protection goals of the CWA are met. Many States and some territories have received authorization to implement and enforce the NPDES program, and EPA works with its State partners to ensure effective program implementation and enforcement. CWA section 304(i)(2) directs EPA to promulgate guidelines establishing the minimum procedural and other elements of a State, territory, or tribal NPDES program, including monitoring requirements; reporting requirements (including procedures to make information available to the public); enforcement provisions; and funding, personnel qualifications, and manpower requirements [CWA sec. 304(i)(2)]. EPA published NPDES State, territory, and tribal program regulations under CWA section 304(i)(2) at 40 CFR part 123. Among other things, the part 123 regulations specify NPDES program requirements for permitting, compliance evaluation programs, enforcement authority, sharing of information, transmission of information to EPA, and noncompliance and program reporting to EPA. This proposed rulemaking may add some specificity to those particular regulations regarding what NPDES information is required to be submitted to EPA by States and may modify other regulations to require electronic reporting of NPDES information by NPDES permittees to the States and EPA.

Alternatives: For this proposed rulemaking, EPA has determined that the need for EPA's receipt of such NPDES information exists. If, for whatever reason, electronic reporting by permittees is not a feasible option for certain NPDES information, the obvious alternative would be for EPA to require States to provide that information to EPA. The States already receive that information from the permittees, and therefore, they have the information that EPA seeks. Within the rulemaking process itself, various alternatives are under consideration based on the feasibility of particular electronic reporting options. For example, EPA may consider establishing requirements for electronic reporting of discharge monitoring reports by NPDES permittees. Under this proposed rulemaking, EPA may consider establishing similar requirements for any or all of the following types of NPDES information: Notices of Intent to discharge (for facilities seeking coverage under general permits), permittinginformation (including permit applications), various program reports (e.g., pretreatment compliance reports from approved local pretreatment programs, annual reports from concentrated animal feeding operations, biosolids reports, sewage overflow incident reports, annual reports for pesticide applicators, annual reports for municipal stormwater systems), and annual compliance certifications. Some States might also raise the possibility of supplying only summary-level information to EPA rather than facility-specific information to EPA. Based upon considerable experience, EPA considers such alternative non-facility-specific data to be insufficient to meet its needs, except in very particular situations or reports. One alternative that EPA may consider for rule implementation is whether third-party vendors may be better equipped to develop and modify such electronic reporting
tools than EPA.

Costs and Benefits: The economic analysis for this proposed rulemaking has not yet been completed; therefore, the dollar values of estimated costs and benefits are not yet known. However, some generalizations can still be made regarding expectations. EPA anticipates that electronic reporting of discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) by NPDES permittees will provide significant data entry cost savings for States and EPA. These discharge monitoring reports are already required to be submitted by NPDES permittees to States and EPA, which in turn currently enter that information into the State NPDES data system or EPA's national NPDES data system. These discharge monitoring reports contain significant amounts of information regarding pollutants discharged, identified concentrations and quantities of pollutants, discharge locations, etc. Through electronic reporting by permittees, States and EPA will no longer have associated data entry costs to enter this information. Electronic reporting by NPDES permittees of other NPDES information (such as notices of intent to discharge or various program reports) may also yield considerable data entry savings to the States and EPA. In addition, some States have been able to quantify savings by the permittees to electronically report their NPDES information using existing electronic reporting tools. Such savings are being examined in the economic analysis process for this rulemaking. Additional benefits of this rule will likely include improved transparency of information regarding the NPDES program, improved information regarding the national NPDES program, improved targeting of resources and enforcement based on identified program needs and noncompliance problems, and ultimately improved protection of public health and the environment. Some NPDES information will need to be reported by States to EPA; therefore, there will be some data entry costs associated with that information, but it will likely be far less than the savings that will be realized by States through electronic reporting by NPDES permittees. In addition, EPA will likely have sizable costs to develop tools for electronic reporting by permittees, as well as operation and maintenance costs
associated with those tools.

Risks: Given the scope of this proposed rulemaking, the most significant risks associated with this effort may be those if EPA does not proceed with this rulemaking. At this point, EPA does not receive sufficient NPDES information from the States to be able to fully assess the implementation of the national NPDES program nor the smaller subprograms. Such information is not currently required by EPA from the States, and the lack of such reporting requirements perpetuates this problem. Furthermore, EPA does not have facility-specific information regarding most of the facilities regulated under the NPDES program, and therefore, EPA cannot easily identify potential implementation problems or noncompliance problems. This lack of information may adversely impact EPA's ability to better ensure the protection of public health and the environment, nationally and locally. A potential risk associated with this rule may involve EPA efforts to develop electronic reporting tools for use by permittees. The costs associated with the internal development of such tools, possibly for multiple types of NPDES information from various types of NPDES permittees, and the future costs of operation and maintenance may be substantial for EPA, possibly impacting the availability of funding for other purposes. Furthermore, EPA would also need to determine the feasibility of ensuring that the electronic tools can be flexible enough to meet state needs and work well with State data systems. Problems in the development and maintenance of these electronic tools could pose significant risks for the effective implementation of this rule.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Notice - Public Meeting 07/01/2010 75 FR 38068

Notice - Public Meeting 2 06/23/2011 76 FR 36919

NPRM 12/00/2011

Final Action 09/00/2012

Additional Information: SAN No. 5251

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: State

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: Yes Energy Affected: No

RIN Information
URL: http://www.regulations.gov/exchange/topic/npdes Agency Contact: Andrew Hudock Environmental Protection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
2222A Washington , DC 20460
Phone: 202 564 -6032
E- Mail: Hudock.Andrew@epamail.epa.gov Agency Contact: John Dombrowski Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
2222A Washington , DC 20460
Phone: 202 566 -0742
E- Mail: Dombrowski.John@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water ( WATER ) RIN: 2040-AF13

View Related Documents

Title: Stormwater Regulations Revision To Address Discharges From Developed Sites

Abstract: Stormwater discharge from developed areas is a major cause of degradation of surface waters. This is true for both conveyance of pollutants and the erosive power of increased stormwater flow rates and volumes. Current stormwater regulations were promulgated in 1990 and 1999. In 2006, the Office of Water asked the National Research Council (NRC) to review the stormwater program and recommend ways to strengthen it. The NRC Report, which was finalized in October 2008, found that the current stormwater program "...is not likely to adequately control stormwater's contribution to waterbody impairment" and recommended that EPA take action to address the harmful effects of stormwater flow. This proposed action would establish requirements for, at minimum, managing stormwater discharges from newly developed and re-developed sites, to reduce the amount of pollutants in stormwater discharges entering receiving waters by reducing the discharge of excess stormwater. EPA may take other actions to implement improved control of stormwater pollution and more efficient rainwater use. The Phase I and Phase II MS4 regulations might also be combined and amended, and may include provisions for better managing existing discharges.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 33 USC 1251 et seq Legal Deadline:

Action Source Description Date

NPRM Judicial Chesapeake Bay Settlement Agreement, May 10, 2010, Fowler v. U.S. EPA, No. 1 :09-CV -00005-CKK (D. D.C) modified by agreement 10/04/2011. 12/15/2011

Other Judicial Chesapeake Bay Settlement Agreement, May 10, 2010, Fowler v. U.S. EPA, No. 1 :09-CV -00005-CKK (D. D.C) 11/19/2012

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to regulate certain stormwater discharges. Stormwater is a primary contributor of water quality impairment. There is a need to strengthen the stormwater program’s effectiveness by reducing pollutant loading from currently regulated and unregulated stormwater discharges and preserving surface water health and integrity. This action was informed by the 2006 National Research Council report.

Legal Basis: Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to regulate certain discharges from stormwater in order to protect water quality.

Alternatives: To be determined.

Costs and Benefits: To be determined.

Risks: To be determined.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 01/00/2012

Final Action 11/00/2012

Additional Information: EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0817

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business; Governmental Jurisdictions Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State

Federalism: Undetermined Energy Affected: UndeterminedRIN Information
URL: www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/rulemaking Agency Contact: Connie Bosma Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4203M Washington , DC 20460
Phone: 202 564 -6773
FAX: 202 564 -6431
E-Mail: bosma.connie@epa.gov Agency Contact: Janet Goodwin Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4303T Washington , DC 20460
Phone: 202 566 -1060
E- Mail: Goodwin.Janet@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water ( WATER ) RIN: 2040-AF14

View Related Documents

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

Abstract: EPA establishes national technology-based regulations, called effluent guidelines, to reduce discharges of pollutants from industries to waters of the U.S. . These requirements are incorporated into National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permits issued by EPA and States, and through the national pretreatment program. The steam electric effluent guidelines apply to steam electric power plants using nuclear or fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas. There are about 1,200 nuclear- and fossil-fueled steam electric power plants nationwide; approximately 500 of these power plants are coal fired. In a study completed in 2009, EPA found that the current regulations, which were last updated in 1982, do not adequately address the pollutants being discharged and have not kept pace with changes that have occurred in the electric power industry over the last 3 decades. The rulemaking will address discharges from ash ponds and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) air pollution controls, as well as other power plant waste streams. Power plant discharges can have major impacts on water quality, including reduced organism abundance and species diversity, contamination of drinking water sources, and other effects. Pollutants of concern include metals (e.g., mercury, arsenic and selenium), nutrients, and total dissolved solids.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 423 revision (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 33 USC 1311; 33 USC 1314; 33 USC 1316; 33 USC 1317; 33 USC 1318; 33 USC 1342; 33 USC 1361 Legal Deadline:

Action Source Description Date

NPRM Judicial Consent Decree 07/23/2012

Other Judicial Consent Decree 01/31/2014

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: EPA's decision to proceed with a rulemaking was announced on September 15, 2009. EPA reviewed wastewater discharges from power plants and the treatment technologies available to reduce pollutant discharges, which demonstrated the need to update the current effluent guidelines (40 CFR 423). The current regulations, which were last updated in 1982, do not adequately address the pollutants being discharged and have not kept pace with changes that have occurred in the electric power industry over the last 3 decades. Steam electric power plants are responsible for a significant amount of the toxic pollutant loadings discharged to surface waters by point sources, and coal ash ponds and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems are the source of much of these pollutants.

Legal Basis: Section 301(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to promulgate effluent limitations for categories of point sources, using technology-based standards, that govern the sources' discharge of certain pollutants. 33 U.S.C. section 1311(b). Section 304(b) of the Act directs EPA to develop effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) that identify certain technologies and control measures available to achieve effluent reductions for each point source category, specifying factors to be taken into account in identifying those technologies and control measures. 33 U.S.C. section 1314(b). Since the 1970s, EPA has formulated effluent limitations and ELGs in tandem through a single administrative process. Am. Frozen Food Inst. v. Train, 539 F.2d 107 (D.C. Cir. 1976). The CWA also requires EPA to perform an annual review of existing ELGs and to revise them, if appropriate. 33 U.S.C. section 1314(b); see also 33 U.S.C. section 1314(m)(1)(A). EPA originally established effluent limitations and guidelines for the steam electric generating industry in 1974 and last updated them in 1982. 47 FR 52290 (Nov. 19, 1982).As described above, EPA determined the existing regulations do not adequately address the pollutants being discharged and that revisions are appropriate.

Alternatives: To be determined.

Costs and Benefits: To be determined.

Risks: To be determined.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 08/00/2012

Final Action 03/00/2014

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

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Small Entities Affected: Business; Governmental Jurisdictions Federalism: Undetermined Energy Affected: Undetermined

RIN Information
URL: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steam_index.cfm

Sectors Affected: 221112; 221113 Agency Contact: Ronald Jordan Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4303T Washington , DC 20460
Phone: 202 566 -1003
FAX: 202 566 -1053
E-Mail: Jordan.Ronald@epamail.epa.gov Agency Contact: Jezebele Alicea Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4303T Washington , DC 20460
Phone: 202 566 -1755
FAX: 202 566 -1053
E-Mail: alicea.jezebele@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water ( WATER ) RIN: 2040-AF22

View Related Documents

Title: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Reporting
Rule

Abstract: EPA proposed a regulation that would collect information about concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). CAFOs are a significant source of nutrient pollution and pathogens in U.S. watersheds. The information that would be collected under the proposed rule would allow EPA to increase water quality protection through better implementation of the NPDES permitting program for CAFOs. The proposed regulation would apply to all permitted and unpermitted CAFOs. EPA co-proposed a regulation that would only collect information from CAFOs in targeted areas, if EPA determined such collection was necessary based on specified factors, such as water quality concerns.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 122 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 33 USC 1251(a); 33 USC 1311(a); 33 USC 1342; 33 USC 1362(14); 33 USC 1318(a); 33 USC 1319 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: The proposed rule would collect facility-specific information about CAFOs to help inform watershed management activities. This will enhance EPA's ability to effectively implement the NPDES program.Legal Basis: The proposed rule would collect facility-specific information about CAFOs to help inform watershed management activities. This will enhance EPA's ability to effectively implement the NPDES program and reduce pathogens from CAFOs.

Alternatives: EPA proposed a number of alternatives including relying on existing information to collect information from CAFOs.

Costs and Benefits: Not yet determined.

Risks: Not yet determined.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 10/21/2011 76 FR 65431

NPRM Comment Period End 01/19/2012

Final Action 07/00/2012

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: No Agency Contact: Becky Mitschele Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4203M Washington , DC 20460
Phone: 202 564 -6418
E- Mail: Mitschele.Becky@epamail.epa.gov Agency Contact: George Utting Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4203M Washington , DC 20460
Phone: 202 564 -0744
E- Mail: Utting.George@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water ( WATER ) RIN: 2040-AF25

View Related Documents

Title: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Application and Program Updates Rule

Abstract: EPA plans to propose regulations that would update specific elements of the existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) in order to better harmonize regulations and application forms, improve permit documentation and transparency and provide clarifications to the existing regulations. In this effort, EPA plans to address application, permitting, monitoring, and reporting requirements that have become obsolete or outdated due to programmatic, technical, or other changes that have occurred over the past 35 years. Specifically, EPA plans to focus on revising the NPDES permit application forms to specifically include all final Agency data standards, improving the consistency between the application forms, and updating the applications to better reflect current program practices, and specifically to incorporate new program areas into the forms (e.g., Clean Water Act section 316(b) requirements for cooling water intake structures). EPA also plans to address other program elements, including permit documentation, EPA State permit objection, and public participation procedures to improve the quality and transparency of permit development. As an example of a regulation which could be proposed to change 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 of draft NPDES permits and other permit actions under the Clean Water Act on their State agency Web sites in lieu of traditional newspaper posting.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 33 USC 1251 et seq Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: Certain application, permitting, monitoring, and reporting requirements need to be updated to reflect programmatic and technical changes that have occurred over the past 35 years.Legal Basis: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Alternatives: Not yet determined.

Costs and Benefits: Not yet determined.

Risks: Not yet determined.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 03/00/2012

Final Action 10/00/2012

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State;
Tribal

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: No Agency Contact: Kathryn Kelley Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4203M Washington , DC 20460
Phone: 202 564 -7004
FAX: 202 564 -9544
E-Mail: Kelley.Kathryn@epamail.epa.gov Agency Contact: David Hair Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4203M Washington , DC 20460
Phone: 202 564 -2287
FAX: 202 564 -9544
E-Mail: Hair.David@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water ( WATER ) RIN: 2040-AE95

View Related Documents

Title: Criteria and Standards for Cooling Water Intake Structures

Abstract: Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to ensure that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. Phase II, for existing electric generating plants that use at least 50 MGD of cooling water, was completed in July 2004. Industry and environmental stakeholders challenged the Phase II regulations. On review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit remanded several key provisions. In July 2007, EPA suspended the Phase II rule following the decision in the Second Circuit. Several parties petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review that decision, and the Supreme Court granted the petitions, limited to the issue of whether the Clean Water Act authorized EPA to consider the relationship of costs and benefits in establishing section 316(b) standards. On April 1, 2009, the Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit, finding that the Agency may consider cost-benefit analysis in its decisionmaking, but not holding that the Agency must consider costs and benefits in these decisions. In June 2006, EPA promulgated the Phase III regulation, covering existing electric generating plants using less than 50 MGD of cooling water, new offshore oil and gas facilities, and all existing manufacturing facilities. Petitions to review this rule were filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In July 2010, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision upholding EPA's rule for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities. Further, the court granted the request of EPA and environmental petitioners in the case to remand the existing facility portion of the rule back to the Agency for further rulemaking. EPA expects this new rulemaking would apply to the approximately 1,200 existing electric generating and manufacturing plants. The Fifth Circuit also affirmed that EPA may consider costs in relation to benefits but is not required to do so. EPA entered into a settlement with the plaintiffs in two lawsuits related to section 316(b) rulemakings. Under the settlement agreement, as modified, EPA agreed to sign a notice of a proposed rulemaking implementing section 316(b) of the CWA at existing facilities no later than March 28, 2011, and to sign a notice taking final action on the proposed rule no later than July 27, 2012. Plaintiffs agreed to seek dismissal of both their suits, subject to a request to reopen the Cronin proceeding in the event EPA failed to meet the agreed deadlines. EPA's proposed regulation includes uniform controls at all existing facilities to prevent fish from being trapped against screens (impingement), site-specific controls for existing facilities other than new units to prevent fish from being drawn through cooling systems (entrainment), and uniform controls equivalent to closed cycle cooling for new units at existing facilities (also entrainment). Other regulatory options analyzed included similar uniform impingementcontrols and progressively more stringent requirements for entrainment controls. Another option considered would impose the uniform impingement controls only for facilities withdrawing 50 million or more gallons per day of cooling water, with site-specific impingement controls for facilities withdrawing less than 50 million gallons per day.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: Private Sector

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 122; 40 CFR 125 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: CWA 101; CWA 301; CWA 304; CWA 308; CWA 316; CWA 401; CWA 402; CWA 501; CWA 510 Legal Deadline:

Action Source Description Date

NPRM Judicial 03/28/2011

Other Judicial 07/27/2012

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: In the absence of national regulations, NPDES permit writers have developed requirements to implement section 316(b) on a case-by-case basis. This may result in a range of different requirements, and in some cases, delays in permit issuance or reissuance. This regulation may have substantial ecological benefits.

Legal Basis: The Clean Water Act requires EPA to establish best technology available standards to minimize adverse environmental impacts from cooling water intake structures. On February 16, 2004, EPA took final action on regulations governing cooling water intake structures at certain existing power producing facilities under section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (Phase II rule). 69 FR 41576 (Jul. 9, 2004). These regulations were challenged, and the Second Circuit remanded several provisions of the Phase II rule on various grounds. Riverkeeper, Inc., v. EPA, 475F.3d83, (2d Cir., 2007). EPA suspended most of the rule in response to the remand. 72 FR 37107 (Jul. 9, 2007). The remand of Phase III does not change permitting requirements for these facilities. Until the new rule is issued, permit directors continue to issue permits on a case-by-case, Best Professional Judgment basis for Phase II facilities.

Alternatives: This analysis will cover various sizes and types of potentially regulated facilities and control technologies. EPA is considering whether to regulate on a national basis, by subcategory, by broad water body category, or some other basis.

Costs and Benefits: The technologies under consideration in this rulemaking are similar to the technologies considered for the original Phase II and Phase III rules, and costs have been updated to 2009. The annual social costs associated with EPA's proposed regulation are $384 million, plus an additional $15 million in costs associated with the new units provision. The annual social costs of the other options ranged from $327 million to $4.63 billion. EPA monetized only a portion of the expected annual benefits of the rule, amounting to $18 million. The monetized benefits for the other options ranged from $17 to $126 million. EPA is also conducting a stated preference survey to provide a more comprehensive estimate of the monetized benefits and expects to publish a notice of data availability with these results around the end of 2011.

Risks: Cooling water intake structures may pose significant risks for aquatic ecosystems.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 04/20/2011 76 FR 22174

NPRM Comment Period End 07/19/2011 Reopening Public Comment Period 07/20/2011 76 FR 43230 Reopening Comment Period End 08/18/2011

Final Action 07/00/2012

Additional Information: EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail; EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667

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

Small Entities Affected: Business Federalism: No Energy Affected: No

RIN Information
URL: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/index.cfm

Sectors Affected: 336412; 332999; 321999; 324199; 326299; 331521; 331524; 331315; 311313; 31321; 311312; 32731; 61131; 33312; 333922; 331525; 339914; 211111; 321912; 332211; 31214; 221121; 221122; 331112; 31332; 333111; 311225; 221112; 332212; 33251; 221111; 21221; 331111; 22121; 211112; 221113; 332323; 221119; 332618; 332439; 332919; 321918; 312229; 333923; 32212; 32213; 32411; 325992; 333315; 212391; 332117; 331312; 331419; 3221; 333911; 33651; 321219; 54171; 326192; 331221; 322291; 321113; 331492; 337215; 321212; 311222; 22133; 331222; 111991; 11193; 311311; 326211; 31221; 311221Agency Contact: Paul Shriner Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4303T Washington , DC 20460
Phone: 202 566 -1076
E- Mail: Shriner.Paul@epamail.epa.gov Agency Contact: Julie Hewitt Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4303T Washington , DC 20460
Phone: 202 566 -1031
E- Mail: hewitt.julie@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Solid Waste and Emergency Response ( SWER ) RIN: 2050-AE87

View Related Documents

Title: Revisions to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; Subpart J Product Schedule Listing Requirements

Abstract: EPA is considering proposing revisions to subpart J of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The Clean Water Act requires EPA to prepare a schedule of dispersants, other chemicals, and other spill mitigating devices and substances, if any, that may be used in carrying out the NCP. Under subpart J, respondents wishing to add a product to the Product Schedule must submit technical product data to EPA. The Agency is considering revisions to subpart J to clarify and/or change the effectiveness and toxicity testing protocols required for adding a product to the Schedule. These changes, if finalized, will help ensure protection of the environment when these products are used to clean up and mitigate oil spills (1) into or upon navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the waters of the contiguous zone, or (2) which may affect natural resources belonging to or under the exclusive management authority of the United States. Further, the Agency is considering proposed changes to 40 CFR 110.4 regarding the use of dispersants.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 300; 40 CFR 110 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 33 USC 1321(d)(2); 33 USC 1321(b)(3); CWA 311(d)(2) Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: The unprecedented use of dispersants on the surface and in the subsea during the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico raised many questions about dispersant efficacy, toxicity, environmental fate, and monitoring. The public and officials working at local, State, and Federal levels expressed concerns regarding the effects of dispersant use on the ecosystem. These concerns require a review of the product toxicity and efficacy testing and application in the current subpart J regulatory requirements. Additionally, the large-scale submission of oil-mitigating technologies through theInteragency Alternative Technology Assessment Program (IATAP) as a result of this incident also highlights the need to reevaluate the current subpart J regulations, particularly the technical data requirements.

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

Alternatives: To be determined.

Costs and Benefits: To be determined.

Risks: To be determined.

Timetable:

Action Date FR CiteFinal Action 00/00/0000

NPRM 08/00/2012

Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O.13563.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State;
Tribal

Small Entities Affected: Business Federalism: No Energy Affected: No

RIN Information URL: www.epa.gov/oilspill

Sectors Affected: 3251; 325; 3259; 54 Agency Contact: William Nichols Environmental Protection Agency Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5104A Washington , DC 20460
Phone: 202 564 -1970
FAX: 202 564 -2625
E-Mail: nichols.nick@epa.gov Agency Contact: Leigh DeHaven Environmental Protection Agency Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5104A Washington , DC 20460
Phone: 202 564 -1974
FAX: 202 564 -2625
E-Mail: dehaven.leigh@epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air and Radiation ( AR ) RIN: 2060-AQ41

View Related Documents

Title: Risk and Technology Review for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Pulp and Paper Industry

Abstract: Section 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs EPA to conduct risk assessments on each source category subject to maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and to determine if additional standards are needed to reduce residual risks, to be completed 8 years after promulgation. Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to review and revise the MACT standards as necessary, taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies, to be done at least every 8 years. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Pulp and Paper Industry (subpart S) was promulgated in 1998 and also has not been reviewed. This action will propose those
amendments.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 63.440 to 63.459 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: Clean Air Act sec 112 Legal Deadline:

Action Source Description Date

NPRM Judicial Consent decree deadline completed 12/15/2011

Other Judicial Consent decree deadline 07/31/2012

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: The National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) in the Pulp and Paper Category was promulgated April 15, 1998 and codified as subpart S in 40 CFR parts 63.440 to 63.459. Section 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs EPA to conduct risk assessments on each source category subject to maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards, and to determine if additional standards are needed to reduce residual risks, to be completed 8 years after promulgation. Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to review and revise the MACT standards as necessary, taking into account developments in practices, processes and control technologies, to be done at least every 8 years.

Legal Basis: EPA has signed a consent agreement that directs it to propose a Risk and Technology Review rule (RTR) to address the requirements of Sections 112 (f)(2) and (d)(6) by December 15, 2011 and promulgate a final RTR rule for thiscategory by July 31, 2012.

Alternatives: Not yet determined.

Costs and Benefits: Not yet determined.

Risks: Not yet determined.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 12/27/2011 76 FR 81328

Final Action 08/00/2012

Additional Information: Docket number EPA -HQ-OAR-2007-0544

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Local; State; Tribal

Federalism: No Energy Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Bill Schrock Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
E143-03 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711
Phone: 919 541 -5432
FAX: 919 541 -3470
E-Mail: schrock.bill@epa.gov Agency Contact: Robin Dunkins Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
E143-03 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711
Phone: 919 541 -5335
FAX: 919 541 -3470

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air and Radiation ( AR ) RIN: 2060-AQ54

View Related Documents

Title: Joint Rulemaking To Establish 2017 and Later Model Year Light Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE Standards

Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), on behalf of the Department of Transportation, have proposed a joint rulemaking on GHG and CAFE standards for model years 2017 to 2025 light-duty vehicles. This action represents a continuation of a coordinated National Program under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), to improve fuel efficiency and to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of light-duty vehicles. On July 29, 2011, President Obama announced a historic agreement with 13 automakers and the State of California to pursue 2017 to 2025 standards. This announcement was accompanied by a joint Supplemental Notice of Intent, issued by EPA and NHTSA, which outlined the standards and other key program elements the agencies intend to propose in the upcoming rulemaking. EPA and NHTSA intend to propose that automobile manufacturers meet a model year 2025 CO2 standard of 163 grams/mile, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon if the standard were achieved with fuel economy technologies alone. This latest notice followed a September 30, 2010, joint Notice of Intent that provided an initial assessment of potential levels of stringency for 2017 to 2025 standards, an Interim Joint Technical Assessment Report published jointly by EPA, NHTSA, and the California Resources Board in September 2010, and a November 30, 2010, Supplemental Notice summarizing key stakeholder comments.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: Private Sector

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 86 and 600 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 42 USC 7401 to 7671q Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: EPA has found that emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. Light-duty vehicles emit fourGHGs—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (NOX), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)–and are responsible for nearly 60 percent of all mobile-source GHGs. On May 21, 2010, the President called on the EPA and NHTSA, in close coordination with California, to begin the next phase of the National Clean Car Program and propose new standards for model years 2017 to 2025, in response to the urgent and closely intertwined challenges faced by our Nation of dependence on oil, energy security, and global climate change. This rulemaking would provide significant additional reductions in GHGs from future light-duty vehicles and fuel efficiency improvements.

Legal Basis: The Clean Air Act section 202(a)(1) states that "The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emissions of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." Section 202(a) covers light-duty vehicles. In April 2007, the Supreme Court found in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases fit well within the Act's capacious definition of "air pollutant" and that EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases from new motor vehicles. Lastly, in December 2009, EPA published two findings (74 FR 66496) that emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to air pollution, and that the air pollution may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.

Alternatives: The rulemaking proposal includes an evaluation of regulatory alternatives that can be considered in addition to the Agency's primary proposal. In addition, the proposal includes tools such as averaging, banking, and trading of emissions credits and other flexibilities for alternative approaches for compliance with the proposed program.

Costs and Benefits: The standards under consideration are projected to reduce GHGs by approximately 2 billion metric tons and save 4 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of MY 2017 to 2025 vehicles. These standards would have significant benefits to American consumers by reducing the costs they would pay to fuel these more efficient vehicles.

Risks: The failure to set new GHG standards for light-duty vehicles would increase the risk of unacceptable climate change impacts.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Notice of Intent 10/13/2010 75 FR 62739 Supplemental Notice of Intent 12/08/2010 75 FR 76337 2nd Supplemental Notice of Intent 08/09/2011 76 FR 48758

NPRM 12/01/2011 76 FR 74854

Final Action 08/00/2012

Additional Information: EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: Yes Energy Affected: No International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise
be of international interest.

Sectors Affected: 811198; 336111; 423110; 811112; 811111; 441120 Related Agencies: Joint : NHTSA Agency Contact: Robin Moran Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
NVFEL Ann Arbor , MI 48105
Phone: 734 214 -4781
FAX: 734 214 -4816
E-Mail: moran.robin@epa.gov Agency Contact: Chris Lieske Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
NVFEL Ann Arbor , MI 48105
Phone: 734 214 -4584
FAX: 734 214 -4816
E-Mail: lieske.christopher@epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air and Radiation ( AR ) RIN: 2060-AQ75View Related Documents

Title: Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and NSPS

Abstract: This action is the Petroleum Refining Sector Rulemaking, which will address our obligation to perform Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR) for Petroleum Refinery MACT 1 and 2 source categories and will address issues related to the reconsideration of Petroleum Refinery New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) subpart Ja. EPA entered into a settlement agreement with multiple litigants on December 23, 2010. The settlement agreement requires EPA to propose standards of performance for GHGs for affected facilities at refineries that are subject to NSPS subparts J and Ja (Petroleum Refineries, including flares, process heaters, fluid catalytic cracking units, fluid cokers, delayed cokers, and sulfur recovery plants), subpart Db (Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units [Boilers]), subpart Dc (Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units), subpart GGG (Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries; e.g., leaking equipment components such as pumps, valves, flanges), and subpart QQQ (VOC Emissions from Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems; e.g., drain systems and oil water separators) and to propose emissions guidelines for GHGs from existing affected facilities at refineries in the source categories covered by those NSPS subparts. The settlement also requires EPA to propose to address remaining issues raised in a petition filed in response to the June 24, 2008, promulgation of amendments to the Refinery NSPS subpart J and new standards of performance for subpart Ja, and to propose standards, as necessary, to address the RTR review for the 2002 Refinery MACT II standards. The settlement requires EPA to issue final standards for the NSPS and RTR reviews by November 10, 2012. This settlement agreement is currently under negotiation. In this action, we will also conduct RTR reviews for the two Petroleum Refinery MACT. We will use information obtained through a comprehensive information collection process to address The MACT and NSPS reviews. Uniform standards (for heat exchangers, equipment leaks, storage vessels and transfer operations; control devices and closed-vent systems) are being developed in separate actions and will specify work practices, equipment standards, and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. The refinery sector MACT and NSPS are expected to reference the uniform standards. Later, chemical sector MACT and NSPS will also reference the uniform standards, which will ensure that requirements are consistent, to the extent appropriate, across the chemical sectors.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60 and 63 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: Clean Air Act secs 111 and 112 Legal Deadline:

Action Source Description Date

NPRM Judicial Settlement Agreement 12/10/2011

Other Judicial Settlement Agreement 11/10/2012

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: Under the "technology review" provision of CAA section 112, EPA is required to review maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and to revise them "as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)" no less frequently than every 8 years. Under the "residual risk" provision of CAA section 112, EPA must evaluate the MACT standards within 8 years after promulgation and promulgate standards if required to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or prevent an adverse environmental effect. Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA mandates that EPA review and, if appropriate, revise existing NSPS every 8 years.

Legal Basis: CAA sections 111 and 112.

Alternatives: Not yet determined.

Costs and Benefits: EPA is currently assessing the costs and benefits associated with this action.

Risks: EPA is currently assessing risks for this action.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 12/00/2011

Final Action 12/00/2012

Additional Information: Action described in RIN 2060-AQ28 (NSPS reconsideration issues) will be included in this action. EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State

Small Entities Affected: Business Federalism: No Energy Affected: No

RIN InformationURL: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/petrefine/petrefpg.html

Sectors Affected: 32411 Agency Contact: Brenda Shine Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
E143-01 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711
Phone: 919 541 -3608
FAX: 919 541 -0246
E-Mail: shine.brenda@epamail.epa.gov Agency Contact: Penny Lassiter Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
E1430-01 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711
Phone: 919 541 -5396
FAX: 919 541 -0246
E-Mail: lassiter.penny@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air and Radiation ( AR ) RIN: 2060-AQ86

View Related Documents

Title: Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards

Abstract: This rule will establish new standards for light-duty vehicles and their fuels in order to reduce emissions of criteria and toxic pollutants and their impact on air quality and health. This action will set forth a comprehensive approach toward regulating motor vehicles for non-greenhouse gas pollutants, as requested by a May 2010 Presidential memorandum.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: CAA 202(a) and 211(v) Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: States are working to attain National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, PM, and NOx. Lightduty vehicles are responsible for a significant portion of the precursors to these pollutants and are large contributors to ambient air toxic pollution. For example, without future controls, by 2014 light-duty vehicles are projected to contribute 25 percent of nationwide mobile-source NOx, 40 percent of nationwide mobile-source VOC, and 10 percent nationwide mobile-source PM. Importantly, by 2020 mobile sources are expected to be as much as 50 percent of the inventories for some individual urban areas without future controls. Light-duty vehicles also contribute about half of the 2030 mobile source inventory of toxics; the 2002 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment showed that mobile sources were responsible for over 50 percent of cancer risk and over 80 percent of noncancer hazard. Clearly, there is a need for tighter light-duty vehicle standards and fuel standards as part of a comprehensive approach to reducing pollution from motor vehicles. Renewable fuels are recognized to pose potential air quality concerns, and EPA has a mandate to address them under Clean Air Act section 211(q) and 211(v). Specifically, both EPAct of 2005 and EISA (2007) amended the CAA to require EPA to determine adverse air quality impacts of renewable fuels and to implement appropriate measures to mitigate these impacts to the greatest extent achievable.

Legal Basis: The Clean Air Act, section 202(a)(1), states "The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class, or class of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may be reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." Section 202(a) covers all on-highway vehicles, including medium and heavy-duty trucks. EPA is also using its authority under section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act to address gasoline sulfur controls, section 211(h) to address Reid Vapor Pressure, and section 211(v), which requires that the Administrator promulgate fuel regulations to implement appropriate measures to mitigate, to the greatest extent achievable, and considering the results of the anti-backsliding study completed under section 211(v) (1), any adverse impacts on air quality as a results of the renewable volumes or make a determination that no such measures are necessary.

Alternatives: The rulemaking proposal will include an evaluation of regulatory alternatives that can be considered in addition to the Agency's primary proposal.

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

Risks: The failure to set new Tier 3 vehicle/fuel standards will adversely impact the population living in nonattainment areas, where reductions from the Tier 3 rule are needed to help attain and maintain the ozone and PM NAAQS (and to mitigate adverse effects of renewable fuels). Also, without the new Tier 3 vehicle/fuel standards, the sizeable population living, working, and going to school near roads will continue to be exposed to higher levels of air toxics, which is a current environmental justice and children's health concern.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 03/00/2012

Final Action 10/00/2012

Additional Information: EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135. Includes Retrospective Review under E.O.
13563.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: Business Federalism: No Energy Affected: No

Sectors Affected: 811198; 336111; 811112; 336311; 336312; 336120; 336112; 454312; 541690; 324110; 484220; 484230 Agency Contact: Catherine Yanca Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation NVFEL S87 Ann Arbor , MI 48105
Phone: 734 214 -4769
E- Mail: Yanca.Catherine@epamail.epa.gov Agency Contact: Kathryn Sargeant Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation NVFEL S77 Ann Arbor , MI 48105
Phone: 734 214 -4441
E- Mail: Sargeant.Kathryn@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air and Radiation ( AR ) RIN: 2060-AQ91

View Related Documents

Title: Greenhouse Gas New Source Performance Standard for Electric Generating Units for New Sources

Abstract: This action will amend the electric generating units (EGUs) New Source Performance Standard and add a section 111(b) greenhouse gas (GHG) standard for new and modified facilities.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: CAA 111 Legal Deadline:

Action Source Description Date

NPRM Judicial 09/30/2011

Other Judicial 05/25/2012

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: EPA entered into settlement agreement with multiple State and environmental petitioners on December 21, 2010, to establish standards of performance for GHGs for new EGUs and emissions guidelines for GHGs from existing EGUs.

Legal Basis: Clean Air Act, section 111

Alternatives: Not yet determined.Costs and Benefits: Not yet determined.

Risks: Not yet determined.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 01/00/2012

Final Action 06/00/2012

Additional Information: EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAP-2011-0660

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: Undetermined Energy Affected: Yes

Sectors Affected: 221 Agency Contact: Christian Fellner Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
D243-01 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711
Phone: 919 541 -4003
FAX: 919 541 -5450
E-Mail: fellner.christian@epamail.epa.gov Agency Contact: Brian Shrager Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
D243-01 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711
Phone: 919 541 -7689
FAX: 919 541 -5450
E-Mail: shrager.brian@epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air and Radiation ( AR ) RIN: 2060-AR02

View Related Documents

Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group IV Polymers and Resins, Pesticide Active Ingredient Production, and Polyether Polyols Production Risk and Technology Review

Abstract: In this action, EPA will perform risk and technology reviews for three National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). These NESHAP are under a deadline consent decree for proposal in November 2011 and promulgation in November 2012: Group IV Polymers and Resins, Pesticide Active Ingredient Production, and Polyether Polyols Production. Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6) require EPA to conduct residual risk and technology reviews. Under the "technology review" provision of CAA section 112, EPA is required to review maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and to revise them "as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)" no less frequently than every 8 years. Under the "residual risk" provision of CAA section 112, EPA must evaluate the MACT standards within 8 years after promulgation and promulgate standards if required to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or prevent an adverse environmental effect. Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA mandates that EPA review and, if appropriate, revise existing NSPS every 8 years. EPA will also remove startup, shutdown, and malfunction exemptions for these source categories, as required by recent court decisions.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60 and 63 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: Clean Air Act secs 111 and 112 Legal Deadline:

Action Source Description Date

NPRM Judicial 11/30/2011

Other Judicial 11/30/2012

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: This action addresses EPA's statutory obligations to perform Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR) and NSPS reviews for chemical sector MACT. It will address Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112(f)(2) to conduct residual risk reviews,section 112(d)(6) to conduct technology reviews, and section 111(b)(1)(B) to conduct NSPS reviews for multiple chemical sector source categories. Under the "technology review" provision of CAA section 112, EPA is required to review maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and to revise them "as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)" no less frequently than every 8 years. Under the "residual risk" provision of CAA section 112, EPA must evaluate the MACT standards within 8 years after promulgation and promulgate standards if required to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or prevent an adverse environmental effect. Under the CAA section 111, EPA must evaluate NSPS requirements and, if appropriate, revise existing NSPS every 8 years.

Legal Basis: CAA sections 111 and 112

Alternatives: Unavailable.

Costs and Benefits: We are currently estimating the costs and benefits associated with this action.

Risks: We are currently assessing the risks associated with this action.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 01/09/2012 77 FR 1268

NPRM Comment Period End 03/09/2012

Final Action 11/00/2012

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State;
Tribal

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: No

Sectors Affected: 325 Agency Contact: Nick Parsons Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
E143-01 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711
Phone: 919 541 -5372
FAX: 919 541 -0246
E-Mail: parsons.nick@epamail.epa.gov Agency Contact: Penny Lassiter Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
E1430-01 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711
Phone: 919 541 -5396
FAX: 919 541 -0246
E-Mail: lassiter.penny@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air and Radiation ( AR ) RIN: 2060-AR13

View Related Documents

Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; Proposed Reconsideration

Abstract: EPA estimates the total national capital cost for the proposed reconsideration rule to be approximately $5.4 billion in the year 2015, with a total national annual cost of $1.5 billion in the year 2015. The annual cost, which considers fuel savings, includes control device operation and maintenance, as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and performance testing. EPA estimates that implementation of the rulemaking, as proposed, would reduce nationwide emissions from major source boilers and process heaters by: 1,000 to 3,600 pounds per year of mercury, 2,200 tpy of non-mercury metals, 37,000 tpy of HCl, 41,000 tpy of PM, 560,000 tpy of SO2, and 4,700 tpy of volatile organic compounds. These emissions reductions would lead to the following annual health benefits. In 2015, this rule will protect public health by avoiding 3,100 to 8,000 premature deaths, 2,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 4,900 nonfatal heart attacks, 5,350 hospital and emergency room visits, 4,600 cases of acute bronchitis, 390,000 days when people miss work, 51,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 96,000 acute respiratory symptoms. The monetized value of the benefits ranges from $27 billion to $67 billion in 2015--outweighing the costs by at least $25 billion.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed RuleMajor: Yes Unfunded Mandates: State, Local, Or Tribal Governments; Private Sector

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 63 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: Clean Air Act sec 112 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: As a result of the vacatur of the Industrial Boiler MACT, the Agency will develop another rulemaking under CAA section 112, which will reduce hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from this source category. Recent court decisions on other CAA section 112 rules will be considered in developing this regulation.

Legal Basis: Clean Air Act, section 112.

Alternatives: Not yet determined.

Costs and Benefits: EPA estimates the total national capital cost for the final rule to be approximately $9.5 billion in the year 2013, with a total national annual cost of $2.9 billion in the year 2013. The annual cost, which considers fuel savings, includes control device operation and maintenance as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and performance testing. EPA estimates that implementation of the rulemaking, as proposed, would reduce nationwide emissions from major source boilers and process heaters by: 15,000 pounds per year of mercury, 3,200 tons per year (tpy) of non-mercury metals, 37,000 tpy of HCl, 50,000 tpy of PM, 340,000 tpy of SO2, 722 grams per year of dioxin, and 1,800 tpy of volatile organic compounds. These emissions reductions would lead to the following annual health benefits. In 2013, this rule will protect public health by avoiding 1,900 to 4,800 premature deaths, 1,300 cases of chronic bronchitis, 3,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 3,200 hospital and emergency room visits, 3,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 250,000 days when people miss work, 33,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 1,500,000 acute respiratory symptoms. The monetized value of the benefits ranges from $17 billion to $41 billion in 2013--outweighing the costs by at least $14 billion.

Risks: Not yet determined.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 12/23/2011 76 FR 80598

NPRM Comment Period End 02/21/2012

Final Action 04/00/2012

Additional Information: Split from RIN 2060 -AQ25. Split from RIN 2060-AM44. This rulemaking combines the area source rulemaking for boilers and the rulemaking for reestablishing the vacated NESHAP for boilers and process heaters. EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business; Governmental Jurisdictions; Organizations Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State;
Tribal

Federalism: Yes Energy Affected: No

Sectors Affected: 325; 611; 322; 221; 321 Agency Contact: Brian Shrager Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
D243-01 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711
Phone: 919 541 -7689
FAX: 919 541 -5450
E-Mail: shrager.brian@epa.gov Agency Contact: Robert J Wayland Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
D243-01 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711
Phone: 919 541 -1045
FAX: 919 541 -5450
E-Mail: wayland.robertj@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air and Radiation ( AR ) RIN: 2060-AR14View Related Documents

Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; Reconsideration and Proposed Rule Amendments

Abstract: On March 21, 2011, EPA issued a final rule establishing standards for emissions of hazardous air pollutants from boilers located at area sources. EPA also issued on March 21, 2011, a Notice of Reconsideration listing four issues for which additional opportunity for public review and comment should be obtained. Subsequently, we received petitions to reconsider and clarify and amend certain applicability and implementation provisions of the final rule. This action will propose the amendments after we analyze the information submitted in the petitions.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 63 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: Clean Air Act sec 112 Legal Deadline:

Action Source Description Date

Other Statutory Tentative date for promulgation of amendments to the rule. 04/30/2012

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration of the rule if a person raising an objection to the rule can demonstrate to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment, and if such objection is
of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.

Legal Basis: Clean Air Act, section 112.

Alternatives: Not yet determined.

Costs and Benefits: Cost and benefits numbers for the Boiler Area Source Rule (subpart JJJJJJ) are as follows. Proposal: Total annualized costs = $1.0 billion. Total net monetized benefits = $0.5 billion to $1.9 billion (3% discount rate), $0.4 billion to $1.7 billion (7% discount rate). Non-monetized Benefits = 39,000 tons of carbon monoxide, 130 tons of HCl, 5 tons of HF, 0.75 tons of mercury, 250 tons of other metals, 470 grams of dioxins/furans. Additionally, health effects from NO2 and SO2 exposure diminish, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment. Final: Total annualized costs = $535 million. Total netmonetized benefits = -$280 million to $30 million (3% discount rate), -$300 million to -$20 million (7% discount rate). Nonmonetized Benefits = 1,100 tons of carbon monoxide, 340 tons of HCl, 8 tons of HF, 90 pounds of mercury, 320 tons of other metals, <1 gram of dioxins/furans (TEQ), health effects from SO2 exposure, ecosystem effects, visibility impairment.

Risks: Not yet determined.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 12/23/2011 76 FR 80532

NPRM Comment Period End 02/21/2012

Final Action 04/00/2012

Additional Information: Split from RIN 2060 -AM44. Related to RIN 2060-AQ25. EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR2006-0790

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State;
Tribal

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: No

Sectors Affected: 611; 62; 44 -45; 321 Agency Contact: Jim Eddinger Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
D243-01 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711
Phone: 919 541 -5426
E- Mail: eddinger.jim@epa.gov Agency Contact: Robert J Wayland Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
D243-01 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711Phone: 919 541-1045
FAX: 919 541-5450
E -Mail: wayland.robertj@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air and Radiation ( AR ) RIN: 2060-AR15

View Related Documents

Title: Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units; Reconsideration and Proposed Amendments

Abstract: On March 21, 2011, EPA issued a final rule establishing new source performance standards and emission guidelines for commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units. EPA also issued on March 21, 2011, a Notice of Reconsideration listing issues for which additional opportunity for public review and comment should be obtained. Subsequently, we received more than 15 petitions to reconsider, clarify, and amend certain provisions of the final rule. This action will propose the amendments after we analyze the information submitted in the petitions.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60; 40 CFR 62 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 42 USC 7401 et seq Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: As a result of the vacatur of the CISWI definition and the remand of the CISWI rule, the Agency will develop another rulemaking under CAA section 129 that will reduce hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from this source category. Recent court decisions on other rules will be considered in developing this regulation.

Legal Basis: Clean Air Act, section 129

Alternatives: Not yet determined

Costs and Benefits: EPA estimates the total national capital cost for the final rule to be approximately $706 million in the year 2013, with a total national annual cost of $280 million in the year 2013. The annual cost, which considers fuel savings, includes control device operation and maintenance as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and performance testing. EPA estimates that implementation of the rulemaking, as proposed, would reduce nationwide emissions from commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units by: 5,700 tons per year (tpy) of acid gases (i.e., hydrogen chloride and sulfur dioxide), 1,600 tpy of particulate matter, 23,000 tpy of carbon monoxide, 5,700 tpy of nitrogen oxides, and 5.5 tpy of metals (i.e., lead, cadmium, and mercury) and dioxins/furans. These emissions reductions would lead to the following annual health benefits. In 2013, this rule will protect public health by avoiding 40 to 100 premature deaths, 27 cases of chronic bronchitis, 64 nonfatal heart attacks, 68 hospital and emergency room visits, 65 cases of acute bronchitis, 1,350 cases of respiratory symptoms, 5,300 days when people miss work or school, 700 cases of aggravated asthma, and 31,000 days when people must restrict their activities. The monetized value of the benefits ranges from $360 to $870 million in 2013–outweighing the costs by at least $80
million.

Risks: Not yet determined

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 12/23/2011 76 FR 80452

NPRM Comment Period End 02/21/2012

Final Action 04/00/2012

Additional Information: Split from RIN 2060 -AO12. EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: Business Federalism: No Energy Affected: No

Sectors Affected: 325; 334; 3254; 321 Agency Contact: Toni Jones Environmental Protection Agency
Air and RadiationE143-03 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711
Phone: 919 541 -0316
FAX: 919 541 -3470
E-Mail: jones.toni@epamail.epa.gov Agency Contact: Charlene Spells Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
E-143-05 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711
Phone: 919 541 -5255
FAX: 919 541 -3470
E-Mail: spells.charlene@epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air and Radiation ( AR ) RIN: 2060-AO72

View Related Documents

Title: Review of the Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur

Abstract: Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to review and, if appropriate, revise the air quality criteria for the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) every 5 years. On October 11, 1995, EPA published a final rule not to revise either the primary or secondary NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide (NO2). On May 22, 1996, EPA published a final decision that revisions of the primary and secondary NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (SO2) were not appropriate at that time, aside from several minor technical changes. On December 9, 2005, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) initiated the current periodic review of NO2 air quality criteria with a call for information in the Federal Register (FR). On May 3, 2006, ORD initiated the current periodic review of SO2 air quality criteria with a call for information in the FR. Subsequently, the decision was made to review the oxides of nitrogen and the oxides of sulfur together, rather than individually, with respect to a secondary welfare standard for NO2 and SO2. This decision derives from the fact that NO2, SO2, and their associated transformation products are linked from an atmospheric chemistry perspective, as well as from an environmental effects perspective, most notably in the case of secondary aerosol formation and acidification in ecosystems. This review includes the preparation of an Integrated Science Assessment (ISA), Risk/Exposure Assessment (REA), and a Policy Assessment Document (PAD) by EPA, with opportunities for review by EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the public. These documents inform the Administrator's proposed decision as to whether to retain or revise the standards. It should be noted that this review will be limited to only the secondary standards; the primary standards for SO2 and NO2 were reviewed separately. The ISA, REA, and PAD have been completed, and a notice of proposed rulemaking was signed on July 12, 2011. The court ordered date for the final rule to be signed is March 20, 2012.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 50 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 42 USC 7408; 42 USC 7409 Legal Deadline:

Action Source Description Date

NPRM Judicial The court has approved the amendments to the consent decree incorporating the revised dates. 07/12/2011

Other Judicial 03/20/2012

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: As established in the Clean Air Act, the national ambient air quality standards for oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur are to be reviewed every 5 years.

Legal Basis: Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409) directs the Administrator to propose and promulgate "primary" and "secondary" national ambient air quality standards for pollutants identified under section 108 (the "criteria" pollutants). The "primary" standards are established for the protection of public health, while "secondary" standards are to protect against public welfare or ecosystem effects.

Alternatives: The main alternatives for the Administrator's decision on the review of the national ambient air quality standards for oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur are whether to retain or revise the existing standards.

Costs and Benefits: The Clean Air Act makes clear that the economic and technical feasibility of attaining standards are not to be considered in setting or revising the NAAQS, although such factors may be considered in the development of State plans to implement the standards. Accordingly, the Agency prepares cost and benefit information in order to provide Statesinformation that may be useful in considering different implementation strategies for meeting proposed or final standards. Cost and benefit information is not developed to support a NAAQS rulemaking until sufficient policy and scientific information is available to narrow potential options for the form and level associated with any potential revisions to the standard. Therefore, work on developing the plan for conducting the cost and benefit analysis will generally start 1 1/2 to 2 years following the start of a NAAQS review.

Risks: During the course of this review, risk assessments may be conducted to evaluate public welfare risks associated with retention or revision of the NOx/SOx secondary standards.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Notice--Public Meeting 08/08/2011 76 FR 48073

NPRM 08/01/2011 76 FR 46084

Final Action 04/00/2012

Additional Information: EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA_FRDOC_0001-10843; EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1145

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State;
Tribal

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: No Agency Contact: Rich Scheffe Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation C304-02 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711
Phone: 919 541 -4650
FAX: 919 541 -0237
E-Mail: scheffe.rich@epa.gov Agency Contact: Karen Martin Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation C504-06 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711
Phone: 919 541 -5274
FAX: 919 541 -0237
E-Mail: Martin.Karen@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air and Radiation ( AR ) RIN: 2060-AP52

View Related Documents

Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units

Abstract: On May 18, 2005 (70 FR 28606), EPA published a final rule requiring reductions in emissions of mercury from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. That rule was vacated on February 8, 2008, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. As a result of that vacatur, coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units remain on the list of sources that must be regulated under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Agency will develop standards under CAA section 112(d), which will reduce hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from this source category. Recent court decisions on other CAA section 112(d) rules will be considered in developing this regulation. The rule was proposed on May 3, 2011 (76 FR 24976). Under this action, EPA also proposed amendments to the criteria pollutant new source performance standards (NSPS) for utilities. On February 27, 2006, EPA promulgated amendments to the utility NSPS and was subsequently sued by multiple state attorney general offices and environmental organizations. On September 2, 2009, EPA was granted a voluntary remand without vacatur of the 2006 amendments. Combining the two rules in a single action provides interested parties the opportunity to provide comments on the combined requirements of the two rules. It also avoids double-counting either costs or environmental benefits of the separate rules.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: State, Local, Or Tribal Governments; Private Sector

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 63; 40 CFR 60, subpart Da (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: Clean Air Act sec 112(d); Clean Air Act sec 111(b)Legal Deadline:

Action Source Description Date

NPRM Judicial No later than March 16, 2011, EPA shall sign for publication in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking. 03/16/2011

Other Judicial No later than December 16, 2011, EPA shall sign for publication in the Federal Register a notice of final rulemaking. 12/16/2011

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: Section 112(n)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act required EPA to conduct a study of the hazards to public health resulting from emissions of hazardous air pollutants from electric utility steam generating units and, after considering the results of that study, determine whether it was appropriate and necessary to regulate such units under section 112. The study was completed in 1998, and, in December 2000, EPA determined that it was appropriate and necessary to regulate coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units and added such units to the list of sources for which standards must be developed under section 112. The February 8, 2008, vacatur of the May 18, 2005, Clean Air Mercury Rule and March 29, 2005, section 112(n) revision rule (which had removed such sources from the list) resulted in the requirement to regulate under section 112 being reinstated.

Legal Basis: Clean Air Act, section 112

Alternatives: Not yet determined.

Costs and Benefits: EPA estimates that this final rule will yield annual monetized benefits (in 2007$) of between $37 to $90 billion using a 3 percent discount rate and $33 to $81 billion using a 7 percent discount rate. The great majority of the estimates are attributable to co-benefits from 4,200 to 11,000 fewer PM2.5-related premature mortalities. The monetized benefits from reductions in mercury emissions, calculated only for children exposed to recreationally caught freshwater fish, are expected to be $0.004 to $0.006 billion in 2016 using a 3 percent discount rate and $0.0005 to $0.001 billion using a 7 percent discount rate. The annual social costs, approximated by the compliance costs, are $9.6 billion (2007$) and the annual monetized net benefits are $27 to $80 billion using 3 percent discount rate or $24 to $71 billion using a 7 percent discount rate. The benefits outweigh costs by between 3 to 1 or 9 to 1 depending on the benefit estimate and discount rate used.

Risks: Not yet determined.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite Public Hearing Notice 04/28/2011 76 FR 23768

NPRM 05/03/2011 76 FR 24976

NPRM Comment Period Extended 07/01/2011 76 FR 38590

Final Action 12/00/2011

Additional Information: EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQOAR-2009-0234-2910; EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0031

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business; Governmental Jurisdictions Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State;
Tribal

Federalism: Yes Energy Affected: Yes

Sectors Affected: 221112 Agency Contact: Bill Maxwell Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
D243-01 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711
Phone: 919 541 -5430
FAX: 919 541 -5450
E-Mail: maxwell.bill@epa.gov Agency Contact: Robert J Wayland Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
D243-01 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711
Phone: 919 541 -1045
FAX: 919 541 -5450
E-Mail: wayland.robertj@epamail.epa.govEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air and Radiation ( AR ) RIN: 2060-AP76

View Related Documents

Title: Oil and Natural Gas Sector--New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants

Abstract: New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) regulate criteria pollutants from new stationary sources. Two NSPS (subparts KKK and LLL) for the oil and natural gas industry were promulgated in 1985. Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that NSPS be reviewed every 8 years and revised as appropriate. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulate hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from new and existing stationary sources. Two NESHAP (subparts HH and HHH) for the oil and natural gas industry were promulgated in 1999. Section 112 of the CAA requires that NESHAP be reviewed every 8 years and revised as appropriate. In addition, section 112(f) requires that each category regulated under section 112(d) be reviewed to ensure that such regulations provide for an ample margin of safety to protect public health (i.e., address "residual risk" for each category). This action will include the required reviews under sections 111 and 112. Because the existing regulations are narrow in scope, the reviews will include consideration of broadening the scope of operations and emission points covered by the NSPS and MACT.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60; 40 CFR 63 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 42 USC 7411; 42 USC 7412 Legal Deadline:

Action Source Description Date

NPRM Judicial Consent Decree entered 02/04/2010, 3-month extension granted 1/11/11, new 3-month extension granted on 4/18/2011 07/28/2011

Other Judicial Consent Decree deadline 04/03/2012

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: Not yet determined.

Legal Basis: Not yet determined.

Alternatives: Not yet determined.

Costs and Benefits: For the NSPS, the annual costs are estimated at $738 million. After taking into account the value of the natural gas and condensate recovered, there would be a net savings of $45 million annually. For the NESHAP, the annual costs of compliance will be $16 million. EPA estimates benefits for the VOCs 540,000 tons per year, or about 25 percent reduction overall; for methane, 3.4 million tpy, which is equal to 65 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), which is a reduction of about 26 percent; and for air toxics, 38,000 tons, or a reduction of nearly 30 percent.

Risks: Not yet determined.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Notice--Public Meeting 08/26/2011 76 FR 53371

NPRM 08/23/2011 76 FR 52738

Final Action 03/00/2012

Additional Information: EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQOAR-2010-0505-0002; EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: Undetermined

RIN Information URL: http://epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/ Agency Contact: Bruce Moore Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
E143-01 Research Triangle Park , NC 27711
Phone: 919 541 -5460
FAX: 919 541 -0246
E-Mail: moore.bruce@epamail.epa.govAgency Contact: David Cozzie Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington , DC 20460
Phone: 919 541 -5356
E- Mail: cozzie.david@epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances ( OPPTS ) RIN: 2070-AJ20

View Related Documents

Title: Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators

Abstract: EPA is proposing change to the Federal regulations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) that guide the certified pesticide applicator program (40 CFR 171). Change is sought to strengthen the regulations to better protect pesticide applicators and the public and the environment from harm due to pesticide exposure. The possible need for change arose from EPA discussions with key stakeholders. 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. Throughout these extensive interactions with stakeholders, EPA has learned of the potential need for changes to the regulation.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 171; 40 CFR 156 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 7 USC 136; 7 USC 136i; 7 USC 136w Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: These regulations have been in place since 1972. Since then, many States have advanced the existing requirements to better protect applicators, the public, and the environment. The Agency is proposing revisions to establish a more protective national standard.

Legal Basis: 7 U.S.C. 136 through 7 U.S.C. 136y.

Alternatives: The Agency has developed mechanisms to improve applicator trainers and make training materials more accessible. The Agency has also developed nationally relevant training and certification materials to preserve State resources.

Costs and Benefits: Costs and benefits from the proposed rule are being prepared.

Risks: Applicators are at risk from exposure to pesticides they handle for their work. The public and the environment may also be at risk from misapplication by non-competent applicators. Revisions to the regulations are expected to minimize these risks by ensuring the competency of certified applicators.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 10/00/2012

Additional Information: EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0561

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State;
Tribal

Small Entities Affected: Business Federalism: No Energy Affected: No

RIN Information
URL: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/worker.htm

Sectors Affected: 9241; 112; 111; 1132; 32532; 5617; 115 Agency Contact: Kathy Davis Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P Washington , DC 20460Phone: 703 308-7002
FAX: 703 308-2962
E -Mail: davis.kathy@epa.gov Agency Contact: Richard Pont Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P Washington , DC 20460
Phone: 703 305 -6448
FAX: 703 308 -2962
E-Mail: pont.richard@epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances ( OPPTS ) RIN: 2070-AJ22

View Related Documents

Title: Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions

Abstract: EPA is developing a proposal under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to revise the Federal regulations guiding agricultural worker protection (40 CFR 170). The changes under consideration are intended to improve agricultural workers' ability to protect themselves from potential exposure to pesticides and pesticide residues. In addition, EPA is proposing to make adjustments to improve and clarify current requirements and facilitate enforcement. Other changes sought are to bring hazard communication requirements more in line with OSHA requirements and make improvements to pesticide safety training, with improved worker safety the intended outcome. The potential need for change arose from EPA discussions with key stakeholders beginning in 1996 and continuing through 2004. EPA held nine public meetings throughout the country, during which the public submitted written and verbal comments on issues of their concern. In 2000 through 2004, EPA held meetings where invited stakeholders identified their issues and concerns with the regulations.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 170 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 7 USC 136; 7 USC 136w Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: Stakeholders have identified gaps in the protections in the current regulation. Revisions to the rule are necessary to better protect agricultural workers and pesticide handlers from unreasonable adverse effects of pesticide

exposure.

Legal Basis: 7 U.S.C. 136 through 7 U.S.C. 136y.

Alternatives: Wherever deficiencies in the existing regulation could be adequately addressed through non-regulatory means, EPA has done so. For example, the Agency has developed improved training materials that are sector-specific and in multiple languages; improved capacity for outreach; a train-the-trainer program; health care practitioner (HCP) curricula to train HCPs on pesticide exposure identification and treatment; and a bilingual manual for HCPs to use in identifying pesticide poisonings. The Agency also provides financial support for pesticide safety training.

Costs and Benefits: Incremental costs to agricultural employers are expected to increase as a result of revised requirements for training, notification, and other protections. Incremental costs to commercial pesticide handler employers are expected to decrease. Benefits will accrue to workers' and handlers' health, and improved protection of children is expected to be realized from the proposed revisions.

Risks: Agricultural workers and pesticide handlers are at risk from pesticide exposure through their work activities, and may put their families at risk of secondary exposure. In order to address exposure risks to workers, pesticide handlers, and their families, the Agency is proposing revisions identified by stakeholders and the public.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Final Action 00/00/0000

NPRM 07/00/2012

Additional Information: EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0561Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal; State; Tribal

Small Entities Affected: Business Federalism: No Energy Affected: No

RIN Information
URL: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/worker.htm

Sectors Affected: 111; 32532; 115 Agency Contact: Kathy Davis Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P Washington , DC 20460
Phone: 703 308 -7002
FAX: 703 308 -2962
E-Mail: davis.kathy@epa.gov Agency Contact: Richard Pont Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P Washington , DC 20460
Phone: 703 305 -6448
FAX: 703 308 -2962
E-Mail: pont.richard@epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances ( OPPTS ) RIN: 2070-AJ44

View Related Documents

Title: Formaldehyde; Third- Party Certification Framework for the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products

Abstract: In 2008, EPA initiated a proceeding under Toxics Substance and Control Act (TSCA) to investigate risks posed by formaldehyde emitted from pressed wood products. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) sought to engage stakeholders to contribute to obtaining a better understanding of the available control technologies and approaches, industry practices, and the implementation of California's formaldehyde emission limits. Subsequently, EPA developed an industry survey to obtain more information on these ANPRM topics and continued to assess the hazards of and exposures to formaldehyde emissions from pressed wood products. On July 7, 2010, the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act was enacted. This law amends TSCA to establish specific formaldehyde emission limits for hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard, which limits are identical to the California emission limits for these products. The law further requires EPA to promulgate implementing regulations by January 1, 2013. This rulemaking covers the mandate for EPA to promulgate regulations to address requirements for accrediting bodies and third-party certifiers. A separate regulatory agenda entry (RIN 2070-tbd) covers the mandate for EPA to promulgate regulations to implement the statutory formaldehyde emission standards for hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard, and particleboard sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured (including imported) in the United States.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 15 USC 2697; TSCA sec 601 Legal Deadline:

Action Source Description Date

Other Statutory 01/01/2013

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: EPA is concerned about the human health risks that may be presented by exposure to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, because formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen and an eye, nose, and throat
irritant.

Legal Basis: TSCA title VI

Alternatives: TSCA title VI establishes national formaldehyde emission limits for hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard, and EPA has not been given the authority to change the limits. However, EPA will evaluate various implementation alternatives during the course of this rulemaking.

Costs and Benefits: EPA is currently evaluating the costs and benefits of this action.Risks: EPA is currently evaluating the risks presented by exposure to formaldehyde emissions in excess of the statutory
limits.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

ANPRM 12/03/2008 73 FR 73620

ANPRM: Extension of Comment Period 01/30/2009 74 FR 5632

NPRM 02/00/2012

Final Action 01/00/2013

Additional Information: EPA publication information: ANPRM - http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=09000064807cabb2; EPA Docket information: ANPRM stage: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0627; NPRM Stage: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0380

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Federalism: Undetermined Energy Affected: No International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise
be of international interest.

RIN Information
URL: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/formaldehyde/index.html

Sectors Affected: 325199; 423110; 4441; 42321; 4421; 337; 42331; 45393; 321991; 336213; 423390; 325211; 321992; 441210; 336214; 3212 Agency Contact: Cindy Wheeler Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7404T Washington , DC 20460
Phone: 202 566 -0484
E- Mail: Wheeler.Cindy@epa.gov Agency Contact: Lynn Vendinello Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7404T Washington , DC 20460
Phone: 202 566 -0514
E- Mail: vendinello.lynn@epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances ( OPPTS ) RIN: 2070-AJ46

View Related Documents

Title: Mercury; Regulation of Use in Certain Products

Abstract: Elemental mercury is well documented as a toxic, environmentally persistent substance that is atmospherically transported on a local, regional, and global scale. In addition, mercury can be environmentally transformed into methylmercury, which bioaccumulates, biomagnifies, and is highly toxic. EPA conducted a preliminary analysis of the costs, advantages, and disadvantages associated with mercury-free alternatives to certain mercury-containing products, and made a preliminary judgment that effective and economically feasible alternatives exist. These mercury-containing products include switches, relays/contactors, flame sensors, and button cell batteries. Therefore, EPA is evaluating whether an action (or combination of actions) under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is appropriate for mercury used in such products. As appropriate, such an action(s) would involve a group(s) of these products. Specifically, EPA will determine whether the continued use of mercury in one or more of these products would pose an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 750 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 15 USC 2605 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: Elemental mercury is well documented as a toxic, environmentally persistent substance that isatmospherically transported on a local, regional, and global scale. In addition, mercury can be environmentally transformed into methylmercury, which bioaccumulates, biomagnifies, and is highly toxic. Human health risks associated with elemental mercury and methylmercury are well documented. Humans can be exposed to mercury in products directly through inhalation of elemental mercury vapor and indirectly through ingestion of fish contaminated with methylmercury. EPA conducted apreliminary analysis of the costs, advantages, and disadvantages associated with mercury-free alternatives to certain mercurycontaining products, and made a preliminary judgment that effective and economically feasible alternatives exist. In its initial analysis of mercury in certain products, EPA considered mercury's well-documented toxicity, persistence, ability to bioaccumulate, ability to be environmentally transformed into methylmercury, and its demonstrated ability to be transported globally, as well as locally. EPA also considered the availability of effective and economically feasible alternatives for mercury in certain products. EPA believes manufacturing, processing, use, or disposal of elemental mercury in these products may result in significant potential for human and environmental exposures to elemental mercury and methylmercury.

Legal Basis: EPA is evaluating whether an action (or combination of actions) under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., is appropriate for mercury used in certain products. TSCA provides EPA with authority to require reporting, recordkeeping, and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Specifically, section 4 authorizes EPA to require testing of chemicals by manufacturers, importers, and processors where risks or exposures of concern are found. Section 5 authorizes EPA to require prior notice by manufacturers, importers, and processors when it identifies a "significant new use" that could result in exposures to, or releases of, a substance of concern. Section 6 gives EPA the authority to protect against unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment from chemical substances. If EPA finds that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the chemical's manufacture, processing, distribution, use or disposal presents an unreasonable risk, EPA may by rule take action to: Prohibit or limit manufacture, processing, or distribution in commerce; prohibit or limit the manufacture, processing, or distribution in commerce of the chemical substance above a specified concentration; require adequate warnings and instructions with respect to use, distribution, or disposal; require manufacturers or processors to make and retain records; prohibit or regulate any manner of commercial use; prohibit or regulate any manner of disposal; and/or require manufacturers or processors to give notice of the unreasonable risk of injury, and to recall products if required. Section 8 authorizes EPA to require reporting and recordkeeping by persons who manufacture, import, process, and/or distribute chemical substances in commerce.

Alternatives: EPA conducted a preliminary analysis of the costs, advantages, and disadvantages associated with mercuryfree alternatives to certain mercury-containing products, and made a preliminary judgment that effective and economically
feasible alternatives exist.

Costs and Benefits: As part of the economic, exposure, and risk assessment to support the current action, EPA is conducting a comprehensive use-substitute analysis and industry profile that will consider the costs and benefits of an action(or combination of actions) under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Those assessments consider the costs of mercurycontaining and mercury-free alternatives and the impact that any action would have on potentially affected stakeholders, including economic, human health, and environmental criteria.

Risks: As part of the economic, exposure, and risk assessment to support the current action, EPA is conducting a comprehensive use-substitute analysis and industry profile that will consider the risks associated with an action (or combination of actions) under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Those assessments consider the relative toxicity and other considerations associated with mercury-free alternatives to mercury-containing products and the impact that any action would have on potentially affected stakeholders, including economic, human health, and environmental criteria.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 10/00/2012

Additional Information: SAN No. 5312

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: Undetermined Energy Affected: No International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise
be of international interest.

RIN Information URL: http://www.epa.gov/mercury/

Sectors Affected: 325188 Agency Contact: Thomas Groeneveld Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7404T Washington , DC 20460
Phone: 202 566 -1188
FAX: 202 566 -0469E-Mail: groeneveld.thomas@epa.gov Agency Contact: Lynn Vendinello Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7404T Washington , DC 20460
Phone: 202 566 -0514
E- Mail: vendinello.lynn@epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances ( OPPTS ) RIN: 2070-AJ56

View Related Documents

Title: Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program for Public and Commercial Buildings

Abstract: Section 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to regulate renovation or remodeling activities in target housing (most pre-1978 housing), pre-1978 public buildings, and commercial buildings that create lead-based paint hazards. On April 22, 2008, EPA issued a final rule to address lead-based paint hazards created by these activities in target housing and child-occupied facilities built before 1978 (child-occupied facilities are a subset of public and commercial buildings or facilities where children under age 6 spend a great deal of time). The 2008 rule established requirements for training renovators, other renovation workers, and dust sampling technicians; for certifying renovators, dust sampling technicians, and renovation firms; for accrediting providers of renovation and dust sampling technician training; for renovation work practices; and for recordkeeping. This new rulemaking will address renovation or remodeling activities in the remainingbuildings described in TSCA section 402(c)(3): Public buildings built before 1978 and commercial buildings that are not childoccupied facilities. On May 6, 2010, EPA announced the commencement of proceedings to propose lead-safe work practicesand other requirements for renovations on the exteriors of public and commercial buildings and to determine whether leadbased paint hazards are created by interior renovation, repair, and painting projects in public and commercial buildings. For those renovations in the interiors of public and commercial buildings that create lead-based paint hazards, EPA will propose regulations to address these hazards.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 745 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 15 USC 2682(c)(3) Legal Deadline:

Action Source Description Date

Other Judicial Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, deadline from settlement agreement. 04/22/2010

NPRM Judicial Deadline from settlement agreement and subsequent renegotiation with litigants. 06/15/2012

Other Judicial Deadline from settlement agreement and subsequent renegotiation with litigants. 02/15/2014

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: This rulemaking is being undertaken in response to a settlement agreement and is designed to help insure that individuals and firms conducting renovation, repair, and painting activities in and on public and commercial buildings will do so in a way that safeguards the environment and protects the health of building occupants and nearby residents, especially children under 6 years old. Lead is known to cause deleterious health effects on multiple organ systems through diverse mechanisms of action in both adults and children. This array of health effects includes effects on heme biosynthesis and related functions, neurological development and function, reproduction and physical development, kidney function, cardiovascular function, and immune function. EPA has conducted several studies and reviewed additional information that indicates that the renovation of buildings containing lead-based paint can create health hazards in the form of lead-based paint dust under typical industry work practices.

Legal Basis: Section 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to regulate renovation or remodeling activities that create lead-based paint hazards in target housing, public buildings built before 1978, and commercial buildings.

Alternatives: For those activities that EPA determines create lead-based paint hazards, EPA will evaluate options to address the hazards. These options are likely to include different combinations of work practices and worker training and
certification.

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

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

ANPRM 05/06/2010 75 FR 24848

ANPRM Comment Period End 07/06/2010

NPRM 06/00/2012

Final Action 02/00/2014

Additional Information: EPA publication information: ANPRM -http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480ae7eb8; EPA Docket information: EPA-HQOPPT-2010-0173

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Federalism: Undetermined Energy Affected: No

RIN Information
URL: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm

Sectors Affected: 236; 921; 561210; 531; 238 Agency Contact: Hans Scheifele Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7404T Washington , DC 20460
Phone: 202 564 -3122
E- Mail: Scheifele.Hans@epa.gov Agency Contact: Cindy Wheeler Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7404T Washington , DC 20460
Phone: 202 566 -0484
E- Mail: Wheeler.Cindy@epa.gov