![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[October 29, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 209)] [The Regulatory Plan] [Page 57141-57176] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) Statement of Regulatory Priorities An Era of Opportunity During the past 25 years, the Nation made great headway in cleaning up the air, water, and land. But as the next century approaches, we are finding that many of the problems remaining are more complex than those of the past and they require more sophisticated, tailor-made remedies. EPA has begun a wholesale effort to rethink its current public health and environmental strategies to better meet the challenges of today and the future. And because this effort comes at the same time the President and Vice President are calling for a Government that works better and costs less, EPA has had an unprecedented opportunity to develop tough, new protections that not only solve today's difficult problems, but do so in cheaper and smarter ways. Building a Better System EPA's efforts to develop a system that works better and costs less are focused on four areas: Reducing regulatory and paperwork burdens, improving environmental compliance, regulating for greater results, and increasing community participation and partnerships. We are pursuing this through every possible venue, internally and externally, and we can already see results. Internally, EPA has streamlined its management, restructured programs, and given EPA employees broader responsibilities. For example, enforcers are emphasizing compliance assistance, permitters are paying more attention to pollution prevention and market mechanisms, and rule writers are developing public health and environmental protections that include alternatives proposed by regulated industries. These are innovative alternatives that are less costly but that still meet environmental and public health protection goals. Externally, EPA is bringing together stakeholders from businesses, State and local governments, and labor and public interest groups so that all interested parties can participate in the design of innovative, less costly approaches to environmental and public health protection. This stakeholder involvement increases flexibility, promotes local stewardship, and helps establish and strengthen partnerships between the public and private sectors--all without sacrificing environmental or public health protection. Also, as EPA develops this new regulatory system, it will increase its focus on protecting the health of children, taking into account their unique characteristics and vulnerabilities. By April 24, 1998, EPA will develop guidance to implement the new Executive order on protecting children's health from environmental risks. This guidance will assist the Agency in preparing a ``Children's Impact Statement'' for economically significant regulations. In addition, following an inclusive public process, EPA will identify and then reevaluate five existing environmental or public health standards to ensure that they sufficiently protect children's health. Eliminating Unnecessary Regulations The Agency continues to examine existing environmental regulations and paperwork in order to simplify and streamline compliance for the regulated community. This is consistent with the President's announcement in February 1995 that all Federal agencies must conduct a line-by-line review of their regulations and eliminate those that are obsolete or redundant. EPA has already made changes to more than 70 percent of its regulations and eliminated approximately 1,400 pages of obsolete rules from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), some 10 percent of EPA's total CFR regulations. In March 1995, EPA set a goal of reducing by 25 percent the paperwork burden associated with requirements in effect as of January 1, 1995. By January 1997, EPA had removed 15.6 million hours of paperwork burden, a reduction of about 15 percent, and had targeted an additional 8.3 million hours for future removal. In a more recent analysis prepared in April 1997 for the Agency's Information Streamlining Plan, EPA projects that by October 1, 1998, reductions will exceed the Agency's goal by more than 2 million hours. EPA is creating several opportunities for regulatory and paperwork streamlining. For example, in partnership with the States, the Agency is developing a ``one-stop'' environmental reporting system that will allow facilities to submit required environmental permitting and compliance data on-line. This can save businesses and other regulated facilities time and money, help bring about quicker decisions on permitting and compliance actions, improve data accuracy, and enhance public access to environmental information. In the area of clean water regulation, an innovative streamlining policy allows facilities to significantly reduce discharge monitoring and reporting, as long as they have good historical compliance records and are discharging higher quality water than required by their permit. In pesticide regulation, a new streamlining procedure allows pesticide registrants to make limited changes to their registration with a simple notification to the agency rather than with the usual burdensome amendment application. Improving Environmental Compliance Once EPA establishes public health and environmental protection rules, the Agency must ensure that businesses and others can understand and comply with them. This is particularly important for small businesses and communities that have limited staff and resources. To help these small entities, EPA is taking several steps. First, the Agency is establishing compliance assistance centers to serve as direct, readily available sources of information on the latest regulatory requirements for small businesses. EPA is also offering to reduce or eliminate penalties for violations if small businesses establish programs to detect, publicly disclose, and fix problems--as long as the violation does not involve criminal activity or a serious risk to public health or the environment. Besides making life easier for businesses and other regulated facilities, these steps can help prevent pollution and lessen the burden and expense of cleanup. Increasing Community Participation and Partnerships EPA recognizes that a new and improved system of environmental protection must include stronger partnerships between the public and private sectors and between the States and the Federal Government. It would also include a greater role for citizens in local, community- based decisionmaking. The Agency has taken several steps to improve these relationships and involve citizens. For example, the Agency offers Brownfields grants and Sustainable Development Challenge grants that give communities the resources necessary to clean up contamination, especially from abandoned industrial sites, and to restore environmental quality and provide environmentally sound economic opportunities. EPA also is providing better public access to environmental data, including information specific to individual communities. In fact, the public [[Page 57142]] retrieves more than 3.5 million EPA electronic documents every month, information that citizens can use to make a difference in their communities. EPA and the States are reinventing their working relationship to strengthen management of the Nation's environmental programs. Under the National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS), EPA has negotiated agreements with 30 States to give strong State programs more leeway to set environmental priorities, design new strategies, and manage their own programs, while concentrating EPA oversight and technical assistance on weaker programs. Also, the recent agreement between EPA and the States on Core Performance Measures is another major step forward. These measures emphasize outcomes over activities and should strengthen EPA's ability to measure environmental progress over the long term. To stregthen the relationship between the private and public sectors, EPA now is consulting with regulated industries earlier in its rule development processes. EPA sometimes employs formal consensus-based rulemaking, such as regulatory negotiations. More frequently, however, the Agency depends on informal outreach to potentially affected parties. The Agency has paid particular attention to its relationship with small businesses and, in fact, EPA has long been prominent among Federal agencies in its outreach to these small entities. The Agency not only rigorously implements the Small Business and Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), but it also uses its Small Business Ombudsman and its Office of State and Local Relationships to reach out to small entities. Highligts of EPA's Regulatory Plan for 1997 EPA's regulatory plan for 1997 reflects the Agency's continuing commitment to create new environmental protection strategies that better protect public health and the environment at lower cost. Here are some highlights from each program office: Office of Air and Radiation EPA is committed to taking advantage of the flexibility granted by the Clean Air Act that enables companies, States, and communities to meet clean air goals with innovative, low-cost approaches. The Office of Air and Radiation will make nearly 200 changes in existing rules and regulations and is drafting future rules to reflect the common-sense principles of the reinvention effort. Here are a few examples:EPA recently established more stringent air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter based on new scientific and technical information. While the new standards offer tough protection for public health and the environment, EPA is also developing an implementation strategy that gives States and industry flexibility with which they can meet these air quality goals. The implementation strategy: (a) Respects agreements already reached by communities and businesses and does not disrupt current progress toward improving air quality; (b) recognizes the need to take regional approaches toward addressing air pollution and finds that the most cost-effective mechanism for doing so is an emissions trading plan for utilities that was recommended by 37 States; (c) gives areas that use these regional measures a ``transitional'' status and allows EPA to devise an approach that eliminates unnecessarily burdensome planning and pollution reduction requirements; and (d) provides sufficient time for developing cost- effective control plans and for compliance. EPA, building on successful State programs, has been working with stakeholders to develop a more streamlined way that facilities can get operating permit updates from State or local agencies. Depending on the environmental significance of the change, States would have greater flexibility to decide the appropriate amount of EPA and public review for most permit revisions. EPA will issue a final policy for open-market trading of ozone/smog precursors (volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen) that will allow companies to trade emission credits without prior State or Federal approval. EPA believes this flexibility will help areas meet or maintain EPA's ozone standard at far less cost and provide greater incentive for companies to develop innovative emission reduction technologies. EPA will issue a final rule requiring additional emission reductions of nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and particulate matter from mobile heavy-duty engines such as those used in trucks and buses. The Agency brought together potentially affected industries, States, regional air management organizations, and public health and environmental interest groups to participate in the rule's development. The Agency has proposed changes to simplify and streamline the New Source Review Program, which requires newly built facilities or those undergoing major modification to obtain a permit to ensure that emissions will not cause or contribute to air pollution problems. EPA will issue a final rulemaking to complete the framework for the national low-emission vehicle (NLEV) program. The program, developed in conjunction with States, automakers, and others will help States meet national air quality standards by providing cleaner cars nationwide. Reflecting a new emphasis on multi-media environmental protection, EPA will soon issue a final integrated rule for the pulp and paper industry that controls the release of pollutants to both water and air. The regulations are being developed jointly to provide greater protection to human health and the environment, promote pollution prevention, and enable the industry to comply more effectively. Because the ozone/smog problem in the cities cannot be solved by emissions reductions from cars and factories alone, the Clean Air Act calls for reducing emissions from smaller sources of smog-causing volatile organic compounds (VOCs). EPA is developing final rules to require such reductions from consumer products and architectural coatings. EPA is soliciting extensive input from the regulated industries, especially small businesses, and is designing the rules to maximize their cost-effectiveness and sensitivity to small business concerns. EPA has worked with major stakeholders to design a final rule assuring that air emissions control equipment is properly monitored and maintained. This underscores EPA's commitment to preventing pollution rather than imposing additional command-and-control regulations. From discussions with affected industries, EPA has learned that many companies find it difficult to know what is expected of them given the growing complexity of the regulatory system during the last 25 years. In many cases, regulations may be duplicative, overlapping, or inconsistent, especially in the areas of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. In response to these problems, early next year, EPA will propose a rule intended to consolidate and synchronize all Federal air regulations that apply to the synthetic [[Page 57143]] organic chemical manufacturing industry. If this pilot program proves successful, it will be expanded to cover air rules for other industries and also possibly to water and waste requirements. EPA will also carry out its statutory responsibility to certify whether the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico complies with regulations governing the disposal of radioactive waste. In addition, the Agency will establish health and safety standards for the high-level nuclear waste repository planned for Yucca Mountain in Nevada and will set safety standards for cleanup of radioactively contaminated sites. Office of Water On August 6, 1996, President Clinton signed the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. The amendments will bring about substantial changes to the national drinking water program for EPA, States, and water utilities and provide greater protection and information for the 240 million Americans served by public water systems. To implement the new law, EPA will be involving diverse stakeholders in developing a new program to protect water sources; developing guidelines for consumer confidence reports that water suppliers will provide to their customers; increasing research and cost-benefit analysis; gathering data that will be used to develop a list of potential drinking water contaminants; and helping the States implement a billion- dollar drinking water State revolving fund. To provide more regulatory flexibility, EPA is streamling five of its water-related programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, the pretreatment program, the national primary drinking water program, the sewage sludge program, and the water quality planning and management program. In the NPDES program, EPA is removing outdated requirements, removing and streamlining unnecessary procedures, streamlining permit application and modification procedures, and reducing monitoring and reporting requirements. For example, EPA will consolidate and revise industrial and municipal permit application forms and streamline the application process. EPA is proposing to streamline the 301(h) regulations, which allow POTWs the opportunity to obtain a modification of secondary treatment requirements under certain conditions. This action would streamline the renewal process for POTWs with 301(h) modified NPDES permits. EPA is revising NPDES pretreatment program regulations to simplify program operation and streamline requirements. The Agency is currently considering a number of simplifying changes that would reduce the current burden to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and industrial users discharging to POTWs. The changes under consideration include exclusions from various requirements for small facilities that contribute insignificant amounts of pollution and reduced and/or more flexible reporting, inspection, and sampling requirements. The Agency is reformatting existing drinking water and effluent guideline standards to make them easier for Federal, State, and local governments and the regulated community to read and understand. The Agency is also streamlining the drinking water monitoring requirements to provide greater latitude for State discretion in customizing the timing and sampling frequencies for monitoring to local circumstances. EPA is modifying the Round I Sewage Sludge Use or Disposal Regulations to make the requirements for sewage sludge incinerators self-implementing and to provide the regulated community flexibility in meeting other sludge requirements. These changes will increase flexibility and reduce regulatory burden. The Agency is also streamlining the State Sewage Sludge Management Regulations to make it easier for States with well-run sewage sludge management programs to be eligible for program authorization without having to make unnecessary administrative changes to their programs. EPA is revising requirements for water quality planning and management to reduce the burden associated with the program and to make it more efficient. EPA is also working with a FACA Committee to identify ways to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and pace of EPA, State, and tribal total maximum daily load programs. FACA recommendations may include changes to the water quality planning and management regulations. Finally, the Agency will be pursuing innovative, less-costly, nonregulatory water protection strategies, such as effluent trading within watersheds. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances The new Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), signed into law on August 3, 1996, overhauls U.S. pesticide laws to regulate pesticides on foods and better protect children. During the next 2 years, EPA will be engaged in an intensive implementation effort, including developing new regulations, guidance, and programs. As specific regulatory and program changes are identified, the Agency will enter them into the regulatory agenda. EPA will continue to improve the public's right to know about toxic chemicals in their community through the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). The TRI is a data base that provides communities with information on releases to air, water, and land for approximately 600 toxic chemicals. Armed with this information, communities can better understand the nature of toxic releases at the local level, assess risk, and make informed decisions about local priorities. For chemicals that are highly toxic at very low dose levels, persist for extended periods in the environment, and/or bioaccumulate through the food chain, EPA is evaluating under TRI whether to lower the reporting threshold amount-- the amount of chemical a facility uses, manufactures, or processes before it must report releases. In addition, EPA is working with stakeholders to simplify the chemical reporting forms and the Agency's annual reports to make them easier to understand. By the end of 1997 or early 1998, EPA plans to issue a final rule that will streamline the Toxic Substances Control Act's (TSCA) PCB management program. This rule is the first comprehensive review of the PCB regulations in 17 years. The modification will allow currently prohibited activities that do not pose an unreasonable risk to health and the environment and is expected to result in significant cost savings for the regulated community. Currently, chemical manufacturers are required to report the names of the chemicals they produce, the quantity produced, and the locations of manufacturing facilities. EPA plans to propose expanding this to include information on potential exposure to [[Page 57144]] the chemical and how the chemicals are used (e.g., in manufacturing processes). This allows EPA and others to identify the chemicals of highest concern so that the Agency can set goals for chemical assessment, risk management, and prevention programs. The action will also encourage pollution prevention by identifying safer chemical substitutes. EPA intends to issue the remaining regulations mandated by the Residential Lead-Based Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, which requires EPA to establish standards for lead-based paint, lead-contaminated soil, and lead-contaminated dust. EPA will issue final regulations that require renovators to provide a lead-hazard information brochure (developed by EPA) to clients before beginning work. EPA will also propose regulations identifying what lead levels in paint, dust, and soil and what lead-paint conditions (e.g., flaking, peeling) pose a health hazard. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) is planning to propose a number of actions to streamline and simplify compliance under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Federal law governing hazardous waste management. As part of its effort to refocus hazardous waste regulations on high-risk wastes, EPA is undertaking a number of actions to tailor standards to the nature or degree of risk posed by particular wastes. One example of this is the development of management standards for cement kiln dust. The proposed standards for this large volume waste will be tailored to protect public health and the environment while imposing minimal burden on the regulated community. EPA is streamlining the regulation of materials that contain substances listed as hazardous waste. Certain regulations are overly broad in that they apply regardless of the concentrations of the listed wastes or the mobility of the toxicant in the waste. As a result, they regulate certain low-risk wastes (in particular, treatment residuals) as if they posed high risk. EPA's common-sense approach would exempt these low-risk wastes from the full management requirements designed for high-risk hazardous wastes. On May 1, 1996, EPA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit comment on alternative approaches to contamination cleanup at hazardous waste management facilities. EPA believes final regulations are needed to promote national consistency, clarify cleanup requirements, and reduce the number of site-specific negotiations and costly litigation. EPA is developing a regulation which will address the problems posed by contaminated media found at hazardous waste management facility cleanups. The Agency plans to make targetted fixes which will promote ongoing and future cleanups, as well as provide significant regulatory relief in several areas. EPA also plans to establish new emissions standards for hazardous waste combustors under joint Clean Air Act and RCRA authority. These revised standards will avoid duplicative Agency effort and piecemeal regulation of the hazardous waste management industry while protecting public health and the environment from chlorinated dioxins and furans. Finally, EPA is in the process of developing new streamlined rules governing the definition of solid waste. These rules will make it easier for companies to determine what wastes/ processes are subject to RCRA jurisdiction. In addition, EPA is streamlining the requirements for managing recycled hazardous waste to provide more clarity and to remove disincentives to safe recycling. Summary In developing all of these actions, EPA is committed to flexible, common-sense, cost-effective regulatory programs that protect public health and the environment. _______________________________________________________________________ EPA ----------- PRERULE STAGE ----------- 107. REPORTING THRESHOLD AMENDMENT; TOXIC CHEMICALS RELEASE REPORTING; COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Legal Authority: PL 99-499 CFR Citation: 40 CFR 372 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) currently requires reporting from facilities which manufacture or process at least 25,000 pounds of a listed chemical, or otherwise use 10,000 lbs of a listed chemical. These thresholds were initially established under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act (EPCRA) section 313(f)(1). Section 313(f)(2) of EPCRA gives the Administrator the power to establish a threshold amount for a toxic chemical different from the amount established by paragraph (1) and that such altered thresholds may be based on classes of chemicals. EPA is considering lowering the thresholds for those chemicals which it determines to be highly toxic at very low dose levels and/or have physical, chemical, or biological properties that make the chemicals persist for extended periods in the environment, and/or bioaccumulate through the food chain. Persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals are of particular concern in ecosystems such as the Great Lakes Basin due to the long retention time of the individual lakes and the cycling of the chemicals from one component of the ecosystem to another. EPA is currently conducting analysis to determine which chemicals present the specific problems described above, and to determine what the altered threshold value(s) should be. Statement of Need: TRI is the most complete and accessible source of information for the public on toxic chemical releases in communities across the United States. The intention of Congress was for TRI, and indeed all of EPCRA, to provide information to local communities. Communities need this information to better understand the nature of the releases at the local level. The intent of TRI has been to share information on releases with local communities to help in their assessments of the risks. This basic local empowerment is the cornerstone of the right-to- know program. Yet because of the current reporting thresholds, TRI does not collect release and transfer data on small quantities of chemicals that may persist and bioaccumulate in the environment. Even small releases of such chemicals can have significant impacts on human health and the environment. Congress gave EPA the authority to adjust [[Page 57145]] reporting thresholds, because it recognized that this might be necessary in order to address the American publics right to know what is happening to the environment near their homes, schools, and businesses. Summary of the Legal Basis: 42 USC 11013; 42 USC 11023; 42 USC 11048; 42 USC 11076; EPCRA S313 Alternatives: EPA recognizes the reporting burden inherent in TRI, and is continuing to take every reasonable opportunity to minimize this burden while ensuring the public's right-to-know. As such, all available alternatives will be identified and evaluated. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The anticipated costs related to this action are unknown at present. At this point the Agency is still unsure how low to set reporting thresholds or for what specific list of chemicals the lower reporting thresholds should apply. The information reported in TRI increases the knowledge levels of pollutants released to the environment and pathways to exposure, improving scientific understanding of the health and environmental risks of toxic chemicals; allows the public to make informed decisions on where to work and live; enhances the ability of corporate lenders and purchasers to more accurately gauge a facility's potential liability; and assists Federal, State, and local authorities in making better decisions on acceptable levels of toxics in communities. Risks: Currently communities do not have access to TRI data on chemicals that, although released in relatively small quantities, pose a potential risk to human health and the environment because they persist and bioaccumulate. By lowering the reporting thresholds for such chemicals the public will be able to determine if such chemicals are being released into their communities and whether any action should be taken to reduce potential risks. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ ANPRM 03/00/98 Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions Government Levels Affected: Federal Sectors Affected: 495 Sanitary Services; 516 Chemicals and Allied Products; 517 Petroleum and Petroleum Products; 738 Miscellaneous Business Services Analysis: Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Additional Information: SAN No. 3880. OTHER SECTORS AFFECTED: Manufacturing industries in SIC codes 20-39 plus the following industries and SIC codes: Metal Mining (SIC code 10 except SIC codes 1011, 1081, and 1094); Coal Mining (SIC code 12 except SIC code 1241); Electric Utilities (SIC codes 4911, 4931, 4939). Agency Contact: Susan B. Hazen Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 7408 Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 260-1024 Fax: 202 401-8142 Email: hazen.susan@epamail.epa.gov RIN: 2070-AD09 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA ----------- PROPOSED RULE STAGE ----------- 108. TOXICS RELEASE INVENTORY (TRI): REVIEW OF CHEMICALS ON ORIGINAL TRI LIST Priority: Other Significant Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 42 USC 1101 et seq CFR Citation: 40 CFR 372 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: When TRI was established by Congress in 1986, the statutory language placed 309 chemicals and 20 categories of chemicals on the TRI list; that is referred to as the original TRI list. The chemicals on the original list were taken from two existing lists of toxic substances: the Maryland Chemical Inventory Report List of Toxic or Hazardous Substances, and the New Jersey Environmental Hazardous Substances list. This action constitutes the first systematic review of toxicology and environmental data for all the chemicals on the original TRI list to determine whether data for those chemicals conform with the statutory criteria for listing of chemicals on TRI. Chemicals for which data do not meet the statutory criteria will be delisted. Statement of Need: When chemicals on the original TRI list have been subjects of petitions for delisting, thorough reviews have been carried out of toxicity and environmental data for the chemicals to determine whether the chemicals should be retained on TRI or should be delisted. Although petitions for delisting have resulted in reviews of a substantial number of chemicals on the original TRI list, this action is the first systematic review of toxicity and environmental data for all the chemicals on the original list. This action is needed to ensure that TRI lists chemicals for which data on toxicity and environmental harm meet the statutory criteria, therefore justifying the burden placed on entities required to report for the TRI program. Summary of the Legal Basis: Section 313(d) of EPCRA authorizes EPA to add or delete chemicals from the TRI list, and sets forth criteria for these actions. Alternatives: EPA recognizes the reporting burden inherent in compliance with TRI, and takes all reasonable opportunities to minimize the burden while ensuring that the public receives information necessary for protection of health and the environment. Reporting burdens would be reduced if chemicals are taken off the TRI list as a result of the data review. The possibility that chemicals will be delisted as a result of the data review is an alternative to retaining chemicals on the TRI list. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The anticipated costs to industry related to this action are unknown at present. Costs to industry would be reduced if chemicals are removed from the TRI list. Benefits would result from any reduction in reporting burden as a result of the delisting of a chemical. [[Page 57146]] Risks: TRI provides information to industry, governments and the public on chemicals that can cause harm to health or the environment. The review of toxicology and environmental data for all chemicals on the original TRI list will ensure that the list focuses only on those chemicals that pose meaningful possibilities of risks to human health or the environment, increasing the effectiveness of the TRI. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 07/00/98 Final Action 12/00/98 Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions Government Levels Affected: State, Federal Sectors Affected: 495 Sanitary Services; 516 Chemicals and Allied Products; 517 Petroleum and Petroleum Products; 738 Miscellaneous Business Services Additional Information: SAN No. 4015. OTHER AFFECTED SECTORS: Identify the affected industry(ies) and provide the SIC code(s): Manufacturing industries in SIC codes 20-39 plus the following industries and SIC codes: Metal Mining (SIC code 10 except SIC codes 1011, 1081, and 1094); Coal Mining (SIC code 12 except SIC code 1241); Electric Utilities (SIC codes 4911, 4931, 4939). Agency Contact: Myra Karstadt Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 7408 Washington, DC, 20460 Phone: 202 260-0658 Fax: 202 401-8142 Email: karstadt.myra@epamail.epa.gov Susan B. Hazen Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 7408 Washington, DC, 20460 Phone: 202 260-1024 Fax: 202 401-8142 Email: hazen.susan@epamail.epa.gov RIN: 2070-AD18 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 109. TRI CHEMICAL EXPANSION; FINALIZATION OF DEFERRED CHEMICALS Priority: Other Significant Legal Authority: 42 USC 11013; 42 USC 11023; 42 USC 11048; 42 USC 11076; Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act sec 313 CFR Citation: 40 CFR 372 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: On November 30, 1994, EPA added 286 chemicals and chemical categories to the EPCRA section 313 list, including 39 chemicals as part of two delineated categories. Each chemical and chemical category was found to meet the statutory criteria described in EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(A)- (C). At the time, EPA deferred final action on 40 chemicals and one chemical category until a later date. These were deferred because the comments received on them raised difficult technical or policy issues which required additional time to address. EPA chose not to delay final action on the 286 chemicals and chemical categories because the additional time needed to address the issues surrounding the smaller group of 40 chemicals and one chemical category; rather, EPA believed it to be in the spirit of community right-to-know to proceed with the final rulemaking of the addition of the 286 chemicals and chemical categories. Statement of Need: The original Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) chemical list consisted of 320 chemicals and chemical categories. In an effort to provide the public with a broader picture of chemicals in their communities, EPA, in accordance with EPCRA section 313(d), is expanding the original toxic chemical list. By providing the public with information on these chemicals they can participate in informed environmental decisionmaking to reduce risks to human health and the environment. On January 12, 1994 (59 FR 1788), EPA published a proposed rule to add 313 chemicals and chemical categories to the TRI chemical list. Of the 313 chemicals and chemical categories proposed, there are approximately 160 pesticide active ingredients. The chemicals being proposed were selected from numerous other regulatory lists and meet the criteria for human health and environmental toxicity in EPCRA section 313(d)(2). In addition, the chemicals passed a production volume screen to ensure that reports would be received if they are added to the TRI list. Part of this activity included the review of 17 chemicals, previously described in RIN 2070-AC40/SAN 3007. Sixteen of these chemicals are from a list of hazardous air pollutants subject to requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and one was considered for addition due to its extreme aquatic toxicity. Of these 17 chemicals nine were included in the proposed rule. Summary of the Legal Basis: EPCRA section 313(d) authorizes EPA to add or delete chemicals from the TRI list and sets forth the criteria for these actions. Alternatives: EPA recognizes the reporting burden inherent in TRI, and is continuing to take every reasonable opportunity to minimize this burden while ensuring the public's right-to-know. As such, all alternatives will be identified and evaluated. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The final total costs are not yet known, since the final listing decisions have not yet been made. However, estimates of the potential costs were provided as part of the economic analysis that was prepared for the proposed action. Undoubtedly, the addition of any of these chemicals or the chemical category will result in additional costs to the reporting community. The additional information reported in TRI increases the public's knowledge regarding the levels of pollutants released to the environment and pathways of exposure, improving scientific understanding of the health and environmental risks of toxic chemicals. It allows the public to make informed decisions on where to work and live; enhances the ability of corporate lenders and purchasers to more accurately gauge a facility's potential liabilities; and assists Federal, State, and local authorities in making better decisions on acceptable levels of toxics in communities. Risks: With more information, communities will be empowered to determine whether they need to take action to reduce risks potentially associated with [[Page 57147]] the chemicals being released in their communities. Without such information, local communities would not be aware of potential risks to the environment and human health that may result from the chemical releases of local facilities. The public can also use this data to evaluate potential risks from these chemicals and to determine how to avoid these risks. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 59 FR 1788 01/12/94 Final Finalizes 59 FR 61432286 chemicals and chemical categorie11/30/94 Supplemental NPRM Deferred Chemicals 04/00/98 Final Deferred Chemicals 12/00/98 Small Entities Affected: Businesses Government Levels Affected: State, Federal Sectors Affected: 20 Food and Kindred Products; 21 Tobacco Products; 22 Textile Mill Products; 23 Apparel and Other Finished Products Made from Fabrics and Similar Materials Additional Information: SAN No. 3007. Includes SIC codes 10 (except 1011, 1081, 1094); 12 (except 1241); 20- 39, 4911; 4931; 4939; 4953; 5169; 5171; and 7389 Agency Contact: Susan B. Hazen Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 7408 Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 260-1024 Email: hazen.susan@epamail.epa.gov RIN: 2070-AC47 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 110. TSCA INVENTORY UPDATE RULE AMENDMENTS Priority: Other Significant Legal Authority: 15 USC 2607(a) CFR Citation: 40 CFR 710 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: This action would amend the current Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Update Rule (IUR) to require chemical manufacturers to report to EPA data on exposures and the industrial and consumer end uses of chemicals they produce. Currently, EPA requires chemical manufacturers to report the names of the chemicals they produce, as well as the locations of manufacturing facilities and the quantities produced. About 3,000 facilities reported data on about 9,000 unique chemicals during the last reporting cycle under the IUR. Data obtained would be used by EPA and others to: better understand the potential for chemical exposures and then screen the chemicals now in commerce and identify those of highest concern; establish priorities and goals for their chemical assessment, risk management and prevention programs and monitor their progress; encourage pollution prevention by identifying potentially safer substitute chemicals for uses of potential concern; and enhance the effectiveness of chemical risk communication efforts. EPA has held meetings with representatives of the chemical industry, environmental groups, environmental justice leaders, labor groups, State governments and other Federal agencies to insure public involvement in the TSCA Inventory Update Rule Amendments Project. Statement of Need: There are approximately 70,000 chemicals in commerce and listed on the updated TSCA Inventory. EPA faces the challenge of sorting through these chemicals to identify the ones of most concern and then taking action to mitigate unreasonable risks. The current IUR collects some of the key data, such as production volumes, that help to identify chemicals of concern; however, information on how chemicals are used commercially, which is essential to determining possible exposure routes and scenarios and potential safer substitute chemicals, is not covered by IUR. This action will propose to modify the inventory update process so that data essential to an effective TSCA Inventory screening program are available to EPA. In addition to the specifics of the kind and format of the desired end use data reporting, EPA will consider reforms of the IUR: How to include inorganic chemicals, which have been exempted from reporting in the past, so that risks from these chemicals can be better assessed and managed; How to ease the linkage of amended IUR data to other environmental data sources like the Toxic Release Inventory to enhance the data's usefulness; and How to change IUR reporting so that the frequency of submitter confidentiality claims is reduced so that the public can have better access to relevant data on toxics. A national report will make data collected via the amended IUR publicly available. This report will not contain any information claimed to be confidential. Alternatives: Although data on the use of specific chemicals can be found in varying sources, there is no national, comprehensive, current searchable database providing consistent information on a wide variety of chemicals. EPA has examined alternate sources of the information including state information, Federal databases and privately collected information. EPA can find no information comparable to the data anticipated to be collected through amendments to the IUR. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: EPA anticipates costs of this action to be well under $100 million for the first year of reporting. Total costs of this action depend on the amendments to IUR that are contained in a proposed rule. The amended IUR will assist EPA in screening chemicals in commerce and identify those of highest concern; establishing priorities and goals for its chemical assessment, risk management and prevention programs and monitor their progress; identifying potentially safer substitute chemicals for uses of potential concern; and enhancing the effectiveness of chemical risk communication efforts. Risks: This action will secure data on describing how chemicals in commerce are used; this data is essential to determine possible exposure routes and scenarios. Using these exposure estimates, EPA's toxics program will be able to better focus on chemical risks of most concern. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 05/00/98 Small Entities Affected: Businesses [[Page 57148]] Government Levels Affected: Federal Additional Information: SAN No. 3301. Agency Contact: Susan Krueger Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (7406) Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 260-1713 Email: krueger.susan@epamail.epa.gov RIN: 2070-AC61 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 111. DATA EXPANSION AMENDMENTS; TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE REPORTING; COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Legal Authority: 42 USC 11013; Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act sec 313; 42 USC 11023; 42 USC 11048; 42 USC 11076 CFR Citation: 40 CFR 372 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The original Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) required reporting from manufacturing facilities on the releases and transfers of toxic chemicals and wastes including waste treatment and disposal methods. This requirement was imposed under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) section 313(g). Information on waste management practices, including recycling, energy recovery, and source reduction activities, were added to TRI pursuant to the 1990 passage of the Pollution Prevention Act. EPA is currently considering whether additional data elements related to a mass balance/materials accounting program should be considered for incorporation into the TRI database. The additional data elements included for consideration include: quantity brought on site; quantity produced on site; quantity consumed on site; quantities manufactured, processed or otherwise used; quantity contained in or as product; quantity stored on site as waste, and beginning and ending raw materials inventory. The issue of collecting mass balance/materials accounting information has been debated for over a decade. Congress, in enacting EPCRA, directed the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study this issue further. NAS recommended that the issue of adding materials accounting data merited further analysis. Statement of Need: TRI is the most complete and accessible source of information for the public on toxic chemical releases in communities across the United States. The intention of Congress was for TRI, and indeed all of EPCRA, to provide information to local communities. Communities need this information to better understand the nature of the releases at the local level. The intent of TRI has been to share information on releases with local communities to help in their assessments of the risks. This basic local empowerment is the cornerstone of the right-to- know program. Yet TRI would be enhanced by collecting chemical use/ materials accounting data. This additional data would provide the public with the information to measure source reduction progress, better participate in pollution prevention planning, identify source reduction opportunities and follow the flow of toxic chemicals into the community, through the manufacturing process and leaving the plant not only as transfers and releases, but also in products. Materials accounting information also allows a method of checking data reported to TRI, provides a better picture for regulatory integration and can be used for others objectives such as research and priority-setting. Congress gave EPA the authority to expand TRI, both in terms of the data reported and the facilities required to report, because it recognized that the American public has a right to know what is happening to the environment near their homes, schools, and businesses. Summary of the Legal Basis: 42 USC 11013; 42 USC 11023; 42 USC 11048; 42 USC 11076; EPCRA Sec. 313 Alternatives: EPA recognizes the reporting burden inherent in TRI, and is continuing to take every reasonable opportunity to minimize this burden while ensuring the public's right-to-know. As such, all available alternatives will be identified and evaluated. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The anticipated costs related to this action are unknown at present. At this point the Agency is still unsure about what data elements need to be added to TRI, whether this data will even need to be collect or is already available and therefore is unable to estimate any costs. The information reported in TRI increases the knowledge levels of pollutants released to the environment and pathways to exposure, improving scientific understanding of the health and environmental risks of toxic chemicals; allows the public to make informed decisions on where to work and live; enhances the ability of corporate lenders and purchasers to more accurately gauge a facility's potential liability; and assists Federal, State, and local authorities in making better decisions on acceptable levels of toxics in communities. Risks: Currently communities do not have access to chemical use/ materials accounting data on the TRI. By adding such data to the TRI the public will have a more complete picture of the use and distribution of toxic chemicals in their communities as well as potential risks that might result from such use. The public will also be able to better assess how pollution prevention activities may be reducing potential risks in their communities. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ ANPRM 61 FR 51322 10/01/96 NPRM 08/00/98 Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions Government Levels Affected: Federal Sectors Affected: 495 Sanitary Services; 516 Chemicals and Allied Products; 517 Petroleum and Petroleum Products; 738 Miscellaneous Business Services Analysis: Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Additional Information: SAN No. 3877. OTHER SECTORS AFFECTED: Manufacturing industries in SIC codes 20-39 plus the following industries and SIC codes: Metal Mining (SIC code 10 [[Page 57149]] except SIC codes 1011, 1081, and 1094); Coal Mining (SIC code 12 except SIC code 1241); Electric Utilities (SIC codes 4911, 4931, 4939). Agency Contact: Susan B. Hazen Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 7408 Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 260-1024 Fax: 202 401-8142 Email: hazen.susan@epamail.epa.gov RIN: 2070-AD08 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 112. TRI; ADDITION OF OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION TO THE TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801. Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4. Legal Authority: 42 USC 11013; EPCRA 313; 42 USC 11023; 42 USC 1108; 42 USC 11076 CFR Citation: 40 CFR 372 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The original Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) required reporting from facilities in Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20-39. These SIC codes cover manufacturing facilities only. This requirement was specified under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) section 313(b)(1)(A). EPCRA section 313(b)(1)(B) and (b)(2) provide the Administrator with the authority to add or delete SIC codes and the discretion to add particular facilities based on a broad set of factors. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently expanded this original list of covered industries. EPA is beginning analyses to determine whether facilities which perform exploration and production of oil and gas should also be added to the list of facilities covered under EPCRA section 313. Facilities recently added include certain electric generating facilities, waste management facilities, metal and coal mining, hazardous waste treatment facilities, solvent recyclers, and wholesale distributors of chemicals and petroleum products. Statement of Need: The Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) was passed to better plan for and prevent chemical accidents and emergencies and to provide the public with access to information regarding the release and disposition of toxic chemicals in their communities. The public access requirements of EPCRA originally covered facilities operating within the manufacturing sector. It has come to EPA's attention that industry groups not classified within the manufacturing sector also manage toxic chemicals and that information concerning their management practices is limited and not publicly available. EPA believes that activities conducted by oil and gas exploration and production facilities involve toxic chemicals and may be associated with wastes that are managed for which limited information is publicly available. EPA believes that information related to the management of wastes associated with oil and gas exploration and production activities may significantly contribute to the public's knowledge of the release and disposition of toxic chemicals in the environment. Summary of the Legal Basis: This requirement was specified under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) section 313(b)(1)(A). EPCRA section 313(b)(1)(B) and (b)(2) provide the Administrator with the authority to add or delete SIC codes and the discretion to add particular facilities based on a broad set of factors. The statute as originally passed required reporting from facilities in Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20-39 only. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently expanded this original list of covered industries. Alternatives: Based on currently available information, existing sources of information are incomplete and do not satisfy the need of making publicly available information on the release and disposition of toxic chemicals in communities. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: Based on the current status of the project, anticipated costs are unknown. Estimated costs for compliance with EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements are available, but until further evaluation is completed no estimates are available for the impact of the resulting requirements. Equally true, until further evaluations are performed, estimated benefits cannot be accurately calculated. Generally, anticipated benefits will be in the form of making available more complete information regarding the release and disposition of toxic chemicals in the environment. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 09/00/98 Final 08/00/99 Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions Government Levels Affected: State, Federal Sectors Affected: 13 Oil and Gas Extraction Analysis: Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Additional Information: SAN No. 4023. Program is implemented at the Federal level. States are designated as co-recipients of the information, but are not required to manage the information in any particular manner. Agency Contact: Tim Crawford Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 7408 Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 260-1715 Fax: 202 401-8142 Email: crawford.tim@epamail.epa.gov Maria J. Doa Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 7408 Washington, DC, 20460 Phone: 202 260-9592 Fax: 202 401-8142 Email: doa.maria@epamail.epa.gov RIN: 2070-AD19 [[Page 57150]] _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 113. TRI; POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 42 USC 11013; Pollution Prevention Act CFR Citation: 40 CFR 372 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: Section 6607(b) of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA)(Pub.L. 101-508) requires the addition of several data elements to the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) reporting requirements as promulgated under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) (Pub.L. 99-499). Section 313 of EPCRA requires owners or operators of certain facilities that manufacture, process or otherwise use listed toxic chemicals to annually report their releases of these chemicals to each environmental medium. The PPA mandates that section 313 covered facilities also report on source reduction and recycling activities relating to the toxic chemicals beginning with the 1991 reporting year. Since 1991, covered facilities have been providing this information to EPA in section 8 of EPA's Form R. On September 25, 1991 (56 FR 48475), EPA proposed regulations which would provide definitions and instructions for reporting the PPA data elements on the Form R. EPA intends to issue a supplemental proposal to amend certain aspects of the 1991 proposed rule, as well as seek comment on a few new proposals. Statement of Need: TRI is the most complete and accessible source of information for the public on toxic chemical releases in communities across the United States. The intention of Congress was for TRI, and indeed all of EPCRA, to provide information to local communities. Communities need this information to better understand the nature of the releases at the local level. The intent of TRI has been to share information on toxic chemical releases with local communities to help in their assessments of the potential risks associated with such releases. This basic local empowerment is the cornerstone of the right-to-know program. Beginning with the 1991 reporting year, the PPA has mandated the collection of source reduction and recycling information on the Form R. Without complete instructions and definitions for the terms used, facilities across the nation have been reporting this information inconsistently. These inconsistencies severely compromise the data quality of the information reported. This action will improve the understanding, awareness, and decision-making related to the collection, provision, and distribution of these required data elements. Summary of the Legal Basis: Section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 requires the reporting of pollution prevention data under the TRI program established by section 313 of EPCRA. In order to collect data of good quality, EPA must provide instructions and definitions to ensure consistency in the interpretation of the various words and phrases used by the PPA. Alternatives: EPA recognizes the reporting burden inherent in TRI and the PPA, and is continuing to take every reasonable opportunity to minimize related burdens, while ensuring the public's right-to-know. Providing guidance to facilities on how to properly report the PPA data will reduce their overall reporting burden. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: EPA estimates that industry currently incurs a cost of $61.3 million annually to report PPA data on the Form R. This estimate does not include the costs related to the seven industries newly subject to EPCRA 313. The cost to EPA to process source reduction and waste management data equals $2.7 million each year. This action is not expected to add to these existing costs, and may actually result in a reduction to the overall industry burden and costs . Risks: Because of the inconsistencies in the PPA data currently reported on the Form R, communities are unable to accurately compare the risks related to release and recycling activities between different facilities. By providing covered facilities with clear guidance for reporting this information, the public will be better equipped to determine and compare the risks associated with toxic chemicals being released and managed in their community. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 56 FR 48475 09/25/91 Supplemental NPRM 04/00/98 Final 12/00/98 Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions Government Levels Affected: State, Federal Sectors Affected: 516 Chemicals and Allied Products; 517 Petroleum and Petroleum Products; 738 Miscellaneous Business Services Analysis: Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Additional Information: SAN No. 2847. Affected Sectors Include: SIC 10 (except 1011, 1081,1094); 12 (except 1241); 20-39; 4911; 4931; 4939; 4953; Agency Contact: Susan B. Hazen Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 7408 Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 260-1024 Fax: 202 401-8142 Email: hazen.susan@epamail.epa.gov RIN: 2070-AC24 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 114. SELECTED RULEMAKINGS FOR ABATING LEAD HAZARDS Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Legal Authority: 15 USC 2683; PL 102-550 [[Page 57151]] CFR Citation: 40 CFR 745 Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, April 28, 1994, (Sections 402(a) - 403 - 404). Other, Statutory, October 28, 1994, See additional information. Abstract: The Residential Lead-Based Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 requires EPA to promulgate a number of regulations intended to address lead poisoning in the U.S. EPA is to promulgate regulations to (a) identify the paint conditions and lead levels in dust and soil that would result in adverse human health effects (Section 403) (on July 14, 1994, EPA issued guidance to provide preliminary information while a proposal is being developed); (b) promulgate regulations (section 402(a)) governing lead-based paint activities to ensure that individuals engaged in such activities are properly trained, that training programs are accredited, and that contractors engaged in such activities are certified (in addition, EPA must promulgate a Model State program (section 404) which may be adopted by any State which seeks to administer and enforce a State Program); (c) promulgate regulations (section 406) requiring renovators to provide a lead hazard information brochure (developed separately by EPA) to clients before beginning work; (d) promulgate, with HUD, regulations (section 1018) that require the following before the sale or lease of pre-1978 housing: disclosure of lead-based paint hazards, provisions of a lead-paint information brochure to the prospective buyer or renter, and for buyers, and the opportunity to conduct a lead risk assessment or inspection; and (e) promulgate regulations (section 402(c)(3)) addressing lead risks from renovation and remodeling activities or state why no regulation is necessary. Statement of Need: Childhood lead poisoning is a pervasive problem in the United States, with almost a million young children having more than 10 ug/dl of lead in their blood, Center for Disease Control's level of concern. Elevated blood-lead levels can lead to reduced intelligence and neurobehavioral problems in young children, as well as causing other adverse health effects in children and adults. Although there have been dramatic declines in blood-lead levels due to reductions of lead in paint, gasoline, and food sources, remaining paint in older houses remains the significant source of childhood lead poisoning. These rules are designed to reduce exposure to that source in a targeted and sensible manner. Alternatives: Alternatives to each of the mandated activities will be analyzed. However, in many cases (particularly regulations written under Sections 406 and 1018) the statute is very prescriptive. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: For rules promulgated under section 406 cost estimates have been provided with the proposed rule, and will be available with the final rule. For sections 402, 404 and 1018, the costs have been provided in the final economic impact analysis that was prepared in conjunction with the final rules. For section 403, costs will still need to be estimated in a draft economic impact analysis that will be prepared for the proposed rule. Since benefits depend on private sector implementation of certain lead hazard abatement activities which are not mandated by any of these rules, benefits will be difficult to quantify. Risks: These rules are aimed at reducing the prevalence and severity of lead poisoning, particularly in children. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM Section 40659 FR 11108 03/02/94 NPRM Sections 4059 FR 458724 (Residential) 09/02/94 NPRM Section 10159 FR 54984 11/02/94 Final Section 1061 FR 9064 03/06/96 Final Sections 461 FR 4577804 (Residential) 08/29/96 Final Section 406(b) 12/00/97 NPRM Section 403 02/00/98 NPRM Section 402(a) (Debris) 03/00/98 NPRM Sections 402(a)(3)/404(h) 08/00/98 NPRM Section 402(a) (Public/Commercial) 12/00/98 NPRM Section 402(c) 12/00/98 Final Section 402(a) (Debris) 12/00/98 Final Section 402(a) (Public/Commercial) 12/00/99 Final Section 402(c) 12/00/99 Final Section 403 12/00/99 Final Sections 402(a)(3)/404(h) 02/00/00 Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal Additional Information: SAN No. 3243. Lead Hazard Standards (section 403)(RIN 2070-AC63) SAN 3244 - Lead-Based Paint Activities Rules: Training, Accreditation and Certification Rule and Model State Plan Rule (Sections 402 and 404(RIN: 2070-AC64). SAN 3242 - Lead-Based Paint Disclosure Requirements at Renovation of Target Housing (section 406)(RIN: 2070-AC65). SAN 3499 - Lead-Based Paint Hazard Information Requirements at the Transfer of Target Housing: Joint with HUD (Section 1018)(RIN: 2070- AC75) Lead-Based Paint Activities, Training, and Certification: Renovation and Remodeling (section 402(c)(3))(RIN: 2070-AC83). Legal Deadlines: Statutory: (sections 403; 402; 404) Final: Statutory April 28, 1994 (sections 403; 402; 404), Other Statutory: (sections 406; 1018) Final; Statutory; October 28, 1994 (sections 406; 1018); Final Statutory; October 28, 1996 (Section 402(c)(3)). Additional Legal dateline information: Fin. Stat. (Sec. 1018; 406(b)); Fin. Stat.: 10/28/96 (Sec. 402(c)); Fin. Stat.: 08/30/98 (Sec. 404(h); 402(a)(3)). Agency Contact: Doreen Cantor Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 7404 Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 260-1777 Email: cantor.doreen@epamail.epa.gov RIN: 2070-AD06 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 115. NPDES STREAMLINING RULE--ROUND III Priority: Other Significant Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 33 USC 1311; Clean Water Act sec 301; 33 USC 1312; Clean Water Act sec 302; [[Page 57152]] 33 USC 1314; Clean Water Act sec 304; 33 USC 1316; Clean Water Act sec 306; 33 USC 1318; Clean Water Act sec 308; 33 USC 1342; Clean Water Act sec 402; 33 USC 1361; Clean Water Act sec 501 CFR Citation: 40 CFR 122; 40 CFR 123; 40 CFR 124 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: On February 21, 1995, President Clinton issued a directive requesting that Federal agencies review their regulatory programs to eliminate any obsolete, ineffective, or unduly burdensome regulations. In response to that directive, EPA plans to issue several rulemaking packages to revise NPDES requirements in parts 122, 123, and 124 to eliminate redundant regulations, provide clarification, and remove or streamline unnecessary procedures. Revisions under consideration in this rule include adding additional permit modifications that can be considered minor modifications at 122.63, and changes to requirements concerning EPAs review of State permits. Other revisions may be considered as work on this rule progresses. This rulemaking is expected to affect entities which implement the NPDES program or are regulated by it. This includes small businesses and State, Tribal and local governments. Most of these effects are expected to be deregulatory or streamlining in nature. This rulemaking is in the very early stages. Statement of Need: This is in response to the President's directive. Summary of the Legal Basis: This action is not being taken as a result of a court order and is not required by law. Alternatives: Rulemaking is in too early a stage for there to be alternatives. However, alternatives will be considered later on. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: Rulemaking is expected to provide benefits in costs and labor to regulated entities and permitting authorities. Rule is not expected to impose substantial costs. Risks: Risk is expected to be minimal. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 09/00/98 Final 09/00/99 Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal Additional Information: SAN No. 3786. Agency Contact: Thomas Charlton Environmental Protection Agency Water 4203 Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 260-6960 Fax: 202 260-1460 RIN: 2040-AC84 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 116. STREAMLINING THE GENERAL PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS FOR EXISTING AND NEW SOURCES OF POLLUTION Priority: Other Significant Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 33 USC 1314; Clean Water Act sec 304; 33 USC 1317; Clean Water Act sec 307; 33 USC 402(b)(8); Clean Water Act sec 402(b)(8); 33 USC 1361; Clean Water Act sec 501 CFR Citation: 40 CFR 403 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The National Pretreatment Program was established in 1972. The Office of Water is exploring ways to reduce federally mandated activities under the program that don't result in benefits to the environment and to improve program efficiencies. For example, this rule will consider appropriate exclusions or variable requirements for numerous smaller facilities that contribute insignificant amounts of pollutants. Statement of Need: Many POTWs and smaller industrial users have identified problems with the effectiveness of some requirements of the Pretreatment Program. Reducing the administrative and monitoring costs for these entities will provide greater flexibility in the use of program resources to achieve environmental protection. Summary of the Legal Basis: This action is not required by law or court order. Alternatives: None known. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: Undetermined as of this date; a very preliminary estimate of the burden reduction is 10-20% of the total annual burden (a net reduction of 176,000 - 350,000 hours). Risks: None known. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 12/00/97 Final 12/00/98 Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal Additional Information: SAN No. 3663. Agency Contact: Jeff Smith Environmental Protection Agency Water 4203 Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 260-5586 RIN: 2040-AC58 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 117. REVISION OF NPDES INDUSTRIAL PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS AND FORM 2C--WASTEWATER DISCHARGE INFORMATION Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined [[Page 57153]] Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 33 USC 1342; Clean Water Act sec 402 CFR Citation: 40 CFR 122.21(g) Legal Deadline: None Abstract: All existing manufacturing, commercial, mining, and silvicultural operations requiring a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit must submit an application in order to obtain a permit. The existing industrial application form has not been revised since 1984 and needs to be updated to reflect statutory and regulatory changes in the NPDES program, advances in analytical methods and an increased emphasis on toxic control. The purpose of this action is to revise and consolidate existing application forms and requirements for industries, and to streamline the permit application process for these facilities. The Agency seeks to establish a unified process that minimizes the need for additional information from applicants while providing permit writers the necessary information, including toxics data, to ensure that permits adequately address concerns of permittees and environmental protection. The Agency will seek to allow the use of existing data to the extent possible and to avoid unnecessary reporting. The Agency is also considering how to utilize electronic data submission. Although these forms will increase the burden on permittees not already required to provide these data, many other permittees are already required to submit the data. The Agency is reviewing ways to minimize the need for information from small dischargers, including tribal facilities. EPA will also seek to minimize and reduce the burden on States through improvements to the application forms. Statement of Need: Section 402(a) of the CWA, as amended, authorizes the EPA to issue permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits program for the discharge of any pollutants or combination of pollutants. Form 2C is the NPDES permit application for discharges from manufacturing, commercial, mining and silviculture operations. Form 2C has not been revised since 1984 despite many amendments to the CWA and to the regulations under the Act which have significantly changed the permitting strategy of the NPDES program. The proposed rule will finalize changes to the regulations at 122.21(d) and 122.21(g) and to Form 2C that will make a number of improvements to the Form 2C permitting process. The proposed rule will consolidate application requirements and clarify the process for permit applicants, therefore, reducing redundant reporting and reduce permitting burden on facilities. It will effectively provide permit writers with the information necessary to develop appropriate NPDES permits consistent with requirements of the CWA. Additionally, the proposed rule will meet the updated NPDES requirements, scientific advancements, and current socioeconomical concerns. Summary of the Legal Basis: Not required by law or court order. Alternatives: The Form 2C workgroup identified several key issues to be addressed and revised. For each key issue several options were suggested and consensus was reached on these options during an April, 1996 initial Form 2C workgroup closure meeting. The proposed rule reflects the options selected. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: It is anticipated that the rule will reduce permitting application burden to facilities and improve the permit writers ability to evaluate discharges because of improvements made to information and data submission requirements. Generally, it is anticipated that the rule will clarify the permitting application requirements. As a whole, such changes to the rule and Form 2C will enable it to serve its regulatory purpose more efficiently, thereby, benefitting the environment and human health. Risks: The application form rule will allow permit writers to better evaluate industrial discharges, and the better a permit writer can evaluate the discharge the better he or she can protect the environment and human health. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 03/00/98 Final 03/00/99 Small Entities Affected: Businesses Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal Additional Information: SAN No. 3234. Agency Contact: Ruby Cooper Ford Environmental Protection Agency Water 4203 Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 260-6051 RIN: 2040-AC26 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 118. COMPREHENSIVE NPDES STORMWATER PHASE II REGULATIONS Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801. Legal Authority: 33 USC 1311; Clean Water Act sec 301; 33 USC 1342; Clean Water Act sec 402; 33 USC 1361; Clean Water Act sec 501 CFR Citation: 40 CFR 122; 40 CFR 123 Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, November 25, 1997. Final, Judicial, March 1, 1999. Abstract: EPA will be proposing changes to the stormwater regulations for the remaining unregulated dischargers that require regulation. Also known as Phase II dischargers, these sources potentially could include all stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems serving populations of less than 100,000 and construction activities resulting in the land disturbance of less than 5 acres. Data collected under sections 305(b) and 402(p)(5) of the CWA indicate that benefits will be derived from addressing these discharges under the Phase II program. Urban stormwater runoff is a real cause of water quality use impairment. EPA has invited stakeholders to participate in the development of comprehensive Phase II [[Page 57154]] rules under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). This FACA subcommittee is assisting in the development of the rule. Currently, all Phase II dischargers are required to have stormwater permits by 2001. EPA is planning to limit the universe of designated Phase II sources and is planning to recommend an approach that would promote the use of general permits for most Phase II sources. The proposed changes would also provide regulatory relief by waiving Phase I facilities that have no exposure to stormwater from applicable requirements. Statement of Need: Data collected under sections 305(b) and 402(p)(5) of the CWA indicate that uncontrolled stormwater discharges from municipalities serving populations less than 100,000 and construction sites that result in the disturbance of less than 5 acres of land cause water quality use impairment. The proposed changes to the NPDES stormwater regulations would address these currently unregulated stormwater discharges. The proposed changes would also provide needed regulatory relief to Phase I facilities that have no exposure to stormwater and do not cause water quality use impairment. Summary of the Legal Basis: CWA section 402(p)(6) requires EPA, in consultation with States and local officials, to issue regulations for the designation of the remaining unregulated discharges to be regulated to protect water quality. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded EPA's de minimis exemption of construction sites below 5 acres and the no exposure exemption for category (XI) industrial facilities under the Phase I rule (NRDC v. EPA, 966 F.2d 1292 (9th Cir. 1992)). This remand requires EPA to examine construction sites below 5 acres for possible designation. EPA is also currently subject to a court order to propose supplemental rules under CWA section 402(p)(6) by November 25, 1997, and finalize these rules by March 1, 1999 (NRDC v. Browner, Civ. No. 95-634 PLF (D.D.C., April 6, 1995)). Alternatives: The proposed changes to the NPDES stormwater regulations are being developed with significant input from the FACA subcommittee. Alternative options, as well as successive drafts of the proposed changes, were distributed to FACA members for comment. The language of the proposed changes are the result of extensive stakeholder input. The Agency plans to solicit comments on alternative approaches in the preamble to the proposed rule. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: Undetermined as of this date. However, the no exposure waiver would reduce administrative and compliance costs for those Phase I facilities that have no exposure to stormwater. Risks: The proposed changes to the NPDES stormwater regulations will reduce adverse water quality impacts from stormwater thereby reducing risks to aquatic habitat and public health. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 11/00/97 Final 03/00/99 Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal Analysis: Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Additional Information: SAN No. 3785. Agency Contact: George Utting Environmental Protection Agency Water 4203 Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 260-9530 Fax: 202 260-1460 RIN: 2040-AC82 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 119. MANAGEMENT OF CLASS V INJECTION WELLS UNDER PART C OF THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Legal Authority: 42 USC 300h; Safe Drinking Water Act sec 1421 to 1425 CFR Citation: 40 CFR 144; 40 CFR 145; 40 CFR 146 Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, June 18, 1998. Final, Judicial, July 31, 1999. Abstract: In the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1987, Congress required that EPA protect current and future underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) from endangerment. The 1987 Report to Congress: Class V Injection Wells determined that certain types of high risk Class V wells may be contaminating, or have the potential to contaminate, USDWs. Through this regulatory action, EPA intends to propose additional requirements addressing the environmental and health threats posed by the highest risk Class V wells. Class V wells likely to be impacted by this regulation include industrial and commercial disposal wells and large capacity cesspools. Statement of Need: Class V wells vary from simple dry wells to complex geothermal wells; injected fluids range from storm water runoff to industrial process wastewater. Likewise, the potential risk posed by the different types of Class V wells varies. A well's potential to endanger Underground Sources of Drinking Water depends largely on its injection fluid quality and volumes, its proximity to the USDW, and its construction and operation. Class V wells that are used to dispose of industrial and commercial wastes present the greatest danger to USDWs. In most cases, industrial and commercial wastes are disposed of in shallow drywells and ``misused'' septic systems that release fluids in strata above USDWs. Cesspools, which inject untreated sanitary wastes, also have a high potential to endanger USDWs. Class V wells currently are subject to only two major requirements. First, owners or operators of Class V injection wells are prohibited from allowing the movement of fluid that contains any contaminant into USDWs if the presence of that contaminant may cause a violation of any primary drinking water standards. Second, the owner or operator must submit inventory information. While all Class V wells are subject to these general provisions of non-endangerment, instances of ground water contamination from high risk Class V wells have occurred across the country pointing to the need for more specific requirements. Summary of the Legal Basis: This action is required by Consent Order (Civil Action No.93-2644 NHJ) filed with the U.S. District Court on January 28, 1997. [[Page 57155]] Alternatives: The Agency is considering proposing a geographically targeted Class V rule where the additional requirements would apply only to wells within Source Water Protection Areas around drinking water supply wells. Additionally, the Agency is considering a variety of management control measures to impose on the highest risk Class V wells. These measures could include best management practices, treatment options, and in some instances, bans on certain injection practices. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: Because the proposed rule has not completed final Agency review, cost and benefit information have not been completed and are therefore unavailable. Risks: Risks posed by Class V wells relate directly to other risks within the Agency's jurisdiction. Many Superfund sites with significant ground- water contamination are a result of uncontrolled discharges from certain Class V wells. Placing these wells under adequate regulatory controls by effective State UIC programs will serve to prevent future Superfund sites. Additionally the control of these wells directly affects other programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act such as the Source Water Protection Program. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 60 FR 44652 08/28/95 Reproposal 06/00/98 Final 07/00/99 Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal Additional Information: SAN No. 2778. Agency Contact: Lee Whitehurst Environmental Protection Agency Water 4602 Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 260-5532 RIN: 2040-AB83 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 120. MODIFICATIONS TO THE DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTE AND REGULATIONS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE RECYCLING: GENERAL Priority: Other Significant Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 42 USC 6905; Resource Conservation Recovery Act sec 1004; 42 USC 6921 to 6928; Resource Conservation Recovery Act sec 3001 to 3008 CFR Citation: 40 CFR 261; 40 CFR 266 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: Recycling of hazardous waste is governed by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste regulations. The portion of these regulations known as the Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) specifies whether hazardous materials that are recycled are subject to RCRA regulatory jurisdiction or not. Other parts of the regulations set forth requirements for managing recycled hazardous waste. This regulatory action will revise the hazardous waste recycling regulations to respond to concerns that they are overly complex, difficult to understand, and that they pose a barrier to safe hazardous waste recycling. Statement of Need: Revisions are needed to improve EPA's regulations for hazardous waste recycling by: (a) eliminating disincentives for the safe recycling of hazardous waste; and (b) developing simpler definitions and regulations. Summary of the Legal Basis: This action is not mandated by statute or court order. However, the Agency intends to address several court decisions by clarifying which recyclable materials are excluded from RCRA hazardous waste management requirements. Alternatives: The Agency has been developing two options to co-propose for regulating hazardous waste recycling, known as the Transfer-Based option and the In-Commerce option. The Agency presented the general outlines of these options to interested stakeholders and the public at a public meeting in November of 1996 (61 FR 55252). Generally, the Transfer-Based option would regulate those materials that are recycled or managed in certain identified ways (e.g., burned for energy recovery or managed on the land) and materials that are transferred to an off-site entity other than the generator for recycling. This option includes changes to the RCRA hazardous waste management regulations, particularly permitting, to streamline and simplify compliance for those materials that are regulated only because they are transferred to another off-site entity for recycling. The In-Commerce option would regulate only those materials that are recycled in certain identified ways (e.g., burned for energy recovery or managed on the land). These materials would be subject to the existing RCRA regulations for those activities. Based on preliminary analyses of the impacts of these two options and initial reactions from stakeholders, the Agency is at this time assessing potential revisions it may make to the options prior to publishing the proposal. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: Analysis of costs and benefits will be conducted as part of the economic analysis for this rule as required under Executive Order 12866. Risks: This action aims at more effective risk management by streamlining and tailoring management requirements for low-risk recyclers (including eliminating requirements that are redundant with other statutes). This will allow regulatory resources to be concentrated on those recyclers who engage in activities posing a greater threat to human health and the environment. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 07/00/98 Small Entities Affected: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: State, Tribal, Federal Additional Information: SAN No. 2872. [[Page 57156]] Agency Contact: Charlotte Mooney Environmental Protection Agency Solid Waste and Emergency Response 5304W Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 703 308-7025 RIN: 2050-AD18 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 121. MANAGEMENT OF CEMENT KILN DUST (CKD) Priority: Other Significant Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 42 USC 6903(5)(b); Resource Conservation Recovery Act sec 1004(5)(B); 42 USC 6912(a); Resource Conservation Recovery Act sec 2002(a); 42 USC 6921(a); Resource Conservation Recovery Act sec 3001(a); Resource Conservation Recovery Act sec 3001(b)(3); 42 USC 6924(x); Resource Conservation Recovery Act sec 3004(x) CFR Citation: Not yet determined Legal Deadline: None Abstract: CKD is a high volume material by-product of the cement manufacturing process. While it contains potentially hazardous constituents such as lead, cadmium and chromium, it has been exempted since November 1980 from hazardous waste regulation under RCRA Subtitle C by the Bevill Amendment, which modified Section 3001 of RCRA to exempt certain special wastes until further studies could be completed and any applicable regulations were promulgated. In December 1993, EPA submitted a Report to Congress with its findings on the nature and management practices associated with CKD. This was followed in January 1995 by an EPA regulatory determination published in the Federal Register (60 FR 7366, 2/7/95), which concluded that additional control of CKD is warranted. In the regulatory determination EPA committed to develop additional tailored regulations under RCRA Subtitle C and, if necessary, the Clean Air Act. As part of its regulatory development effort, the Office of Solid Waste within EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response has initiated further studies and has held informal discussions with stakeholders interested in regulations under RCRA Subtitle C for the management of CKD. The proposed regulations will be tailored to protect human health and the environment while limiting burden on the regulated community. Statement of Need: This action follows EPA's RCRA mandated regulatory determination on CKD, published in the Federal Register (60 FR 7366, 2/7/95), which concluded that additional control of CKD is warranted in order to protect human health, and to prevent environmental damage associated with current disposal practices for this waste. Alternatives: EPA will develop a range of landfill management standards for sensitive and non-sensitive environments, each involving protections for groundwater and air pathways. It is anticipated that the base standards would be performance based, and form the basis for a conditional exclusion from Subtitle C regulation. If an owner/operator complied with the base performance standards, his CKD waste would not be subject to Subtitle C regulation. Alternatively, an owner/operator could comply with default technical requirements under Subtitle C. It is anticipated that the conditions for exclusion and the default technical requirements would be similar and would include: fugitive dust controls, provisions and restrictions for landfills located in sensitive environments, groundwater monitoring requirements, performance standards for liners and caps, metals limits for CKD used as agricultural lime, and corrective action for currently active units. The Agency hopes to afford States considerable flexibility in setting and tailoring requirements in their own programs. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: Analysis of costs and benefits will be conducted as part of the economic analysis for this rule as required under Executive Order 12866. Risks: As explained in the regulatory determination for CKD, EPA believes that subjecting CKD waste to the full RCRA Subtitle C program would be prohibitively burdensome on the cement industry. EPA believes it is appropriate to apply only those components of Subtitle C that are necessary, based on our current knowledge of the cement industry and the human health and environmental concerns associated with CKD, thereby achieving a common sense result with respect to the hazards posed by CKD on a site-specific basis. EPA anticipates that any such standards would be designed to be protective, yet minimally burdensome, and may not necessarily apply to all facilities, or may not apply to all facilities in the same manner or to the same extent. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 02/00/98 Small Entities Affected: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Additional Information: SAN No. 3856. Agency Contact: Bill Schoenborn Environmental Protection Agency Solid Waste and Emergency Response 5306W Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 703 308-8483 RIN: 2050-AE34 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 122. WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT (WIPP) COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION RULEMAKING Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Legal Authority: PL 102-579 (as amended by PL 104-201) CFR Citation: 40 CFR 194 Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, October 31, 1997, Statutory. [[Page 57157]] Abstract: The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Land Withdrawal Act (Act), was signed by the President on October 30, 1992. The Act gives the EPA the authority to certify WIPP's compliance with standards developed by EPA for disposal of radioactive waste. This Act supplements EPA's authority, under the Atomic Energy Act and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, to establish environmental standards that protect the public and the environment from radioactive materials. The Act prescribed the framework for EPA's regulatory oversight of the WIPP disposal system. The Department of Energy (DOE) is developing the WIPP which is a potential geologic disposal facility for transuranic radioactive waste generated as by-products from nuclear weapons production. If the WIPP opens, waste will be stored approximately 2,100 feet underground in excavated, natural salt formations near Carlsbad, New Mexico. Before DOE can dispose of waste at the WIPP, it must demonstrate that the WIPP complies with EPA's radioactive waste disposal standards at subparts B and C of 40 CFR 191. DOE submitted its compliance certification application (CCA) to EPA on October 29, 1996, showing how the WIPP facility will meet the standards. The compliance criteria at 40 CFR 194, which are specific to the WIPP, will be used by EPA to implement the radioactive waste disposal standards. The purpose of this rulemaking is to certify, through the use of the compliance criteria, whether the WIPP complies with the disposal standards before waste disposal can begin. Upon receipt of the CCA in October 1996, EPA began reviewing the CCA for both completeness and technical adequacy. On November 15, 1996 the Agency published in the Federal Register, 61 FR 58499, and Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) announcing that the CCA had been received and announcing the Agency's intent to conduct a rulemaking to certify whether the WIPP facility will comply with the disposal regulations. The notice also announced a public comment period and EPA's intent to hold public hearings in New Mexico. In its preliminary review, EPA identified additional information necessary for the CCA to constitute a complete application. EPA requested additional information in a letter transmitted to DOE on December 19, 1996. DOE submitted the requested information in letters to EPA in January and February of 1997. On May 16, 1997, the Administrator informed the Secretary of DOE that the CCA was complete. The completeness determination was announced in the Federal Register on May 22, 1997, 62 FR 27996. EPA is required under the WIPP LWA S8(d)(1)(B) to certify compliance within one year after receipt of the Department of Energy's compliance certification application. Statement of Need: The DOE is developing the WIPP near Carlsbad in southeastern New Mexico as a potential deep geologic repository for the disposal of defense transuranic (TRU) radioactive waste currently being stored on Federal reservations in 10 states, including Washington, Ohio, Idaho, New Mexico, Tennessee, South Carolina, Nevada, and Colorado. TRU waste consists of materials containing one or more elements having atomic numbers greater than 92, in concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries of alpha-emitting TRU isotopes per gram of waste, with half-lives greater than twenty years. Most TRU waste consists of items that have become contaminated (e.g., rags, equipment, tools, and organic and inorganic sludges) as a result of activities associated with the production of nuclear weapons. TRU waste is often mixed with hazardous chemical constituents. Before beginning disposal of radioactive waste at the WIPP, DOE must demonstrate that the WIPP complies with the EPA's radioactive waste disposal standards at subparts B and C of 40 CFR 191. The WIPP LWA specifies that underground emplacement of transuranic wastes for disposal at the WIPP may not commence unless and until EPA makes a positive compliance certification decision. If the Agency certifies compliance, the WIPP LWA requires EPA to subsequently conduct periodic re-certifications of continued compliance throughout waste disposal operations (estimated to last about 30 years) at the WIPP. EPA published the final compliance criteria at 40 CFR 194 on February 1, 1996. DOE submitted its compliance certification application to EPA on October 29, 1996. The Agency is reviewing DOE's application and will make a decision as to WIPP's compliance with the disposal regulations. The WIPP compliance certification rule will be limited to consideration of the WIPP's compliance with the disposal regulations found in subparts B and C of 40 CFR 191 (which include containment requirements, assurance requirements, individual protection requirements, and groundwater protection requirements). Summary of the Legal Basis: Under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, of 1954, EPA has the responsibility to protect people and the environment from the harmful effects of ionizing radiation. In addition, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 provides EPA with the authority to establish standards for the protection of people and the environment from the effects of all radioactive materials. Finally, the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, as amended, of 1992 requires that EPA issue criteria to implement the Agency's radioactive waste disposal regulations specifically at the WIPP, and then certify, through use of such criteria, whether or not the WIPP complies with the regulations and should be allowed to open. Alternatives: The compliance certification rule is intended to determine whether or not the WIPP should be allowed to open. The Agency recognizes the uncertainty inherent in projections of the WIPP's performance during the 10,000-year regulatory period. Accordingly, the Agency requires a demonstration of a reasonable expectation that compliance will be achieved. This demonstration will be based on consideration of the entire application for certification submitted by DOE. The criteria against which the WIPP's compliance will be evaluated contain four subparts, consisting of: (1) subpart A, which specifies general administrative requirements with which DOE must comply during the compliance application and subsequent rulemaking processes. Requirements are specified which contain format and protocols for the submission of applications plus any subsequent suspension, revocation or modification of compliance status. (2) subpart B, which outlines the information necessary for inclusion with compliance applications. The criteria require DOE to analyze the performance of WIPP and predict release of waste, doses received by individuals and doses received through ground water. The criteria list the information needs for such assessments. Subsequent applications for determinations must note any changes in such information that might have occurred since initial certification. (3) subpart C, which implements the specific containment, assurance, individual and groundwater protection [[Page 57158]] requirements of the disposal standards of 40 CFR 191. To account for the likelihood of human activity and human intrusion into the repository during the 10,000- year regulatory period, the criteria specify how the frequency and consequences of such events shall be determined. The results of compliance assessments of individual and groundwater protection shall be expressed to show the likelihood of a given exposure or greater occurring. To increase confidence in performance and compliance assessments, the criteria specify requirements on quality assurance methodologies and characterization of radioactive waste proposed for emplacement in the repository. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The party primarily affected under this action is the DOE, owner and operator of the WIPP. The Agency prepared an Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) for the WIPP compliance criteria (40 CFR 194). This EIA estimated those costs imposed on the WIPP project in excess of those being incurred presently due to other applicable regulations or program requirements. While the total cost may have appeared sizeable, it did not appear to be so sizeable that it would have been significant as defined under the provisions of Executive Order No. 12866, i.e., more than $100 million per year. The portion of the criteria concerning human intrusion into the WIPP was the only potential contributor to significant increases in cost (i.e., as much as $20 million or less than one percent of the total cost; the total cost of the WIPP project is over $8 billion to date). Additional costs could be incurred if compliance could only be achieved through redesign of the repository or treatment of waste in order to reduce the likelihood and consequences of human intrusion. Risks: Because this regulation is not setting standards, but implementing an existing standard (40 CFR 191) and making a compliance decision, no analysis of risk has been performed. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ ANPRM 61 FR 58499 11/15/96 NPRM 10/00/97 Final 05/00/98 Small Entities Affected: None Government Levels Affected: Federal Additional Information: SAN No. 3873. Agency Contact: Mary Kruger Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation (6602J) Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 233-9025 Fax: 202 233-9626 RIN: 2060-AG85 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 123. IMPLEMENTATION OF OZONE AND PARTICULATE MATTER (PM) NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS) AND REGIONAL HAZE REGULATIONS Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801. Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4. Legal Authority: Clean Air Act of 1990, title 1, subpart 1 CFR Citation: 40 CFR 51; 40 CFR 81 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: EPA recently issued updated, new air quality standards for ozone (62 FR 38856) and particulate matter (PM) (62 FR 38652). Pursuant to President Clinton's directive as outlined in a memorandum to EPA Administrator Carol Browner, EPA is developing a plan for sensibly and cost- effectively meeting the new standards. This plan is being developed with significant stakeholder involvement provided through a committee established in September 1995 under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Consistent with the schedule outlined in a memorandum from President Clinton dated July 16, 1997, EPA will publish a combination of guidance and rules by the end of 1998 designed to give States, local governments and business the flexibility they'll need to meet protective public health standards in a reasonable, cost-effective manner. For ozone, the implementation plan will emphasize a regional, State- sponsored approach that addresses the long-distance transport of ozone. On October 10, 1997, EPA issued a proposal (sometimes referred to as the ``OTAG SIP call'') to require broad regional emissions reductions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) gases which contribute to the formation of ozone (which will appear shortly in the Federal Register). EPA will work with the affected States to develop a regional NOx emissions cap- and-trade program modeled after the program used to achieve sulfur dioxide reductions in the acid rain program. In order to help areas covered by EPA's regional plan avoid burdensome measures associated with non-compliance, EPA will create a new ``transitional'' classification. Areas that attain the 1-hour ozone standard but not the new 8-hour standard as of the time the EPA promulgates designations for the 8-hour standard could obtain this classification if they participate in a regional strategy and/or opt to submit early plans addressing the new 8-hour standard. Because many areas will need little or no additional new local emission reductions to reach attainment, beyond those reductions that will be achieved through the regional control strategy, and will come into attainment earlier than otherwise required, the EPA will exercise its discretion under the law to eliminate unnecessary local planning requirements for such areas. The EPA will revise its rules for new source review (NSR) and conformity so that States will be able to comply with only minor revisions to their existing programs in areas classified as transitional. In late October, EPA plans to identify areas that have air quality meeting the 1-hour air ozone standard, and revoke that standard for those areas. For PM2.5 (fine particles), the implementation approach will give businesses ample time to find the most cost-effective pollution controls. Another full scientific review of the health effects of fine particulates will be completed before any ``non-attainment'' designations are made or local controls mandated. EPA will allow five years to gather and analyze necessary data, and then use its discretion under the Clean Air Act to allow another three years for areas that are not in compliance to submit air quality plans on how they will meet the new standard. Following another year and a half for review of the plans, it will be several more years before many areas will actually have to [[Page 57159]] comply with the new standard for PM2.5. In the fall of 1997, EPA will publish a schedule for reviewing the PM2.5 standard. For PM10, the EPA is revising the current set of standards. Given that health effects from coarse particles are still of concern, the overall goal during this transition period is to ensure that PM10 control measures remain in place to maintain the progress that has been achieved toward attainment of the current PM10 NAAQS (and which provides benefits for PM2.5) and protection of public health. To ensure that this goal is met, the existing PM10 NAAQS will continue to apply until certain critical actions by the EPA, and by States and local agencies, have been taken to sustain the progress already made. For areas not attaining the existing PM10 NAAQS when the revised standards go into effect, those standards remain in effect until the EPA has completed a section 172(e) rulemaking to prevent backsliding. The EPA will propose this rulemaking in the fall of 1997. For areas attaining the existing PM10 NAAQS, the EPA will retain the existing PM10 NAAQS until the State submits and the EPA approves the section 110 SIP which States are required to submit within 3 years of a NAAQS revision. Once those areas have an approved SIP, the EPA will take action so the standard no longer applies. In addition, the EPA will take action within 3 years to designate areas for the revised PM10 standards. EPA's approach to addressing regional haze was proposed concurrently with the promulgation of the final ozone and PM NAAQS. The public comment period on this proposal closes on December 5, 1997. EPA plans to promulgate the regional haze rulemaking in the spring of 1998. Statement of Need: Development of programs for ozone and PM are necessary to implement the revised NAAQS under title 1 of the Clean Air Act. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: EPA's Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIA) for the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and the proposed regional haze rulemaking were released on July 17, 1997. This benefit-cost comparison was intended to generally inform the public about the potential costs and benefits that may result when revisions to the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS are implemented by the States. Costs and benefits of the proposed regional haze rule were included. Monetized benefit-cost comparisons were presented. Significant nonmonetized benefits are also expected. In considering these estimates, it should be stressed that these estimates contain significant uncertainties as discussed in the RIA. Estimated partial attainment benefits of the PM2.5 standard far outweigh estimated partial attainment costs. Estimated quantifiable partial attainment net benefits (benefits minus costs) of the PM2.5 standard range from positive $10 billion to positive $96 billion. Estimated quantifiable full attainment net benefits range from negative $17 billion to positive $73 billion. Estimated partial attainment quantified and monetized net benefits of the ozone standard range from negative $0.7 billion to positive $1.0 billion. Full attainment benefit estimates are smaller than full attainment cost estimates. Quantifiable net benefits for full attainment of the ozone standard are estimated to range from negative $8.1 billion to negative $1.1 billion. Estimated quantifiable net benefits from the proposed regional haze program range from $0 to positive $3.0 billion. Risks: On July 16, 1997, EPA issued updated air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter. The updated standards, when implemented, will provide cleaner air for 125 million people, including 35 million children. Benefits from the new, updated standards include reductions in premature mortality, aggravated asthma and cases of decreased lung function in children from exposure to these air pollutants. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ ANPRM 61 FR 65764 12/13/96 Notice of Propos61 FR 65752 12/13/96 Regional Haze Ru62 FR 41138l) 07/31/97 Notice Identifying Areas That Have Air Quality Meeting the 1-hour Ozone Standard 10/00/97 NOx Regional Strategy SIP Call (Proposal) 10/00/97 Review Schedule for PM2.5 Standard 10/00/97 Final Guidance on Implementing Pre-existing NAAQS 12/00/97 Conformity Rule for Transitional Areas (Proposal) 06/00/98 NSR Rule for Transitional Areas (Proposal) 06/00/98 Regional Haze Rule (Final) 06/00/98 Antibacksliding Rule Under Section 172(e) for Existing PM10 Standard (Final) 09/00/98 NOx Regional Strategy SIP Call (Final) 09/00/98 Conformity Rule for Transitional Areas (Final) 12/00/98 Final Implementation Guidance 12/00/98 NSR Rule for Transitional Areas (Final) 12/00/98 Antibacksliding Rule Under Section 172(e) for Existing PM10 Standard (Proposal) 00/00/00 Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal Analysis: Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Additional Information: SAN No. 3553. SAN No. 3552 for Regional Haze By Presidential Memorandum dated 07/16/97, EPA was directed to complete these rules by 12/31/98. Agency Contact: John Silvasi Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation OAQPS (MD-15) Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919 541-5666 Email: silvasi.john@epamail.epa.gov Chris Stoneman Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation OAQPS (MD-15) Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919 541-0823 Email: stoneman.chris@epamail.epa.gov RIN: 2060-AF34 [[Page 57160]] _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 124. CONSOLIDATED FEDERAL AIR RULE FOR THE SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY Priority: Other Significant Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 42 USC 7401 et seq CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60; 40 CFR 61; 40 CFR 63 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: Over the past 25 years, EPA has issued a series of national air regulations, many of which affect the same facility. Some facilities are now subject to five or six national rules, sometimes affecting the same emission points. Each rule has emission control requirements as well as monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements. These requirements may be duplicative, overlapping, difficult to understand or inconsistent. It is often difficult for plant managers to determine compliance strategies to satisfy all requirements and for State and local permitting agencies to determine the applicability of different requirements for permitting purposes. Resources are often wasted by both industry and states and localities in sorting out and complying with the panoply of multiple requirements. Moreover, as the Agency continues to issue new air toxics rules, as mandated by the CAA, the problem is compounded. All existing Federal air rules applicable to an industry sector will be reviewed to determine whether there provisions can be consolidated into a single new rule. Affected industries, state agencies, and other stakeholders will be consulted to identify duplicative and conflicting provisions and to provide assistance in drafting the single rule. The chemical industry and state representatives have agreed to work on a pilot project with EPA's air programs to explore this approach. If the approach is successful with the chemical industry, it will be expanded to air rules for other industry sectors. EPA will then consider extending this program to water and waste requirements. Statement of Need: Both industry and regulatory agencies have expressed a great desire to streamline and simplify rules. This rule streamlines and simplifies by consolidating and collapsing the numerous federal rules that apply to the chemical industry, with resulting improved compliances. Alternatives: The main alternative is to do nothing and let the many rules with their many provisions remain the only compliance mechanism. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: This rule will result in considerable savings to the affected industry. There is significant burden reduction associated with recordkeeping and reporting. The rule will be easier to follow and understand. There will be no change in applicability of the rules being consolidated. Risks: This rulemaking deals with consolidated reporting to simplify existing rules. The risks addressed by each of these existing rules were addressed in those individual rulemakings. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 11/00/97 Small Entities Affected: None Government Levels Affected: State, Federal Sectors Affected: 286 Industrial Organic Chemicals Additional Information: SAN No. 3748. Agency Contact: Rick Colyer Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation OAQPS (MD-13) Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919 541-5262 Fax: 919 541-3470 RIN: 2060-AG28 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 125. ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEVADA Priority: Other Significant Legal Authority: Energy Policy Act sec 801 CFR Citation: 40 CFR 197 Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, August 1, 1996. Abstract: This rulemaking is in response to section 801 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 which directs the Administrator to promulgate public health and safety standards for protection of the public from releases from radioactive materials stored or disposed of in the repository at the Yucca Mountain site. The only regulated entity is the U.S. Department of Energy. Statement of Need: In 1985, the Agency issued generic standards for the management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 mandated the study of Yucca Mountain, Nevada to determine its suitability to be a repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act of 1992 exempted Yucca Mountain from coverage under the 1985 generic standards. Concurrently, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 gave EPA the responsibility of setting site-specific, radiation-protection standards for Yucca Mountain. Summary of the Legal Basis: The legal authority is derived from the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Alternatives: Since this action is legally mandated, there are no alternatives. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: Since the potential cost is dependent upon several factors whose determination has not yet been made, a precise assessment of the economic impact of the rulemaking is not possible at this time. Likewise, the benefits, i.e., the adverse effects averted (which are required to complete a cost-benefit analysis), cannot be determined [[Page 57161]] in a meaningful manner at this time since the effect of these standards is to avert potential adverse health effects that may occur during very long periods into the future and are, therefore, quantifiable only with a high degree of uncertainty. Risks: The potential risks which would be allowed under these standards is dependent upon the level of protection and the regulatory time frame which is selected. Since the standards have not yet been proposed, it is not possible to estimate the potential risks. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 10/00/97 Final 01/00/98 Small Entities Affected: None Government Levels Affected: Federal Additional Information: SAN No. 3568. Agency Contact: Ray Clark Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation 6602J Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 233-9198 Fax: 202 233-9626 Email: clark.ray@epamail.epa.gov RIN: 2060-AG14 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 126. INTEGRATED NESHAP AND EFFLUENT GUIDELINES: PULP AND PAPER Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801. Legal Authority: 42 USC 7412; 42 USC 7414; 42 USC 7601; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 sec 112; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 sec 114; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 sec 301; 33 USC 1314; 33 USC 1316; 33 USC 1317; 33 USC 1318; 33 USC 1361; Clean Water Act sec 301; Clean Water Act sec 304; Clean Water Act sec 306 to 308; Clean Water Act sec 501 CFR Citation: 40 CFR 63; 40 CFR 430 Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 15, 1997. Abstract: The Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990 direct the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing sources under section 112 and to base these standards on maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The Clean Water Act (CWA) directs EPA to develop effluent guidelines for certain categories and classes of point sources. These guidelines are used for setting discharge limits for specific facilities that discharge to surface waters or municipal sewage treatment systems. For the pulp and paper industry, EPA is developing an integrated regulation that includes both effluent guidelines and air emission standards to control the release of pollutants to both the water and the air. The regulations are being developed jointly to provide greater protection to human health and the environment, to promote the concept of pollution prevention, and to enable the industry to more effectively plan compliance via a multimedia approach. This Regulatory Plan entry also includes RIN 2040-AB53, Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category, reported in full in part III of this issue of the Federal Register. Statement of Need: This action will limit surface water discharges of toxic, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants and emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from pulp and paper mills. The NESHAP will limit the release of HAPs such as chloroform, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and methanol. The effluent guidelines will limit the discharge of dioxin, furan, and other toxic and conventional pollutants to rivers and other surface waters. The Statutory authorities and deadlines are cited above. Additionally, EPA is required to promulgate these effluent guidelines to satisfy a provision in a Consent Decree entered in settlement of Environmental Defense Fund and National Wildlife Federation v. Thomas, Civ. No. 85-0973 (D.D.C.). Alternatives: Both the CAA and the CWA specify that these regulations be established on a technology basis. The CAA specifies that MACT for existing sources can be no less stringent than the average emission limitations achieved by the best-performing similar source. The CWA specifies that effluent limitations guidelines and standards be based on specific technology levels, such as the best available technology economically achievable. For the integration of air and water standards, EPA developed regulatory alternatives from combinations of process changes and pollution control technologies. The Agency considered the combined costs and impacts of these alternatives while remaining responsive to the statutory requirements under both laws. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The proposed integrated air and water rules comprise effluent guidelines for all pulp and paper mills and MACT standards for the noncombustion sources at all Kraft, soda, sulfite, and semi-chemical pulp and paper mills. The Agency plans to propose MACT standards for the chemical recovery combustion sources at these mills at the same time the Agency promulgates the integrated air and water rules. For the rulemaking components that have been proposed, the Agency estimated total annualized costs of $600 million (1992 dollars). The types of benefits associated with the proposed integrated rule include improvements to air and water quality and reduced human health risks. The estimated reductions in HAP emissions exceed 120,000 tons per year. An estimated reduction in volatile organic compound emissions of 700,000 tons per year and a reduction in total reduced sulfur emissions of 300,000 tons per year are also projected to occur as a result of the proposed integrated rule. Projected reductions in specific toxic pollutant effluent discharges are approximately 2,800 tons per year; conventional pollutant reductions of over 200,000 tons per year are projected. Some categories of the benefits can be expressed in monetary terms; they are in the range of $160 million to $980 million. The Agency has received extensive public comments and new data since proposal and is in the process of revising these cost and pollutant reduction estimates. Risks: Two types of pollutants found in pulp and paper wastestreams, dioxin and furan, are of particular concern due to their carcinogenic risk and their toxicity to aquatic life. Reducing the discharge and emission of these and other toxic pollutants reduces the exposure risks to human health and the environment. [[Page 57162]] Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM NESHAP Phas61 FR 9383nchemical and Other Mills 03/08/96 NPRM NESHAP Phase II - Combustion Sources 10/00/97 Final NESHAP Phases I and III and Effluent Guidelines Phase I 10/00/97 Final All NESHAP Phases 09/00/98 Final NESHAP Phase II - Combustion Sources 09/00/98 Final Effluent Guidelines Phase III - Dissolving Grade 03/00/99 Small Entities Affected: Businesses Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Federal Additional Information: SAN No. 3105 (Air) and SAN No. 2712 (Water). ADDITIONAL AGENCY CONTACT: Jeff Teleander (Combustion Sources) ADDITIONAL AGENCY CONTACT: Elain Manning (Nonchemical and other Pulp and Paper Mills) SAN No. 2712 (Water) was formerly listed under RIN 2040-AB53. Agency Contact: Penny Lassiter Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation MD-13 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919 541-5396 Donald F. Anderson Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation Office of Water, 4303 Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 260-7189 RIN: 2060-AD03 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA ----------- FINAL RULE STAGE ----------- 127. PESTICIDES; SELF-CERTIFICATION Priority: Other Significant Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 7 USC 136 to 136y CFR Citation: 40 CFR 152 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is evaluating self- certification as a possible approach to reinventing the registration process for pesticides. The goal of this effort is to simplify, speed up, and increase the efficiency of the registration process while maintaining protection to human health and the environment. Statement of Need: EPA registers pesticides for sale and use in the United States under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA has issued rules, notices, and guidance which specify how applicants may obtain approval for registration of pesticide products. Against a backdrop of declining resources and a continuous workload of pesticide applications, EPA is examining many possible ways of reinventing the registration process to handle applications faster, more efficiently, and with fewer resources. One of these approaches is self- certification, a concept in which a registrant may certify that a registration application (or part of it) complies with Agency requirements and may then obtain EPA approval for the registration after an abbreviated review or no review at all. EPA has several projects that are exploring the possible use of self-certification in different ways. First, EPA has reinvented the process by which registrants may accomplish amendment of products by notification or nonnotification. The revised process allows a registrant to certify that an application for amendment meets EPA's criteria as a low-risk amendment. This revised process is described in PR Notice 95-2 (May 31, 1995). To formally implement this type of self-certification, EPA has also revised existing rules (40 CFR 152.44 and 152.46) on notifications and nonnotifications. Second, self-certification of product chemistry data is being considered as a means of reducing the number of studies reviewed by EPA in connection with registration applications. This voluntary program would allow registrants to submit a brief summary of the physical chemical properties of a product, rather than submitting the data. A draft PR Notice was made available for public comment on February 4, 1997 (62 FR 5228), and a final PR Notice is expected to be issued in the Fall of 1997. Alternatives: Various alternatives to self-certification are being actively pursued by EPA for reinventing or improving the registration process, including, but not limited to, reviews with the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, issuing guidance for acceptable acute toxicity data, exempting certain active ingredients from registration, developing computer software to standardize precautionary labeling, publishing a manual describing all labeling requirements, automating certain documents, piloting electronic labeling, making labeling policy documents publicly available, and developing internal guidance on how to process ``fast track'' registrations. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: EPA does not intend to perform cost analyses on self-certification per se, but will qualitatively evaluate the potential costs and benefits of different kinds of self-certification. Risks: EPA will determine whether self-certification will help or hinder protection of human health and the environment. EPA will not adopt any self-certification measure which does the latter. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ Final Notificati61 FR 33039 06/26/96 Draft PR Notice 62 FR 5228fication of Product Chemistry Data 02/04/97 [[Page 57163]] Final PR Notice Self-Certification of Product Chemistry Data 12/00/97 Small Entities Affected: Businesses Government Levels Affected: State, Federal Additional Information: SAN No. 3932. Agency Contact: Jeff Kempter Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 7505C Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 703 305-5448 Email: kempter.jeff@epamail.epa.gov RIN: 2070-AD00 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 128. PESTICIDES AND GROUND WATER STATE MANAGEMENT PLAN REGULATION Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801. Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect State, local or tribal governments. Legal Authority: 7 USC 136a; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act sec 3 CFR Citation: 40 CFR 152.170 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: This regulation would establish State Management Plans (SMPs) as a new regulatory requirement for certain pesticides. Absent an EPA-approved SMP specifying risk-reduction measures, use of the chemical would be prohibited. The rule would also specify procedures and deadlines for development, approval and implementation of SMPs. Statement of Need: EPA is proposing regulations to make specific pesticides subject to the provisions of EPA-approved State Management Plans (SMPs) because of their strong ground-water contamination potential. The rule will also establish SMPs as an ``other regulatory restriction'' and defines the minimum requirements and procedures for developing, approving and managing SMPs. Upon promulgation of this rule, the labels of the designated pesticides will be changed to require use in conformance with EPA-approved SMPs, and to prohibit sale and use in States without such approved Plans (after a period allowed for development and EPA review of these Plans). An SMP is a State's commitment to EPA and the public to manage the use of a certain pesticide in such a way as to avoid unreasonable risks to ground water that would otherwise warrant cancellation of the use. An approved plan will embody a combination of educational, scientific, and regulatory tools to fulfill the State's ground-water protection goals, developed through a process of public participation. A plan will include a process for disseminating this information to pesticide users and marketers, and for monitoring the effectiveness of the plan through the development of appropriate indicators of environmental improvement and/or protection. Summary of the Legal Basis: The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) generally requires EPA to regulate pesticide use in such a manner as to prevent unreasonable risks to human health and the environment. Specifically, 7 USC 136a authorizes EPA to prescribe by regulation ``other regulatory restrictions'' for pesticides that may generally cause unreasonable risks to the environment (such as those that are associated with ground-water contamination potential) without those restrictions. Alternatives: This Rule is a direct outgrowth of the Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy, published in October 1991 (after extensive consultation with States, localities, and other affected stakeholders). In publishing the Strategy EPA conducted an analysis of three different alternatives to the regulation of pesticides' ground-water risks. One option was to rely exclusively on orthodox national-level pesticide regulatory tools (tantamount to a ``baseline''), which would entail tolerating or remediating a certain level of ground-water contamination. At the other extreme, outright cancellation of candidate pesticides with significant ground-water contamination potential was considered to provide full assurance that no further ground water contamination would occur (taking into account the high economic losses due to the removal of the pesticide from the market). The analysis concluded that a ``partnership'' approach, providing a mechanism for more tailored management of pesticide use (i.e., taking into account the prevailing influence of highly variable hydrologic ``sensitivity'' factors), would be simultaneously a more effective and least costly alternative. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: EPA anticipates four categories of costs entailed in requiring SMPs. Federal Program Costs are those of administering ground-water protection activities, such as the review of State proposals. State Program Costs entail both capital and annual costs. Registrant and Pesticide-user Impacts are the economic losses ascribed to the reduced use of the classified pesticides, as well as the costs (to the registrants) of complying with Federal and State provisions. Benefits accrue from the reduced levels of pesticide residues in ground water, and a corresponding reduction in: 1) human and ecological risk (see below); and 2) threats to the economic and intrinsic values of the ground-water resource. Enormous uncertainties attend the quantification of these benefits, however. Risks: The pesticides under consideration are those most frequently detected (and frequently detected at concentrations exceeding health-based reference points) of currently-registered pesticides, and display physical and chemical characteristics associated with a ground-water contamination potential. The level of potential contamination (and related risk to both human health and the environment) represent a potential unreasonable risk to the environment in the absence of local management measures. State management measures are expected to avert these risks substantially. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 61 FR 33259 06/26/96 Final 06/00/98 Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal [[Page 57164]] Analysis: Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Additional Information: SAN No. 3222. Effective Date will be 3 years after promulgation. Agency Contact: Arthur-Jean B. Williams Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 7506C Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 703 305-5239 Email: williams.arty@epamail.epa.gov RIN: 2070-AC46 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 129. POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS) DISPOSAL AMENDMENTS (SECTION 610 REVIEW) Priority: Other Significant Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 15 USC 2605(e); Toxic Substances Control Act sec 6(e) CFR Citation: 40 CFR 761 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: This rulemaking will make over 50 modifications, additions, and deletions to the existing PCB management program under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). A notice of proposed rulemaking was published on December 6, 1994 and covered the manufacture (including import) processing, distribution in commerce, export use, disposal, and marking of PCBs. Statement of Need: This rulemaking is the first comprehensive review of the PCB regulations in the 19-year history of the program. The Agency has become aware of a number of instances where the existing regulations do not allow for activities which do not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment or where they require unreasonable, unrealistic, or non-cost-effective solutions to PCB problems. Summary of the Legal Basis: TSCA section 6(e) bans the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce and use (except in a totally enclosed manner) of PCBs. It also directs EPA to establish standards for disposal and marking of PCBs. However, section 6(e) allows the EPA to modify these bans, through rulemaking, where it finds no unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment. Alternatives: On December 6, 1994, EPA proposed a number of alternatives to the existing statutory bans in section 6(e). The proposal also included new options and standards for disposal (including remediation) of PCBs. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The EPA projects significant cost savings from authorizations for existing uses and the disposal of large-volume wastes such PCB- contaminated environmental media. In addition, the relaxation of certain administrative requirements should increase the speed of remediation of contaminated sites and accelerate the removal from use of PCBs. EPA projects minimal implementation costs and is reviewing comments which highlight areas for additional cost savings over the proposal. Risks: The EPA estimates that millions of tons of PCB-contaminated environmental media will be remediated under this rule, thus preventing large quantities of this long-lived, bioaccumulating chemical from entering the food chain. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ ANPRM 56 FR 26738 06/10/91 NPRM 59 FR 62788 12/06/94 Final 12/00/97 Small Entities Affected: Businesses Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal Analysis: Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Additional Information: SAN No. 2878. Agency Contact: Tony Baney Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 7404 Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 260-3933 Email: baney.tony@epamail.epa.gov RIN: 2070-AD04 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 130. STREAMLINING THE STATE SEWAGE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS Priority: Other Significant Legal Authority: 33 USC 1345(f); Clean Water Act sec 405(f) CFR Citation: 40 CFR 123; 40 CFR 501 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The requirements for States seeking authorization of their sewage sludge programs are set out at 40 CFR parts 123 (for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs) and 501 (for non-NPDES programs). These requirements were modeled on the NPDES requirements for authorization of wastewater effluent discharge programs. Many States manage sewage sludge through their solid waste programs, which are often structured differently from NPDES programs. As a result, States may not always be able to meet all the requirements of parts 123 or 501. The Agency wants States with well-run sewage sludge management programs to be eligible for authorization without having to make unnecessary administrative changes to their programs. Proposed changes would streamline the existing regulations to ease the authorization process for States and ensure that decisions are made based on true environmental and public health considerations. Statement of Need: EPA wants States with well-run biosolids management programs to be able to become authorized without having to make unnecessary administrative changes to their programs. This rule will streamline the current regulations to ease the authorization process for States. [[Page 57165]] Summary of the Legal Basis: This action is not required by law or court order. Alternatives: Several drafts were distributed for wide-spread comment. These drafts ranged from minimum changes to very extensive revisions. The proposed alternative was a compromise based on comments. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: There are no anticipated costs to this rule. It provides States with additional flexibility in complying with pre-existing rules. The anticipated benefits are that more States will become authorized to manage the Federal biosolids program. Risks: This rule should not have any effect on risks to public health, safety, or the environment since it is a rule to streamline program management requirements. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 62 FR 11270 03/11/97 Final 12/00/97 Small Entities Affected: None Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal Additional Information: SAN No. 3788. Agency Contact: Wendy Bell Environmental Protection Agency Water 4203 Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 260-9534 RIN: 2040-AC87 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 131. NPDES STREAMLINING RULE--ROUND II Priority: Other Significant Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 33 USC 1311; Clean Water Act sec 301; 33 USC 1314; Clean Water Act sec 304; 33 USC 1312; Clean Water Act sec 302; 33 USC 1316; Clean Water Act sec 306; 33 USC 1318; Clean Water Act sec 308; 33 USC 1342; Clean Water Act sec 402; 33 USC 1361; Clean Water Act sec 501 CFR Citation: 40 CFR 122; 40 CFR 123; 40 CFR 124; 40 CFR 125 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: On February 21, 1995, President Clinton issued a directive requesting that Federal agencies review their regulatory programs to eliminate any obsolete, ineffective, or unduly burdensome regulations. In response to that directive, the Office of Wastewater Management plans to issue a comprehensive rulemaking package revising certain NPDES requirements in parts 122, 123 and 124 to eliminate redundant regulations, provide clarification, and remove or streamline unnecessary procedures which do not provide any environmental benefits. Some of these revisions include: 1) consolidating regulatory definitions; 2) removal of Part 124 Subpart F non-adversary panel hearings; 3) possible removal of storm water group application requirements; 4) streamlining permit termination procedures; and 5) removing Part 124 evidentiary hearing procedures. This rulemaking is expected to affect entities who operate the NPDES program or who are regulated by it. This includes small businesses and State and local governments. Most of these effects are expected to be deregulatory or streamlining in nature. Statement of Need: This rule is in response to the President's directive. Summary of the Legal Basis: This action is not being taken as a result of a court order and is not required by law. Alternatives: Alternatives are being considered as part of the proposed rule's comment review. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The proposed rule is expected to provide savings for the regulated entities and permit issuing authorities in respect to costs and labor. It is not expected to result in any increased costs to those entities. Risks: Risks to the environment are expected to be minimal. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 61 FR 65267 12/11/96 Final 12/00/97 Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal Additional Information: SAN No. 3762. Agency Contact: Thomas Charlton Environmental Protection Agency Water 4203 Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 260-6960 Fax: 202 260-1460 RIN: 2040-AC70 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 132. NPDES WASTEWATER PERMIT APPLICATION FORMS AND REGULATORY REVISIONS FOR MUNICIPAL DISCHARGES AND SEWAGE SLUDGE USE OR DISPOSAL Priority: Other Significant Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 33 USC 1342; Clean Water Act sec 402; 33 USC 1314; Clean water Act sec 304; 33 USC 1318; Clean Water Act sec 308; 33 USC 1345; Clean Water Act sec 405; 33 USC 1361; Clean Water Act sec 501 CFR Citation: 40 CFR 122.21(j); 40 CFR 122.21(g) Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The purpose of this action is to revise and consolidate existing application [[Page 57166]] forms and requirements for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) and other Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage (TWTDS), and to streamline the application process for these facilities. The Agency seeks to establish a unified process that minimizes the need for additional information from applicants while providing permit writers the necessary information, including toxics data, to ensure that permits adequately address concerns of permittees and environmental protection. The Agency seeks to allow the use of existing data and to avoid unnecessary reporting. The Agency is also considering how to utilize electronic data submission. Although these forms will increase the burden on permittees not already required to submit these data, the Agency is minimizing the need for information from small entities, including tribal facilities. The burden on States would be minimized because of improvements to the application forms. Statement of Need: Section 402(a) of the CWA, as amended, authorizes the EPA to issue permits for the discharge of any pollutant or combination of pollutants. The content of the application forms 2A/2S is derived from the requirements in proposed 122.21(j) and 122.21(q). Currently POTWs submit standard form A or short form A (based on size) for wastewater discharges and the interim sewage sludge application form for sludge discharges. EPA has not revised the wastewater forms since 1973, despite many amendments to the CWA and to the regulations under the Act which have significantly changed the permitting strategy of the NPDES program. Increased wastewater treatment required by the CWA has resulted in increased generation of sewage sludge. The interim sludge application form was developed in 1993 in response to regulatory changes to the part 503 sewage sludge regulations. This rule will finalize changes to the regulations at 122.21(j) and (q) and forms 2A and 2S to provide permit writers with sufficient data to develop appropriate permit limitations that will be effective in ensuring that permittees meet the requirements of the regulations. Summary of the Legal Basis: This action is not required by law or court order. Alternatives: In preparation of the proposed rulemaking several scenarios for data collection were evaluated for both 2A and 2S. EPA looked at several options for the collection in 2A including all POTWs reporting the maximum data elements. In the end the proposal required two levels of data collection for Form 2A. Proposed form 2S also evaluated various levels of data collection. In the proposed rule Class 1 facilities complete the most information and the sludge only facilities complete the least. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: This rule is a streamlining rule. It is anticipated that overall the final rule will decrease burden on facilities from the existing application burden. The burden reduction will come from streamlined application procedures which will decrease the number of 308 letters necessary. The costs of the final rule will be decreased from the proposal. The proposed rule costs included a lot of testing which has been eliminated in the final. Risks: The application forms rule will allow permit writers to better evaluate discharges from POTWs and other TWTDS. The better the permit writer can evaluate the discharge the better he can protect the environment and public health with appropriate limits and necessary conditions in the permits. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 60 FR 62545 12/06/95 Final 02/00/98 Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal Additional Information: SAN No. 2501. Agency Contact: Robin Danesi Environmental Protection Agency Water 4203 Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 260-2991 RIN: 2040-AB39 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 133. NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS: STAGE I DISINFECTANT/ DISINFECTION BYPRODUCTS RULE Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801. Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect State, local or tribal governments. Legal Authority: 42 USC 300; Safe Drinking Water Act sec 1412 CFR Citation: 40 CFR 141; 40 CFR 142 Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 1998. Abstract: The 1996 SDWA amendments require EPA to promulgate an Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) and a Stage 1 Disinfectants/ Disinfection Byproducts (DBP) Rule by November 1998. EPA proposed both rules in 1994 as a result of formal regulatory negotiations. The regulations, along with a long-term ESWTR and Stage 2 DBP Rule that will be promulgated later, are intended to expand existing public health protections and address concerns about risk trade-offs between pathogens and disinfection byproducts. EPA is working under an expedited schedule to meet the November 1998 deadline for the final IESWTR and Stage 1 Rule. The Agency plans to issue a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) for public comment in the fall of 1997 as part of this schedule. The M/DBP Advisory Committee (established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)) met from March through July 1997 to discuss, evaluate and provide advice on data, analysis and approaches to the NODA and develop consensus recommendations on a number of key elements in the rule. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: Cost-benefit data is under development and will be available as part of the Fall 1997 NODA. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 59 FR 38668 07/29/94 Notice of Data Availability 11/00/97 Final 11/00/98 [[Page 57167]] Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal Analysis: Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Additional Information: SAN No. 2772. Agency Contact: Tom Grubbs Environmental Protection Agency Water 4607 Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 260-7270 RIN: 2040-AB82 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 134. NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS: INTERIM ENHANCED SURFACE WATER TREATMENT RULE Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801. Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect State, local or tribal governments. Legal Authority: 42 USC 300; Safe Drinking Water Act sec 1412 CFR Citation: 40 CFR 141; 40 CFR 142 Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 1998. Abstract: The 1996 SDWA amendments require EPA to promulgate an Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) and a Stage 1 Disinfectants/ Disinfection By-Products (DBP) Rule by November 1998. EPA proposed both rules in 1994 as a result of formal regulatory negotiations. The regulations, along with a long-term ESWTR and Stage 2 DBP Rule that will be promulgated later, are intended to expand existing public health protections and address concerns about risk trade-offs between pathogens and disinfection byproducts. EPA is working under an expedited schedule to meet the November 1998 deadline for the IESWTR and Stage 1 Rule. The Agency plans to issue a Notice of Data Availability for public comment in the fall of 1997 as part of this schedule. The Agency has also established a committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to assist in development of the rules. The M/DBP Advisory Committee met from March through July to discuss, evaluate and provide advice on data, analysis and approaches to be included in the NODA to be published in November 1997. On July 15, the Committee formally reached consensus and signed an agreement that includes recommendations to EPA on a number of key rule elements. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: Cost-benefit data is under development and will be available as part of the Fall 1997 NODA. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 59 FR 38832 07/29/94 Notice of Data Availability 11/00/97 Final 11/00/98 Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal Additional Information: SAN No. 2304. Agency Contact: Elizabeth Corr Environmental Protection Agency Water 4607 Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 260-8907 RIN: 2040-AC91 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 135. REVISED STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE COMBUSTION FACILITIES Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Legal Authority: 42 USC 6924; Resource Conservation Recovery Act sec 3004; 42 USC 6925; Resource Conservation Recovery Act sec 3005; Clean Air Act sec 112; Clean Air Act sec 114 CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60; 40 CFR 63; 40 CFR 260; 40 CFR 261; 40 CFR 264; 40 CFR 265; 40 CFR 266; 40 CFR 270; 40 CFR 271 Legal Deadline: Final, Judicial, April 1998, Settlement agreement: industrial furnaces & incinerators 4/98 - boilers 12/99. Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) strategy for hazardous waste minimization and combustion and a judicial settlement agreement commit EPA to upgrade its standards for burning hazardous waste in incinerators, boilers, and industrial furnaces. These standards would be applicable during the construction and operation of these combustion facilities. Statement of Need: Under the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990, EPA is required to establish National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for most hazardous waste combustors (HWCs) (i.e., incinerators, cement kilns, boilers, and some types of smelting furnaces). In addition, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), EPA is required to establish standards for all HWCs as necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment. EPA is concerned that its current RCRA standards for HWCs may not be adequately protective given that the standards do not take into account indirect pathways of exposure and that there have been advances both in risk assessment and control technologies since promulgation of the current standards. Consequently, the Agency plans to establish new emissions standards for HWCs under joint CAA and RCRA authority. This will avoid duplicative Agency effort and piecemeal regulation of the hazardous waste combustion industry. Alternatives: Under provisions of the CAA, the Agency plans to consider the cost- effectiveness of emission limits more stringent than the minimum limits mandated by the statute. Further, the Agency plans to evaluate approaches to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants by improving good operating practices (e.g., controlling the way in which problematic materials such as toxic metals are introduced into the combustor). [[Page 57168]] Anticipated Costs and Benefits: EPA's analysis of the proposed rule indicates that some combustion facilities may experience a substantial change in the cost of burning waste, but that this change is likely to have a limited impact on combustion markets. In terms of effects on waste-burning cost structure, cement kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns (LWAKs) are most affected by the regulation. This is primarily a product of their relatively low baseline costs of burning, meaning that incremental compliance costs represent a large increase in their overall cost of burning waste. For incinerators, compliance costs are lower, represent smaller additions to baseline costs, and change little across regulatory options. The analysis concludes that cement kilns have the lowest waste burning costs even after regulation, and so will continue to have the greatest flexibility in marketing their services. To the extent that compliance costs cannot be passed through to generators and fuel blenders, the profitability of waste burning in kilns will fall. Nonetheless, waste burning kilns are expected to have healthy operating profit margins after the rule. Market exit in all sectors is concentrated among facilities that burn small quantities of hazardous waste. While as many as 98 combustion facilities may stop burning hazardous wastes as a result of the proposed MACT options, the small quantities these facilities burn suggest that market dislocations will be minor. Overall, the social costs of the rule are balanced by a set of potentially substantial benefits. Given the severity of the potential adverse health effects from dioxin and mercury (cancer, adverse developmental effects in children, severe neurological effects in adults, and bioaccumulation in ecosystems), EPA believes the substantial reductions of these pollutants from hazardous waste burning sources under the MACT standard justifies moving ahead with the proposed beyond the floor (BTF) option. An alternative way of valuing benefits is the potential increase in property values around closed or more stringently regulated combustion facilities. The fact that this approach also suggests potentially substantial benefits strengthens EPA's belief that the costs of moving forward with the proposed BTF option for certain pollutants and/or source categories are justified. Risks: EPA has estimated that hazardous waste incinerators and hazardous-waste burning cement and light weight aggregate kilns currently emit a total of 0.94kg toxicity equivalent (TEQ) of TCDD and TCDF (isomers of dioxin) per year. Therefore, hazardous waste burning sources represent about 9 percent of total anthropogenic emissions of dioxins in the U.S. EPA estimates that dioxin emissions from hazardous waste-burning sources will be reduced to 0.07kg TEQ per year at the floor levels and to 0.01kg TEQ per year at the proposed beyond the floor standard. These reductions would result in decreases of approximately 8 and 9 percent, respectively, in total estimated anthropogenic U.S. emissions. EPA expects that reductions in dioxin emissions from hazardous waste- burning sources, in conjunction with reductions in emissions from other dioxin-emitting sources, will help reduce dioxin levels over time in foods used for human consumption and, therefore, reduce the likelihood of adverse health effects, including cancer, occurring in the general population. EPA has estimated that hazardous waste incinerators and hazardous waste-burning cement and lightweight aggregate kilns currently emit a total of 10.1 Mg of mercury per year. Based on these estimates, hazardous waste-burning sources represent about 4 percent of total anthropogenic emissions of mercury in the U.S. EPA estimates that mercury emissions from hazardous waste-burning sources will be reduced to 3.3Mg per year at the proposed floor levels and to 2.0Mg per year at the proposed beyond the floor standard. These reductions would result in reductions of total anthropogenic U.S. emissions of approximately 3 percent. EPA expects that reductions in emissions from other mercury-emitting sources, will help reduce mercury levels in fish over time and therefore, fish consuming populations. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM Cement Kiln61 FR 17358ncinerators 04/19/96 Final MACT ``Fasttrack'' 02/00/98 Small Entities Affected: Businesses Government Levels Affected: State Additional Information: SAN No. 3333. Agency Contact: Larry Denyer Environmental Protection Agency Solid Waste and Emergency Response 5302W Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 703 308-8770 RIN: 2050-AE01 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 136. REQUIREMENTS FOR MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDOUS CONTAMINATED MEDIA COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS HAZARDOUS WASTE IDENTIFICATION RULE FOR CONTAMINATED MEDIA OR HWIR-MEDIA Priority: Other Significant Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 42 USC 6912(a); Resource Conservation Recovery Act sec 2002(a); 42 USC 6921; Resource Conservation Recovery Act sec 3001; 42 USC 6924; Resource Conservation Recovery Act sec 3004; 42 USC 6926; Resource Conservation Recovery Act sec 3006; 42 USC 6927; Resource Conservation Recovery Act sec 3007 CFR Citation: 40 CFR 260; 40 CFR 261; 40 CFR 264; 40 CFR 268; 40 CFR 269; 40 CFR 271 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The Agency's goal for the HWIR-media proposal was to provide significant relief from administrative and substantive obstacles for the management of remediation wastes, so that states and EPA could base waste management decisions on actual site conditions and waste characteristics, according to their professional judgment instead of strict national requirements that are not uniformly appropriate at all cleanup sites. The Agency wanted to reduce the overlap between RCRA and the Clean Water Act (CWA) or Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) [[Page 57169]] for dredging operations, and EPA was considering withdrawing the regulations for Corrective Action Management Units (CAMUs). Finally, an additional goal was to streamline state authorization. The Agency has decided on the general framework for finalization of the HWIR-media rule. The Agency plans to promulgate only targeted elements of the proposal rather than go forward with a more comprehensive approach. EPA plans to complement the targeted elements by leaving the CAMU regulations in place, rather than withdrawing these regulations as proposed. Targeted elements EPA plans to focus on are: alternative land disposal restriction treatment standards for hazardous contaminated soil; streamlined permitting for cleanup sites that would eliminate the requirements for facility-wide corrective action at cleanup-only sites; options for remediation piles that resolve issues raised in the public comments; and a RCRA exclusion for dredged materials managed under CWA or MPRSA permits. At this time, EPA is not planning to finalize the portions of the proposal which would have distinguished between lower- and higher-risk contaminated media and would have given regulatory agencies the flexibility to exempt lower-risk contaminated media from RCRA regulations. Statement of Need: Since 1980, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated comprehensive regulations under subtitle C of RCRA governing the treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation of hazardous wastes. These regulations have been designed to, among other things, discourage hazardous waste generation, and for those wastes generated, to prevent future environmental contamination by ensuring safe management and disposal. In contrast, the primary objective of the cleanup program is to achieve environmental improvement as quickly and effectively as possible. Although EPA conducted a lengthy outreach process before developing the HWIR-media proposal and tried to balance the concerns and interests of various stakeholder groups, it is now clear after reviewing public comment on the proposal that stakeholders have fundamental disagreements on many remediation waste management issues. EPA has concluded that pursuing comprehensive regulatory reform would be a time and resource intensive process that would most likely result in a rule that would provoke additional years of litigation and associated uncertainty. This uncertainty would be detrimental to the program and have a negative effect on ongoing and future cleanups. Based on these conclusions, the Agency has decided that a regulatory response will not solve the remediation waste management issues that HWIR-media was designed to solve. While EPA believes the targeted elements and corrective action management unit regulations would improve remediation waste management and expedite cleanups, the Agency also recognizes that additional reform is needed, especially for management of non-media remediation wastes like remedial sludges. The Agency will continue to participate in discussions on potential legislation to promote this additional needed reform. Alternatives: Alternative regulatory approaches for this rule were proposed and analyzed. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: Analyses of costs and benefits will be conducted as part of the economic analysis for this rule required under Executive Order 12866. Risks: One of the primary objectives of this rule is to establish requirements for management of contaminated media and other remediation wastes that more accurately reflect the risks posed by such wastes. Thus, the rule is expected to result in cleanups that achieve the Agency's risk reduction objectives in a more efficient and expeditious manner. More quantitative analysis of the risks associated with this rule will be included in the economic analysis. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 57 FR 21450 05/20/92 NPRM Withdrawn 57 FR 49280 10/30/92 NPRM 61 FR 18780 04/29/96 Final 06/00/98 Small Entities Affected: Businesses Government Levels Affected: State, Federal Additional Information: SAN No. 2982. Agency Contact: Carolyn Loomis Hoskinson Environmental Protection Agency Solid Waste and Emergency Response 5303W Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 703 308-8626 RIN: 2050-AE22 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 137. COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE MONITORING RULE (PREVIOUSLY ENHANCED MONITORING PROGRAM) Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801. Legal Authority: Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, sections 114(a)(3), 503(b),; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, section 504(b) CFR Citation: 40 CFR 64; 40 CFR 70; 40 CFR 71 Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 1992. NPRM, Judicial, September 30, 1993. Final, Judicial, October 4, 1997. Abstract: This action is required by the 1990 Clean Air Act (the Act) Amendments to assure better compliance with existing rules. This rule will require major stationary sources who must obtain permits under title V of the Act to conduct monitoring that provides reasonable assurance of ongoing compliance of the significant emission units with applicable requirements. Affected sources will use the monitoring data in conjunction with other compliance-related data to certify compliance with emission standards and other permit conditions. Statement of Need: The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require major stationary sources to provide ongoing monitoring and periodic certification of compliance. Current compliance data based on initial or periodic performance testing, provide only snapshots of the compliance status of stationary sources. Current minimal operation and maintenance monitoring of control technology performance, if applied, provides little assurance of continued good pollution control and little incentive for the source owner or operator to maintain or improve [[Page 57170]] performance. The compliance assurance monitoring (CAM) rule would require owners or operators of emission sources to increase awareness of the operational status of pollution control technology and to act on discrepancies in that operation to reduce emissions. Certification of compliance would be based on a combination of compliance testing or other compliance data and demonstration of continued good control technology performance and appropriate and timely corrective action. Alternatives: The CAM program is designed to assure ongoing compliance with requirements under the Act. If owners or operators are already required to determine continuous compliance with emission limitations or standards, that satisfies the purpose of CAM and no additional assurance of compliance is necessary. If these circumstances do not exist, CAM would use a two-pronged approach to assure compliance. First, CAM would require that owners or operations have reasonable information available to them that can indicate potential problems in emission control performance. Second, CAM would require that owners or operators act on that information in a timely fashion to avoid (if preventable) or reduce (if not preventable) emission control problems that could result in excess emissions. This type of monitoring does not need to be so rigorous as to determine exactly or predict emission levels, but rather should be sufficient to allow for reasonable optimization of the method used by a source to achieve ongoing compliance with emission limitations or standards under the Act. This approach is consistent with President Clinton's regulatory reform initiatives and EPA's Common Sense Initiative in that it focuses on preventing pollution rather than imposing additional command-and- control regulations on regulated sources. This represents a significant change in Agency direction for implementation of of the monitoring and compliance certification requirements in titles V and VII of the Act. The goal of CAM is to provide a reasonable assurance of compliance. Rather than a direct connection between monitoring and certification, CAM allows for an indirect, symbiotic relationship between these two methods for assuring compliance. The result of this change will be to reduce the emphasis on assuring compliance through the threat of enforcement. Instead, CAM emphasizes assuring compliance by placing the burden on regulated sources to monitor their performance and take proactive steps to minimize emission exceedances. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: In keeping with Executive Order 12866, EPA will prepare a detailed regulatory impact analysis (RIA) that will provide costs and benefits associated with the CAM rule. EPA believes that the adoption of CAM can result in tangible benefits for a facility. Although a self-monitoring program may not always be justified purely on the basis of economic benefit to a source, self- monitoring can, in some situations, reduce operating costs. For example, monitoring data can be used to increase combustion efficiency in an industrial boiler or to increase capture and reuse of solvents at a coating plant. The CAM approach will also alert owners or operators that potential control device problems may exist. The owner or operator can use this information to target control devices for routine maintenance and repair, and reduce the potential for costly breakdowns. The Agency also believes that the CAM approach will result in tangible benefits to the general public health and welfare. A primary benefit of CAM will be a reduction in overall emissions through increased compliance with the requirements of the Act. The key elements of CAM that will provide these reductions are (a) the emphasis on monitoring that alerts owners or operators to deteriorating control conditions and (b) the requirement that steps be taken to correct those conditions. This approach emphasizes minimizing emissions by avoiding or remedying as quickly as possible situations that may involve emissions in excess of applicable requirements. In addition to the direct environmental benefit of decreased emissions, increased compliance rates will also achieve a corollary economic benefit. As a general matter, increased compliance rates with existing rules will lower the long-term overall cost of air pollution control by decreasing the need for additional regulations to obtain necessary emission reductions, especially for nonattainment areas. Risks: Compliance Assurance Monitoring will apply to over 50,000 emission units nationally. The establishment of CAM requirements is estimated to impact about 97 percent of the emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds, as well as certain hazardous air pollutants such as benzene and mercury; exact reductions which will be obtained are yet to be determined. The CAM provisions will apply to existing Clean Air Act standards only; new regulations will incorporate continuous compliance monitoring provisions. As these new rules are developed, pollution reduction will be achieved beyond those obtained through CAM. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 58 FR 54648 10/22/93 Supplemental Pro59 FR 66844 12/28/94 Final Action 10/00/97 Small Entities Affected: None Government Levels Affected: None Additional Information: SAN No. 2942. Agency Contact: Peter R. Westlin Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation MD-19 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919 541-1058 RIN: 2060-AD18 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 138. NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM Priority: Other Significant Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Title I CFR Citation: 40 CFR 51.160 to 51.166; 40 CFR 52.21; 40 CFR 52.24 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The purpose of this action is to revise the Clean Air Act new source review [[Page 57171]] (NSR) regulations, which govern the preconstruction air quality review and permitting programs that are implemented by States and the Federal Government for new and modified major stationary sources of air pollution. This rulemaking will deregulate, that is, exclude from major NSR program requirements those activities of sources that, with respect to air pollution, have little environmental impact. The rulemaking will encourage pollution control and pollution prevention projects at existing sources. Control technology requirements will be clarified with respect to when and how they apply to sources that are covered. The action seeks to more clearly define the appropriate roles and requirements of sources, permitting authorities and Federal land managers and EPA in the protection of air-quality-related values in Federal Class I areas (i.e., certain national parks and wilderness areas) under the new source review regulations. State, local, and tribal permitting agencies will be given more flexibility to implement program requirements in a manner that meet their specific air quality management needs. Consequently, the rulemaking decreases the number of activities that are subject to NSR requirements and also expedites the permitting process for those sources that are subject to NSR. This action is designed to reduce the regulatory burden over all industries without respect to commercial size or capacity; therefore, it should have no detrimental impact on small businesses. Finally, this action also addresses several pending petitions for judicial review and administrative action pertaining to new source review applicability requirements and control technology review requirements. Regulations that will be affected are State implementation plan requirements for review of new sources and modifications to existing sources (40 CFR 51.160-166), the Federal prevention of significant deterioration program (40 CFR 52.21), and Federal restriction on new source construction (40 CFR 52.24) to be proposed in another rulemaking action. Statement of Need: In August 1992, EPA voluntarily initiated a comprehensive effort to reform the NSR process. This effort was initiated to examine complaints from the regulated community that the current regulatory scheme is too complex, needlessly delays projects, and unduly restricts source flexibility. Currently there are no applicable statutory or judicial deadlines for the NSR reform rulemaking effort. The goal of this effort is to address industries' concerns without sacrificing the environmental benefits embodied in the present approach; that is, protecting and improving local air quality, and stimulating pollution prevention and advances in control technologies. In July 1993, the New Source Review (NSR) Reform Subcommittee was formed under the auspices of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. The Subcommittee's purpose is to provide independent advice and counsel to EPA on policy and technical issues associated with reforming the NSR rules. The Subcommittee was composed of representatives from industry, State/local air pollution control agencies, environmental organizations, EPA headquarters and regions, and other Federal agencies (Federal Land Managers, National Park Service and Forest Service), Department of Energy, and the Office of Management and Budget). Summary of the Legal Basis: There are no applicable statutory or judicial deadlines for the NSR reform rulemaking effort. However, the rule will address two outstanding settlement agreements: CMA Exhibit B and Top-down BACT. The pending settlement on WEPCO may impose a judicial deadline on the rulemaking. Alternatives: The Subcommittee discussed numerous options for implementing NSR reform. However, EPA's primary focus will be to consider the specific recommendations developed by the Subcommittee and, where appropriate, use them in this rulemaking effort. In January 1996, EPA, as part of another regulatory streamlining measure, merged portions of a separate rulemaking to implement the 1990 CAA Amendments with the Reform effort. The combined package was proposed in the Federal Register on July 23, 1996. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: From a cost perspective, this rulemaking represents a decrease in applications and recordkeeping costs to industry of at least $13 million per year, as compared to the preexisting program, based primarily on the fact that fewer sources will need to apply for major source permits. In addition, the cost to State and local agencies will be reduced by approximately $1.4 million per year. The Federal Government should realize a savings of approximately $116,000 per year. Additional cost reductions, which are difficult to quantify, will be realized due to the streamlining effect of the rulemaking on the permitting process, for example, the opportunity costs for shorter time periods between permit application and project completion and reduced uncertainty in planning for future source growth. Risks: This is a procedural rule applicable to a wide variety of source categories. Moreover, it applies to criteria pollutants for which NAAQS have been established. This action is considered environmentally neutral. However, any potential risks are considered in the NAAQS rulemaking from a national perspective. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 61 FR 38249 07/23/96 Final 06/00/98 Small Entities Affected: None Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Federal Additional Information: SAN No. 3259. Agency Contact: Dennis Crumpler Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation MD-12 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919 541-0871 RIN: 2060-AE11 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 139. OPERATING PERMITS: REVISIONS (PART 70) Priority: Other Significant Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 42 USC 7661 et seq CFR Citation: 40 CFR 70; 40 CFR 71; 40 CFR 51 Legal Deadline: None [[Page 57172]] Abstract: In response to litigation on the part 70 regulations, to several problems identified through implementation of part 70, and to comments provided in response to notices of proposed rulemaking, parts 51, 70, and 71 are being revised. The changes include the following: streamlined procedures for revising stationary-source operating permits issued by State and local permitting authorities or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under title V of the Clean Air Act; changes to the certification of compliance that is required to be submitted as part of the permit documentation; clarification of the title I and title V permitting requirements for research and development facilities; and changes in public participation requirements for minor new source review actions under title I of the Act. Statement of Need: These revised rules will establish a simpler, more flexible system for revising operating permits. These revisions reflect the principles articulated in the President's and the Vice President's March 16, 1995 report Reinventing Environmental Regulation. That report established as goals for environmental regulation the building of partnerships between EPA and State and local agencies, minimizing costs, providing flexibility in implementing programs, tailoring solutions to the problem, and shifting responsibility to State and local programs. Alternatives: The Clean Air Act requires that EPA develop regulations which set minimum standards for State operating-permit programs. The Clean Air Act also requires that EPA promulgate and administer a Federal operating-permits program for States that have not obtained EPA approval by November 15, 1995. In response to concerns expressed in comments on the initial notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA talked with representatives from State and local permitting authorities, industry and environmental groups to hear their implementation concerns. This action incorporates many of those recommendations into a final rule. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The administrative cost of implementing the final rules by permitting authorities, EPA, and permitted sources was estimated. Administrative costs include a range of costs which cover the source's preparing an application through EPA's and the permitting authority's effort to complete the process. The administrative costs are estimated to be approximately $33 million. By comparison, the cost of implementing the current part 70 permit revision system is approximately $118 million. Implementing the revised regulations will reduce costs by about $85 million. Risks: All major sources of air pollution are required to have a permit to operate by the Clean Air Act. No adverse effect on the public health or ecosystems should result from this action, because the rule will require permit revisions with significant environmental impact to undergo public and EPA review. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 59 FR 44460 08/29/94 NPRM Supplementa60 FR 20804for Part 71 04/27/95 NPRM Supplementa60 FR 45530for Part 70 08/31/95 FINAL 03/00/98 Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal Analysis: Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Additional Information: SAN No. 3412. Agency Contact: Ray Vogel Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation OAQPS (MD-12) Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919 541-3153 Fax: 919 541-5509 RIN: 2060-AF70 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 140. NAAQS: SULFUR DIOXIDE (REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION) Priority: Economically Significant Legal Authority: 42 USC 7409; Clean Air Act sec 109 CFR Citation: 40 CFR 50.4; 40 CFR 50.5; 40 CFR 51 Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, November 1, 1994, (review only). Final, Judicial, April 22, 1996, (review only). Abstract: On November 15, 1994, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed not to revise the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards. The EPA sought public comment on the need to adopt additional regulatory measures to address the health risk to asthmatic individuals posed by short-term peak sulfur dioxide exposure. On March 7, 1995, EPA proposed implementation strategies for reducing short-term high concentrations of sulfur dioxide emissions in the ambient air. On May 22, 1996, EPA published its final decision not to revise the primary sulfur dioxide NAAQS. The notice stated that EPA would shortly propose a new implementation strategy to assist States in addressing short-term peaks of sulfur dioxide. The new implementation strategy - the Intervention Level Program - was proposed on January 2, 1997. Final action on the Intervention level program is anticipated for May, 1998. Statement of Need: Brief exposures to elevated concentrations of sulfur dioxide causes bronchoconstriction, sometimes accompanied by symptoms (coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath), in mild to moderate asthmatic individuals. The existing sulfur dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) provides substantial protection against short-term peak sulfur dioxide levels. At issue is whether additional measures are needed to further reduce the health risk to asthmatic individuals. Alternatives: The March 7, 1995, proposal notice sought public comment on three alternatives to further reduce the public health risk to asthmatic individuals posed by short-term peak sulfur dioxide exposures. These included: (a) a new 5-minute NAAQS; (b) a new program under section 303 of the Act; and (c) a targeted monitoring program to ensure sources likely to cause or contribute to high 5-minute peaks are in attainment with the existing standard. The January 2, 1997, notice proposed an alternative program under section 303 of the Act that will assist States in addressing high 5-minute peaks. [[Page 57173]] Anticipated Costs and Benefits: A draft regulatory impact analysis was completed and made available for public comment at the time of the January 2, 1997 proposal. Risks: Exposure analyses indicate from the national perspective that the likelihood of exposure to high 5-minute sulfur dioxide concentrations is very low. Asthmatic individuals in the vicinity of certain sources or source categories, however, may be at higher risk of exposure than the population as a whole. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM NAAQS Revie59 FR 58958 11/15/94 NPRM NAAQS Imple60 FR 12492part 51) 03/07/95 Final NAAQS Revi61 FR 25566 05/22/96 NPRM Revised NAA62 FR 210entation (Part 51) 01/02/97 Final NAAQS Implementation (Part 51) 05/00/98 Small Entities Affected: None Government Levels Affected: State Additional Information: SAN No. 1002. (Primary Standard) and SAN No Agency Contact: Susan Stone (Review) Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation MD-15 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919 541-1146 Eric Crump (Implementation) Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation MD-15 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919 541-4719 RIN: 2060-AA61 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 141. VOC REGULATION FOR ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS Priority: Other Significant Legal Authority: 42 USC 7401; Clean Air Act sec 183 CFR Citation: 40 CFR 59 Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, March 15, 1997. Abstract: This regulation will control volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings. These coatings are applied to stationary structures and their appurtenances, to portable buildings, to pavements, or to curbs. Traditional VOC limitations, market-based approaches, and phased-in approaches are all being considered. The EPA is working with coating manufacturers and other stakeholders to ensure that this rule is based on the best possible understanding of the industry and that it affords the flexibility to achieve the necessary emission reductions in the most sensible, cost-effective ways. Statement of Need: This regulation will establish VOC content limits for over 50 categories of architectural coatings. These limits will reduce the VOC emissions from architectural coatings and will reflect best available controls, as defined by section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The architectural coatings category is a significant contributor of VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas. Summary of the Legal Basis: Section 183(e) of the CAA requires that the EPA list those categories of consumer and commercial products (CCP) that account for at least 80 percent of VOC from all CCP in ozone nonattainment areas and establish a schedule for regulating the categories. The architectural coatings category was included on the list and schedule published March 23, 1995, and is in the group of categories to be regulated by March 1997. Alternatives: There are many alternatives to the proposed rule that were or are being considered, including: alternative VOC content limits for some types of coatings; issuance of a control techniques guideline in lieu of a national rule; low-volume exemptions; payment of fees, if desired, to exceed the VOC content limits; variances based on economic hardship; and an incentive to recycle paint. The requirements in the proposed rule are based on product reformulation, a pollution prevention method. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The proposed rule would impose an estimated cost of $25 million per year for coating manufacturers and would reduce VOC emissions from architectural coatings by an estimated 106,000 tons per year. VOC are a main component in formation of ground-level ozone which can damage lung tissue and cause serious respiratory illness. Risks: In the past, the CAA has focused on reducing VOC emissions from mobile sources (cars and trucks) and stationary sources, such as power plants and factories. Requiring additional controls on these sources may be very costly for the emissions reductions achieved. Regulating consumer and commercial products may prove to be a more cost-effective way of substantially reducing VOC emissions nationwide. Consumer and commercial products, such as surface coatings, personal care products, and household cleaning products, contribute about six million tons (approximately 30 percent) annually of VOC emissions nationwide. The architectural coating category is one of the largest contributors. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 61 FR 32729 06/25/96 Final 11/00/97 Small Entities Affected: Businesses Government Levels Affected: State, Local Additional Information: SAN No. 3351. Agency Contact: Ellen Ducey Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919 541-5408 Fax: 919 541-5689 Email: ducey.ellen@epamail.epa.gov RIN: 2060-AE55 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 142. NATIONAL VOC EMISSION STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS Priority: Other Significant [[Page 57174]] Legal Authority: 42 USC 7401 et seq CFR Citation: 40 CFR 59 Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, March 1997. Abstract: This regulation will reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from 24 types of consumer products which are currently regulated by California and several other States. The EPA is working with consumer product manufacturers and other stakeholders to ensure that this rule is based on the best possible understanding of the industry and that it affords the flexibility to achieve the necessary emission reductions in the most sensible, cost-effective ways. Statement of Need: This regulation will establish VOC content limits for 24 types of consumer products. These limits will reduce the VOC emissions from these products and will reflect best available controls, as defined by section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act. The consumer products category is a significant contributor of VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas. Summary of the Legal Basis: Section 183(e) of the CAA requires that the EPA list those categories of consumer and commercial products (CCP) that account for at least 80 percent of VOC from all CCP in ozone nonattainment areas and establish a schedule for regulating the categories. The consumer products category was included on the list and schedule published March 23, 1995, and is in the group of categories to be regulated by March 1997. Alternatives: Alternatives to requirements in the proposed rule that were or are being considered, include alternative VOC content limits; issuance of a control techniques guideline in lieu of a national rule; variances based on economic hardship; and an incentive for innovative product development. The requirements in the proposed rule are based on product reformulation, a pollution prevention method. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The rule would impose an estimated cost of $27 million per year for consumer product manufacturers and would reduce VOC emissions from the products by an estimated 90,000 tons per year. VOC are a main component in formation of ground-level ozone which can damage lung tissue and cause serious respiratory illness. Risks: In the past, the CAA has focused on reducing VOC emissions from mobile sources (cars and trucks) and stationary sources, such as power plants and factories. Requiring additional controls on these sources may be very costly for the emissions reductions achieved. Regulating consumer and commercial products may prove to be a more cost-effective way of substantially reducing VOC emissions nationwide. Consumer and commercial products, such as surface coatings, personal care products, and household cleaning products, contribute about six million tons (approximately 30 percent) annually of VOC emissions nationwide. The consumer products category is one of the largest contributors. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 61 FR 14531 04/02/96 Final Action 11/00/97 Small Entities Affected: Businesses Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal Sectors Affected: 284 Soaps, Detergents, and Cleaning Preparations, Perfumes, Cosmetics, and Other Toilet Preparations; 287 Agricultural Chemicals; 289 Miscellaneous Chemical Products Analysis: Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Additional Information: SAN No. 3658. Agency Contact: Bruce Moore Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation MD-13 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919 541-5460 Fax: 919 541-5689 Email: moore.bruce@epamail.epa.gov _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 143. OPEN-MARKET TRADING GUIDANCE Priority: Other Significant Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: Clean Air Act sec 182; Clean Air Act sec 187 CFR Citation: 40 CFR 51 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will issue a final policy for open-market trading of ozone smog precursors (volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen) that will provide more flexibility than ever before for companies to trade emission credits without prior State or Federal approval. Once a rule is in the State implementation plan (SIP), companies could engage in emissions trades without prior regulatory approval as long as accountability is ensured in accordance with the guidance. The intended benefits of an active market in emissions trading are compliance with the ozone standard at far less cost and an increased incentive to develop innovative emission- reduction technologies. standard at far less cost and an increased incentive to develop innovative emission-reduction technologies. Statement of Need: In the last 25 years great progress has been made toward achieving healthy air quality, yet more than 50 million people still live in areas that do not meet the ozone health standard. Continued reductions in ozone precursor emissions are important to protect public health, but additional emission reductions are increasingly more costly to obtain. Emissions trading is one way to lower the overall cost of achieving additional reductions. Historically, the volume of emissions trading under EPA's existing trading policies has been low, suggesting high transaction costs associated with the delays of trade-by-trade government review. Additionally, there have been [[Page 57175]] significant problems of quality control, reducing the environmental effectiveness of the program. EPA's policy on open-market emissions trading is intended to establish a trading program that minimizes transaction costs and harnesses the power of the marketplace to enhance quality control. Alternatives: The EPA endorses several forms of emissions trading, including interfacility and intrafacility emissions trading under the 1986 Emissions Trading Policy Statement, the 1994 Economic Incentive Program Rules and Economic Incentive Program Rules (April 7, 1994). The open- market program is yet another form of emissions trading that can reduce the overall cost of compliance with the ozone standard. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: Market-based emissions trading programs allow for greater and/or faster reductions in emissions, lower the cost of pollution control, reduce the adverse impacts of regulation on industry and consumer prices, lower the human health consequences, and improve the environment by achieving early reductions, and provide incentives to develop lower- costs pollution control methods. The actual benefits of open-market trading programs depend on a number of variables, including the number of States that adopt such programs and the number of sources that participate. Estimates of costs savings from established emissions- trading programs such as the nationwide acid rain trading program, the RECLAIM program in the Los Angeles area, and the lead phasedown range from nearly 20 to over 40 percent. Risks: Not applicable. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 60 FR 39668 08/03/95 Notice Inclusion60 FR 44290d Model Rule 08/25/95 Final 10/00/97 Small Entities Affected: None Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal Analysis: Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Additional Information: SAN No. 3660. Agency Contact: Nancy Mayer Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation OAQPS (MD-15) Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919 541-5390 Fax: 919 541-0839 RIN: 2060-AF60 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 144. VOLUNTARY STANDARDS FOR LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES (NATIONAL 49 STATE LOW-EMISSION VEHICLES PROGRAM) Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801. Legal Authority: Clean Air Act sec 202; Clean Air Act sec 301(a) CFR Citation: Not yet determined Legal Deadline: None Abstract: This rulemaking is a voluntary emissions standards program applicable to manufacturers of light-duty vehicles and trucks beginning in model year 1997. This program would apply only to those manufacturers that chose to opt into the program. This program is designed to be an alternative national program that provides emissions reductions equivalent to the Northeast Ozone Transport Commission's (OTC's) low- emission vehicle (LEV) program. Statement of Need: If agreement is reached between the OTC states and the auto makers on a voluntary 49-State LEV program, this rulemaking will establish the regulations for the LEV program. Under these regulations, auto makers would be able to volunteer to comply with more stringent tailpipe standards for cars and trucks (light-duty). Once an auto maker opted into the program, EPA would enforce the standards in the same manner as any other federal motor vehicle pollution control requirement. EPA is proposing that this program would relieve the 13 states in the Northeastern part of the country (OTR) of the December, 1994, regulatory obligation to adopt their own motor vehicle programs. This rulemaking also harmonizes Federal and California motor vehicle standards and test procedures to enable auto makers to design and test vehicles to one set of standards nationwide. Alternatives: Under the CAA, EPA is prohibited from adopting more stringent auto tailpipe standards prior to fiscal year 2004. The OTC petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1994 and was granted approval to adopt the California Low-Emission Vehicle Program in the OTR. This rulemaking would establish a voluntary LEV program in 49 states. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The annualized costs of the OTC LEV Program will be roughly $400 million. The National LEV program created in this rulemaking is expected to have an annual cost of $1.1 billion. The OTC program would only apply to 2 million vehicles sold in the OTR. The National LEV program would apply to all new vehicles sold in 49 States comprising a vehicle fleet of 12.5 million vehicles sold annually. On a per car basis, EPA expects vehicle price to increase $100. The National LEV program will provide air pollution reductions throughout the country. There are currently 38 ozone nonattainment areas outside the OTR and CA with a combined population of approximately 45 million that will benefit from this voluntary national program. Risks: Motor vehicles are a significant cause of smog because of emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxide (NOx). EPA has projected that, without the California LEV in the OTR, highway vehicles will account for roughly 38 percent of NOx and 22 percent of VOC emissions in 2005. EPA currently estimates that VOC emissions should be reduced by roughly 95 tons per day and NOx emissions by approximately 195 tons per day as a result of the National LEV program. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 60 FR 52734 10/10/95 Final 12/00/97 Small Entities Affected: None Government Levels Affected: State, Federal Analysis: Regulatory Flexibility Analysis [[Page 57176]] Additional Information: SAN No. 3646. Agency Contact: Mike Shields Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation (6401) Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 260-7757 Fax: 202 260-6011 RIN: 2060-AF75 _______________________________________________________________________ EPA 145. CONTROL OF EMISSIONS OF AIR POLLUTION FROM HIGHWAY HEAVY-DUTY ENGINES AND DIESEL ENGINES Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Legal Authority: Clean Air Act sec 202(a); Clean Air Act sec 211(c); Clean Air Act sec 213(a); Clean Air Act sec 301(a) CFR Citation: 40 CFR 9; 40 CFR 86; 40 CFR 89 Legal Deadline: Final, Judicial, August 29, 1997. Abstract: The primary focus of this action will be reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) and particulate matter (PM) from diesel and gasoline fueled engines used in highway trucks and buses and in nonroad equipment and vehicles. Nitrogen oxides are a significant contributor to urban ozone pollution (smog), acid rain, and particulate pollution. Particulates, including those emitted directly and secondary particulates formed in the atmosphere, have been associated with increased death and illness rates as well as impaired visibility. Non-Methane hydrocarbons also contribute to ozone pollution. Highway and nonroad engines and vehicles are very significant contributors to these air-quality problems. This initiative has been marked by an unprecedented degree of cooperation between EPA, the State of California, and the engine manufacturing industry, as well as the involvement of States, regional air-management organizations, and public interest and environmental organizations. The result has been a plan for very stringent new emission standards that have the support of the industry. EPA has proposed new standards for highway truck and bus engines, and discussions are progressing toward similar standards for nonroad diesel engines. This action will focus on the emission standards and related requirements for control of air pollution from 2004 and later model year highway heavy-duty engines. It will include an assessment of the feasibility of the requirements for these engines promulgated in 1997 plus further consideration of a number of issues left open in the rule including potential diesel fuel changes, diesel particulate control, and other initiatives to control emissions in use. Statement of Need: Ozone pollution poses a serious threat to the health and well-being of millions of Americans and a large burden to the U.S. economy. Many ozone nonattainment areas face great difficulties in reaching and maintaining attainment of the ozone health-based air quality standards in the years ahead. Recognizing this challenge, States, local governments, and others have called on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate additional national measures to reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons and particulate matter in order to protect the public from the serious health effects of ozone pollution. Alternatives: EPA will consider alternatives for this rule as part of the notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRMs) planned for this initiative. Risks: Oxides of nitrogen comprise a family of highly reactive gaseous compounds that contribute to air pollution in both urban and rural environments. NOx is directly harmful to human health and the environment, contributes to particulate pollution, and plays a critical role in the formation of atmospheric ozone. Based on studies of human populations exposed to high concentrations of particles and laboratory studies of animals and humans, there are major human health concerns associated with PM. These include deleterious effects on breathing and respiratory systems, aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, alterations in the body's defense systems against foreign materials, damage to lung tissue, carcinogenesis, and premature death. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ ANPRM 60 FR 45580 08/30/95 NPRM Highway 61 FR 33421 06/27/96 ANPRM Nonroad 62 FR 200 01/02/97 Final Action Highway 10/00/97 Final Action Nonroad 10/00/97 NPRM Hwy Heavy Duty Diesel 2004 & later 12/00/98 Final Hwy Heavy Duty Diesel 2004 & later 12/00/99 Small Entities Affected: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Analysis: Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Additional Information: SAN No. 3645, 4014, 4043. Agency Contact: Tad Wysor Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation NFEVL Ann Arbor, MI 48105 Phone: 313 668-4332 Glenn Passavant Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation NFEVL Ann Arbor, MI 48105 Phone: 313 668-4408 RIN: 2060-AF76 BILLING CODE 6565-50-F