[The Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations]
[Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Plan]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities
EPA's Commitment to Change
When President Clinton and Vice President Gore came into office more 
than 2 1/2 half years ago, they made a public commitment to 
simplifying, streamlining, and reducing the costs of the Federal 
Government. While emphasizing the importance of the Federal 
Government's functions, they made it clear that those functions could 
be carried out in commonsense, cost-effective ways. The reinvention and 
improvement of the Federal Government thus has been one of the 
hallmarks of the Clinton Administration.
Administrator Browner of EPA has made that same commitment to simplify, 
streamline, and reduce the costs of Federal programs to better protect 
the environment and public health. She has applied common-sense 
principles to all EPA's actions in order to promote cleaner, cheaper, 
and smarter environmental and public health protection. As a result, 
EPA today is in the midst of the most profound and comprehensive 
reevaluation and change in its history.
The Agency is changing its internal operations--restructuring 
organizations, streamlining management, and broadening employee 
responsibilities. It is changing its external relationships--shifting 
more responsibility to States, improving customer service, 
strengthening stakeholder partnerships, and emphasizing the 
constructive involvement of regulated entities. The Agency is 
reinventing itself with one eye on the past--building on the lessons 
learned through a quarter-century of regulatory experience. And it is 
reinventing itself with one eye on the future--developing a new 
generation of environmental protection to meet the emerging challenges 
of the 21st century.
Although the current environmental protection system has generated a 
cleaner environment, with substantial human health and ecological 
benefits, over the past 25 years, the system will not be sufficient to 
meet the environmental and economic challenges of the future. The 
health of the economy, the health of the American people, and the 
health of the environment are inextricably intertwined, and the 
linkages among them are becoming more complex over time. EPA is 
changing so that it is better prepared to protect and enhance all three 
simultaneously in the future.
EPA is the single Federal organization with primary responsibility for 
protecting the environment, and the Agency is committed to using all 
available tools--regulatory and nonregulatory--to protect the 
environment and public health of all Americans. At the same time, 
because EPA is only one of many entities--public and private--with 
environmental responsibilities, EPA is working to ensure that more 
information and decisionmaking are shared with the States, tribes, and 
communities affected by EPA's actions.
EPA is reshaping its environmental and public health protections to 
make them simpler and more sensible, especially to regulated entities. 
In many cases, all stakeholders, including businesses, communities, 
labor, and public interest groups, are participating in developing new, 
more effective, less costly approaches. EPA's employees are taking on 
new responsibilities in new programs: Enforcers are emphasizing 
compliance assistance, permitters are paying more attention to 
pollution prevention and market mechanisms, and rule writers are 
adopting innovative alternatives proposed by regulated industries, 
without sacrificing one ounce of public health protection. Resources 
are being targeted where risks are the greatest, and programs are being 
scaled back, if necessary, where risks are the least. Most important, 
EPA is emphasizing environmental and public health results, not the 
fulfillment of regulatory mandates, as its primary goal, because 
flexibility, good stewardship, and strong partnerships between the 
public and private sectors inspire better solutions to public health 
and environmental problems.
The Process
Although EPA's commitment to public health and environmental quality 
remains undiminished, the Agency is refining and improving the methods 
it uses to protect them. EPA has undertaken a number of reinvention 
efforts, such as the Common Sense Initiative and line-by-line review of 
its regulations, either on its own or in response to Presidential 
directives. On March 16, 1995, President Clinton announced 39 
additional EPA projects that will further the reinvention of public 
health and environmental regulations.
Reinvention at EPA is not the sum of all the new activities currently 
underway. Neither is it an overlay of new activities in addition to the 
traditional work of the Agency. Rather, reinvention is the fundamental, 
comprehensive change of EPA, both in terms of its internal organization 
and external relationships, so that the Nation achieves more public 
health and environmental benefits at less cost by using a system that 
makes more sense to all the people involved. Thus most of EPA's 
regulatory activities in the years ahead will incorporate parts of, or 
respond to, this overall reinvention effort at the Agency.
EPA's reinvention effort is intended to achieve two distinct purposes. 
First, it is aimed at strengthening the current system, which is 
largely composed of regulations driven by existing environmental laws 
that mandate action by regulated entities and, in many cases, specify 
public health and environmental goals. Second, EPA is building a new 
system that will use innovative, nonprescriptive, consensus-based 
techniques to achieve environmental and public health goals beyond 
those set by existing laws.
Strengthening the Current System
EPA is strengthening the current regulatory system in three basic ways 
by:
1. Simplifying Regulations and Reporting Requirements
The Agency is reexamining all environmental regulations and reporting 
requirements now in place in order to simplify and streamline them, and 
to reduce the time and costs associated with them, without compromising 
public health or the environment. For example, last February the 
President announced that all Federal agencies would conduct a line-by-
line review of their regulations and then eliminate those that were 
obsolete or redundant. EPA is proposing to delete more than a thousand 
pages from the Code of Federal Regulations or more than 10 percent of 
the pages currently devoted to EPA regulations. In response to the 
President's March 16 directive to reduce paperwork requirements imposed 
on regulated entities by 25 percent, the Agency is identifying all 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that can be 
eliminated. EPA is developing a one-stop emissions report 
(consolidating multiple environmental reports that businesses now are 
required to submit to the Agency) and a consolidated air rule 
(combining all Federal air quality regulations facing a specific 
industry into one comprehensive rule). EPA also has established a 
permits improvement team to streamline permit programs, reduce their 
administrative costs, and enhance pollution prevention and public 
participation in the permitting process. Many of the rules in EPA's 
regulatory plan and regulatory agenda will help accomplish this kind of 
simplification and streamlining.
2. Defining New Roles and Responsibilities
Reinvention necessarily involves changing the relationships among EPA 
offices and between EPA and the various stakeholders involved in and 
affected by environmental protection programs. Externally, EPA is 
encouraging increased authority and flexibility for State, tribal, and 
local governments through its State capacity building project and 
Performance Partnership Grants. EPA also is consulting regularly with 
regulated industries early in rule development by relying on types of 
consensus-based rulemaking, such as regulatory negotiation. Internally, 
EPA is streamlining management by reducing the ratio of supervisors to 
employees and reorganizing virtually every program and regional office. 
EPA also is reshaping the budget process to support reinvention 
initiatives and principles.
3. Retargeting Existing Programs to Achieve Better Results
EPA is proposing specific, targeted improvements in existing programs. 
For example, EPA is modifying the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act (RCRA) program to refocus hazardous waste regulations on the high 
risk wastes. In addition, EPA convened a multistakeholder process to 
identify specific RCRA requirements that could be revised to reduce 
costs and increase environmental benefits. The Agency is recommending 
changes in EPA's drinking water program to focus drinking water 
treatment requirements on the highest risks to public health. EPA also 
will expand pollution trading markets in specific airsheds and 
watersheds to increase flexibility and reduce costs. Again, the entries 
in EPA's regulatory plan will help accomplish these improvements.
Building a New Generation of Environmental Protection
Strengthening the existing regulatory system will not, by itself, do 
enough to achieve EPA's reinvention goals. So EPA is testing new, 
innovative ideas that promise either lower costs, greater environmental 
benefits, or both. Three basic kinds of new activities will help EPA 
build a new system that ensures a new generation of environmental 
protection:
1. Industry and Facility-Based Programs
EPA is redesigning the regulatory system so that it makes more sense to 
the regulated community and costs less, while achieving greater 
environmental and public health benefits. The Common Sense Initiative 
(CSI)--the centerpiece of this effort--is bringing together 
representatives from industry, public interest and environmental 
justice organizations, labor, and State and local governments to find 
better ways of achieving environmental goals in six specific 
industries. Under Project XL, which promotes environmental excellence 
and leadership, specific facilities, whole industries, and government 
agencies subject to environmental regulations are testing new 
strategies that simplify procedures, reduce costs, and provide greater 
environmental benefits than under the current system. EPA's Design for 
the Environment project is testing the use of innovative designs, 
processes, and materials that improve both environmental and economic 
performance in specific industries.
2. Community-Based Programs
To increase the effectiveness of environmental programs, EPA is 
coordinating and integrating environmental protection efforts in 
specific places like local communities and ecosystems. Building on 
place-based approaches used in successful ecosystem management and 
watershed protection programs, the Agency will initiate XL for 
Communities to integrate environmental quality and economic development 
goals in specific communities. EPA also is working with communities and 
States to identify and provide site-specific risk assessment tools to 
help local decisionmakers determine their environmental priorities. To 
promote place-based planning for sustainable development, EPA is 
providing Sustainable Development Challenge Grants to several 
communities through a national competition.
3. New Results-Based Tools
Over the long term, EPA will shift its focus, and the focus of 
regulated industries, away from meeting narrowly defined regulatory 
requirements and toward the achievement of environmental results. 
Thinking about results unleashes innovation and helps the public and 
private sector find new solutions to old problems. EPA is experimenting 
with several results-based tools that will help businesses and 
communities better focus their efforts and thus achieve better 
environmental results. To improve compliance with environmental 
regulations, for example, EPA will provide compliance incentives for 
small businesses and communities, and it will establish compliance 
assistance centers for small businesses as well. To collect the 
information necessary to measure environmental results, and to indicate 
where further efforts are needed, EPA will establish a center for 
environmental information and statistics and ensure public electronic 
access to EPA information. Finally, EPA already has initiated a series 
of voluntary programs that prevent or control pollution and, in many 
cases, lead directly to economic benefits.
Highlights of EPA's Regulatory Plan for 1996
The entries contained in EPA's regulatory plan reflect the Agency's 
continuing commitment to streamline and simplify its regulatory 
programs to achieve better environmental results at less cost. Many of 
these entries are designed to implement the new directions discussed 
above. While many of EPA's new directions are nonregulatory in nature, 
the Agency's entries focus on those changes that can be made through 
its regulatory activities. Here are some of the highlights of this 
ongoing commitment.
Office of Air and Radiation
EPA is committed to using the flexibility granted by the Clean Air Act 
to enable companies, communities, and individuals to protect public 
health by meeting clean air goals using innovative approaches at lower 
costs. The Office of Air and Radiation is committed to nearly 200 
changes in existing rules and is changing many forthcoming rules to 
reflect the common-sense principles of the reinvention effort.
EPA recently issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking requesting 
comment from the public on the need and potential for additional 
reduction of nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and particulate matter from 
mobile heavy-duty engines. This action initiates work on a proposed 
rulemaking to establish standards for model year 2004 and later heavy-
duty highway engines. The rulemaking seeks to bring together 
potentially affected industries, States, regional air management 
organizations, and public health and environmental interest groups to 
further their mutual goal of reducing emission of harmful air 
pollutants.
Building on successful State programs, EPA has been working with 
stakeholders to develop a more streamlined process for permit revisions 
to help facilities obtain required operating permits from State or 
local agencies. Under the proposed change, States would have greater 
flexibility to decide the amount of EPA and public review for most 
permit revisions by matching the level of review to the environmental 
significance of the change.
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 air quality and thus protect public 
health. In this regard, EPA will issue a final policy and model rule 
for open-market trading of ozone smog precursors (volatile organic 
compounds and oxides of nitrogen) that will provide more flexibility 
for companies to trade emission credits without prior State or Federal 
approval. EPA believes this action will ensure compliance with the 
established ozone standard at far less cost and an increased incentive 
to develop innovative emission-reduction technologies.
EPA also plans to modify requirements in two other significant air 
regulatory programs. We will propose 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.
In addition, EPA plans to amend the original transportation conformity 
rule to streamline the conformity process and provide additional 
flexibility for State and local transportation and air quality 
agencies. This rulemaking, initiated in response to stakeholder 
concerns, will further enhance State and local governments' ability to 
meet requirements under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 in common-
sense, cost-effective ways and ensure that transportation plans do not 
further exacerbate existing air quality problems.
Other significant activities related to EPA's air programs include 
reviews of the national ambient air quality standards for sulphur 
dioxide, ozone, and particulate matter. The sulphur dioxide review is 
intended to examine existing standards to determine whether further 
protection for certain exposed individuals is needed. The ozone and 
particulate matter reviews seek to incorporate new scientific and 
technical information that has become available since the last reviews.
EPA will issue a final rule implementing a 49-State low-emission 
vehicle program. It is a voluntary emissions standards program 
applicable to manufacturers of light-duty vehicles and trucks beginning 
in model year 1997. This program is designed to be an alternative 
national program that provides emissions reductions equivalent to the 
Northeast Ozone Transport Commission's low-emission vehicle program. 
EPA anticipates that this program would relieve the 13 States in the 
northeastern part of the country of the December 1994 regulatory 
obligation to adopt their own motor vehicle programs. The rulemaking 
also harmonizes Federal and California low-emission vehicle standards 
and test procedures to enable automakers to design and test vehicles to 
one set of standards nationwide.
In further efforts to provide flexibility and adhere to common-sense 
principles, EPA will issue final rules in the areas of medical waste 
incinerators and municipal waste combustion that have incorporated 
comments from industry and many small entities. The emissions limits 
established under these rules are part of EPA's integrated combustion 
strategy, whereby EPA will regulate various forms of combustion under a 
coordinated plan.
EPA will propose an integrated rule for the pulp and paper industry 
that deals with both effluent guidelines and air emission standards to 
control 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, to promote the concept of 
pollution prevention, and to enable industry to more effectively plan 
compliance via a multimedia approach.
Finally, EPA is planning a proposed rule that will introduce additional 
flexibility into its compliance-assurance monitoring program. This 
action focuses on preventing pollution rather than imposing additional 
command-and-control regulations. This is a significant change in Agency 
direction for implementation of the monitoring and compliance 
certification requirements in titles V and VII of the Clean Air Act. 
The goal of the action is to provide reasonable assurance of compliance 
rather than a direct connection between monitoring and certification 
and will reduce the emphasis on assuring compliance through the threat 
of enforcement. Instead, this approach emphasizes assuring compliance 
by placing the burden on regulated sources to monitor their performance 
and take proactive steps to minimize emission exceedances.
Office of Water
EPA is streamlining four of its water-related programs to reduce 
burdens associated with them and to provide additional flexibility: 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, 
national primary drinking water regulations, the pretreatment program, 
and water-quality planning and management. EPA estimates that 80 
percent of regulations published under the jurisdiction of the Office 
of Water are undergoing change or modification. The following are 
highlights of efforts in 1996.
In the NPDES permits program (Part 122), EPA is removing outdated 
requirements, streamlining permit application and modification 
procedures, and reducing monitoring and reporting requirements. For 
example, EPA will consolidate and revise industrial and municipal 
permit application requirements and forms and streamline the 
application process. It will also revise the permit application 
requirements for municipal separate storm water sewer systems to reduce 
significantly the cost and burden of reapplication for succeeding 
permit terms. EPA will not require resubmission of information 
available from the earlier application or not pertinent to the approval 
process.
EPA is planning a major revision of the NPDES (Part 141) that will have 
a number of benefits for States and the regulated community. First, EPA 
will delete a number of obsolete provisions and simplify and reformat 
the remaining regulations to make it easier for managers of public 
water systems to understand and implement the requirements and for 
State officials to enforce. EPA will also streamline the public 
notification requirements to allow States more flexibility to design 
programs that will ensure notice to the public in a timely and 
effective manner.
Regulations in the pretreatment program for publicly owned treatment 
works (POTWs) (Part 403) will be streamlined and revised to delete 
obsolete requirements, simplify program operation, and eliminate 
unnecessary reporting requirements. For example, under streamlined 
procedures, only the most significant elements of an approved 
pretreatment program would be included in a POTW's NPDES permit, 
eliminating the need for a permit revision every time small changes are 
made to the pretreatment program.
EPA is undertaking revisions in its requirements for water-quality 
planning and assessment and waterbody listing requirements for State 
water-quality management programs. EPA will be soliciting public 
comment in the near future, through an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking, on potential revisions to this program.
In addition, the Agency will be pursuing innovative, nonregulatory 
approaches, such as effluent trading within watersheds, to realize cost 
savings and reduce water pollution.
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
The Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances is using 
existing authorities under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and 
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to 
decrease cost and burden to regulated entities, while at the same time 
providing additional flexibility. EPA will be amending or deleting 88 
percent of its pesticides and toxics regulations that are currently in 
the Code of Federal Regulations. Among their major efforts in the 
coming year are the following actions:
As a follow up to the President's announcement in August of this year 
in support of Community Right to Know (CRTK), a proposed rule is being 
developed that will expand the universe of sources that are currently 
required to be reported to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The TRI 
is a data base that provides communities with information on releases 
to air, water, and land of approximately 600 toxic chemicals. 
Currently, only the manufacturing sector collects TRI data. The 
upcoming rule will propose to require reporting from other sources of 
toxic chemicals that pose potentially significant risks to communities.
By the summer of 1996, EPA plans to issue a rule that will make over 50 
modifications, additions, and deletions to the existing management 
program for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) under TSCA. This 
rulemaking is the first comprehensive review of the PCB regulations in 
17 years. The modification will allow currently prohibited activities 
which do not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the 
environment.
In the area of pesticide regulation, a significant action in the 
prerule stage is the effort to evaluate self-certification as a 
possible approach to reinventing the registration process for 
pesticides. As one of the approaches under consideration, self-
certification would allow a registrant to certify that a registration 
application (or part of it) complies with Agency requirements and then 
obtain EPA approval for the registration after an abbreviated review or 
no review at all.
Pursuant to its data-consolidation initiative, EPA is developing a 
proposed regulation for collecting uniform facility identification 
information under one regulation. The uniform facility information will 
be used to link data reported under various Federal environmental laws 
and will substantially reduce regulatory burden for facilities.
Finally, as part of President Clinton's directive to conduct a 
comprehensive review of the regulations, EPA has identified a number of 
pesticides and toxics regulations that can be eliminated from the Code 
of Federal Regulations or otherwise modified to reduce regulatory 
burden. EPA is seeking comments from the public and affected 
stakeholders to develop specific recommendations to reduce burden or 
duplication or streamline requirements. As these actions are developed, 
they will be included in the regulatory agenda as appropriate.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) is planning to 
propose a number of actions that would streamline and simplify 
compliance under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). As 
part of its effort to refocus hazardous waste regulation on high-risk 
wastes, EPA seeks to tailor standards to the nature or degree of risk 
posed by particular wastes. Toward this end, EPA is undertaking a 
number of actions in 1996 to implement this goal.
A rule entitled ``Hazardous Waste Identification: Contaminated Media,'' 
is designed to resolve problems with the current RCRA cleanup program 
by deregulating large volumes of low-risk contaminated media (e.g., 
soil). The Agency will also create a more common-sense regulatory 
structure for those clean-up wastes that remain regulated.
Also related to hazardous waste identification is an action to modify 
certain regulations distinguishing ``listed'' hazardous waste. Certain 
current regulations, including the ``mixture'' and ``derived from'' 
rules, apply to listed wastes regardless of the concentrations and the 
mobility of toxicant in the waste, thereby regulating certain low-risk 
wastes and, in particular, treatment residuals. The modifications will 
establish exemption standards for these low-risk ``listed'' hazardous 
waste management requirements.
As part of its corrective action program, EPA will publish an advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking dealing with solid waste management units 
at hazardous waste management facilities. EPA believes final 
regulations are needed in this area to promote national consistency, 
clarify corrective action requirements, and reduce the number of site-
specific negotiation and legal challenges. The public will be asked to 
comment on several alternatives presented in the notice.
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 enhancing EPA's 
ability to be adequately protective of human health and the environment 
in the areas of chlorinated dioxins and furans.
Finally, EPA will also issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
concerning the definition of solid waste and regulations for hazardous 
waste recycling. This action will simplify and clarify what wastes/
processes are and are not subject to RCRA jurisdiction.
Summary
In addition to these actions, EPA's Regulatory Plan contains entries 
on:
 Review of the Federal test procedures for emissions from 
            vehicles and motor vehicle engines;
 Emission standards for new nonroad spark-ignition engines at 
            and below 19 kilowatts;
 The risk management program for chemical accidental release 
            prevention;
 Land disposal restrictions--phase III, decharacterized 
            wastewaters, carbamate wastes, and spent aluminum 
            potliners;
 Land disposal restrictions--phase IV, treatment standards for 
            certain mineral processing wastes; TC metals, newly listed 
            wastes from wood preserving and from dyes and pigments;
 Effluent guidelines and standards for the metal products and 
            machinery category (phase I); and
 Selected rulemakings for abating lead hazards.
In developing these required actions EPA is committed to flexible, 
common-sense, cost-effective regulatory programs that protect human 
health and the environment.
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------

100. STREAMLINING REVISIONS TO THE WATER QUALITY PLANNING AND 
MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
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 1313/CWA 303


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 130


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires States to identify 
waters still requiring total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). The TMDL is a 
tool for achieving State water quality standards. The TMDL process 
provides a framework for solving point and nonpoint source pollution 
problems in an integrated fashion. Current regulations implementing 
section 303(d) require States to submit their list of waters requiring 
TMDLs to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) every 2 years. This 
action will revise existing regulations to require States to submit 
their 303(d) list of waters still requiring TMDLs to EPA every 5 years 
rather than every 2 years. This revision is part of EPA's goal to 
comprehensively characterize State waters every five years. Currently, 
waters are identified on a number of lists as required by the CWA 
sections 303(d), 305(b), 314(a), and 319(a). The Federal Register 
notice proposing the revision will also announce the availability of 
supplemental TMDL guidance which will clarify the definition of a TMDL.


Statement of Need:


EPA identified this rule revision in response to the President's 
request to undertake a line-by-line review of the parts of the Code of 
Federal Regulations relevant to the Agency's programs. This revision 
should reduce the burdens associated with the Water Quality Planning 
and Management Program and make it more efficient. EPA's June 1 
``Report to the President: Eliminating and Streamlining Regulations'' 
included a commitment to streamline the Program.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


EPA has no statutory or court obligation to complete this rule.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Firm cost-benefit data is not available at this time.


Risks:


EPA's streamlining efforts will address opportunities to reduce program 
implementation costs without jeopardizing public health or 
environmental protection.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                                                          12/00/95
NPRM                                                           02/00/97
Final Action                                                   12/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


State, Tribal, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3700.


Agency Contact:
Mimi Dannel
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
(4503F)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-2897
RIN: 2040-AC65
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
101. CORRECTIVE ACTION FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS (SWMUS) AT 
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
Priority:


Economically 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 6924/RCRA 3004(u), 3004(v)


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 264; 40 CFR 270


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Past and present waste management practices at Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities have resulted in releases of 
hazardous constituents from some waste management units. These releases 
may cause contamination of soils, groundwater, surface water, and air. 
This regulation provides a framework for investigating and remediating 
releases at RCRA facilities as necessary to protect human health and 
the environment.
The Agency plans to issue the corrective action regulations in several 
phases. Phase I was issued in February 1993 (i.e., regulations 
concerning Corrective Action Management Units (CAMU)). The next task 
will include issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). 
The following phase (Phase II) will include finalizing certain 
provisions of the July 27, 1990, proposal at the same time as issuing a 
proposal that includes a reproposal of some provisions from the July 
1990 notice plus some new provisions. The last phase (Phase III) will 
involve finalizing the newly proposed provisions.


Statement of Need:


The corrective action program is curently being implemented using 
minimal regulatory authorities; the proposed Subpart S rule has been 
used as guidance since July 1990. The Agency thinks final regulations 
are needed to promote national consistency, clarify corrective action 
requirements, and reduce the amount of site-specific negotiations and 
legal challenges, thereby promoting faster, more efficient cleanups.
In addition, some stakeholders have told the Agency that the current 
corrective action process can be too slow and expensive. The Agency is 
currently exploring additional options which could make cleanups faster 
and more efficient, without sacrificing protectiveness or public 
involvement. This rulemaking may be used to propose regulatory changes 
necessary to implement these options.


Alternatives:


The Agency is currently evaluating a number of alternatives that are 
aimed at achieving the following primary objectives: (a) create a more 
consistent, holistic approach to cleanup at RCRA facilities; (b) 
establish protective, ``common-sense'' cleanup expectations; (c) 
encourage the regulated community to conduct voluntary/proactive 
cleanups; (d) provide meaningful and inclusive opportunities for public 
involvement throughout the cleanup process.
The Agency plans to use an ANPRM, (see schedule below) to discuss 
rulemaking alternatives in greater detail. Some of the alternatives 
currently under consideration include: relying on performance criteria 
rather than prescriptive requirements; allowing for greater 
consideration of industrial and other nonresidential land uses; and 
promoting greater consistency between cleanup actions at individual 
areas of a RCRA site.


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:


The objective of establishing protective, ``common-sense'' cleanup 
expectations reflects, in part, the Agency's position that the scope of 
remedial actions should accurately reflect the risks posed by the 
contamination. The Agency intends to design the rule with flexibility 
sufficient to select smart and cost-effective remedies in order to 
achieve the Agency's risk-reduction objectives more efficiently. More 
quantitative evaluation of the risks and risk reduction associated with 
this rule will be included in the economic analysis.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            55 FR 30798                                    07/27/90
Final Rule (Phas58 FR 8658                                     02/16/93
ANPRM                                                          12/00/95
NPRM                                                           00/00/00
Final Action                                                   00/00/00
(Phase II)
Final Action 00/00/00
(Phase III)
Final Action 00/00/00
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2390.
The rule was highlighted as one of the top regulatory reform 
initiatives in the President's March 16, 1995 report, ``Reinventing 
Environmental Regulations.'' The Subpart S rule is an important 
component of EPA's regulatory efforts to refocus hazardous waste 
regulation on high-risk wastes and to expedite cleanups.


Agency Contact:
Guy Tomassoni
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(5303W)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8622
RIN: 2050-AB80
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

102.  DATA CONSOLIDATION INITIATIVE; KEY IDENTIFIERS REPORTING
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:


 FIFRA, TSCA, RCRA, CAA, SDWA, PPA, etc.


CFR Citation:


 Not yet determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Using the various EPA regulatory authorities, the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) EPA is developing a proposed regulation for 
collecting uniform facility identification information under one 
regulation. The uniform facility information will be used to link data 
reported under various Federal environmental laws, and is expected to 
substantially reduce regulatory burden for facilities. This action will 
provide more meaningful access to environmental data and is the 
foundation for moving forward the longer-term vision of full data 
integration and uniform reporting.


Statement of Need:


Facilities currently subject to Federal environmental data collections 
must submit facility identification information with each of a variety 
of individual data submissions to EPA or the State. The Key Identifiers 
Rule is a necessary first step toward consolidation of such reporting 
requirements. The facilities involved must periodically supply and 
update varying combinations of facility identification data to 
different data collections. Many of these facility data elements are 
common, such as name, address, standard industrial classification (SIC) 
code, and parent company identification. Burden to continually supply 
such data in varying formats can be reduced by establishing one 
authoritative record for each facility. A new, unique identification 
number would be supplied to the facility and it would become the 
``key'' to this reduced facility data reporting. Entering this key id 
number on any given reporting form would signal that the Agency or 
State has a detailed record on file.


Alternatives:


An alternative to this rule would be to amend rules authorizing each 
current, individual data collection to require a uniform set of 
facility identification data elements. This approach may provide the 
same data elements submitted but would not necessarily promote the 
establishment and maintenance of a uniform record for each facility 
because such forms may be completed with differing entries over time.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs estimates are not yet available. Benefits to the facility include 
lower overall reporting burden and the ability to determine the status 
of its submission records maintained by EPA and the State. EPA and the 
State will increase their data management efficiency by having this 
common identifier for the facility in each relevant data system. This 
action will also provide the foundation for later consolidated 
reporting initiatives.


Risks:


This rule will assist in the evaluation of risks to human health and 
the environment by improving the coordination of existing environmental 
data sources.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/95
Final Action                                                   09/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Agency Contact:
Mary Hanley
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
(7404)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-1624
RIN: 2070-AD01
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
103. FACILITY COVERAGE AMENDMENT; TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE REPORTING; 
COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 11013; 42 USC 11023; 42 USC 11048; 42 USC 11076; EPCRA 313


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 imposed under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know 
Act (EPCRA) section 313(b)(1)(A). The Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) is considering expanding this original list. 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. EPA is currently conducting analysis 
to determine which SIC codes (or portions thereof) should be considered 
for coverage in TRI. Facilities in a broad set of industries are under 
consideration, including but not limited to, electric utilities, waste 
management facilities, mining, oil and gas production, materials 
recovery and recycling, and some warehousing activities.


Statement of Need:


TRI is the most complete and accessible source of information for the 
public on toxic chemical releases in communities across America. 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 collects data from only the manufacturing sector, and for only 
a subset of toxic chemicals that are introduced into the environment. 
Congress gave EPA the authority to expand TRI, both in terms of the 
chemicals 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. 
Manufacturing facilities account for only a portion of the toxic 
chemicals released in the United States. EPA recognizes the reporting 
burden inherent in TRI, and is continuing to take every reasonable 
opportunity to reduce this burden.
The industries under consideration for addition to TRI would 
conceivably add significantly to the data available to the public on 
toxic chemical releases. For this proposal, industries will be selected 
based on a number of factors including the importance of the releases 
to the community, the relative rank of release estimates, the 
relationship of activities in these industries to manufacturing, and 
the compatibility of these activities with current reporting 
requirements.


Alternatives:


Although data on releases from many of the facilities under 
consideration can be found, there is no centralized, publicly 
available, comprehensive, easily understandable, or consistently 
collected source of information for the public on toxic chemical 
releases from facilities outside of manufacturing. EPA has examined all 
available data sources, including information reported under the Clean 
Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 
as well as other sections of EPCRA, State data collection programs, and 
available data provided by industry. EPA can find no information 
comparable to the data which TRI provides the American public. 
Consequently, there are only two alternatives to the expansion of TRI 
reporting requirements to cover additional facilities: voluntary 
reporting by facilities or a determination that any additional 
information TRI might collect from these facilities is of little or no 
value in terms of community right-to-know.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The anticipated costs of this action are unknown at present. The 
addition of facilities to TRI is intended to expand upon the past 
success of the program in enabling all interested parties to establish 
credible baselines and to set realistic goals over time. The 
information reported in TRI increases 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:


Manufacturing facilities, which are currently required to report to 
TRI, represent only a portion of the facilities that release toxic 
chemicals in the United States. Although what portion of releases these 
facilities represent is uncertain, the Congressional Office of 
Technology Assessment has estimated that the original chemical and 
facility coverage of TRI in 1987 resulted in data on only 5 percent of 
releases in the U.S. EPA believes that the public has a right to know 
about such releases and about what facilities are doing to manage 
wastes. The public can then use this data to evaluate potential risks 
from these facilities and to determine how to avoid these risks.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           03/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3034.


Agency Contact:
Susan B. Hazen
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
(7408)
Washington DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-1024
RIN: 2070-AC71
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
104.  CFR REGULATORY REVIEW RELATED INITIATIVES
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:


 40 USC 11013 EPCRA 313


CFR Citation:


 0 CFR 150 to 189; 40 CFR 372; 40 CFR 700 to 799


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On March 4, 1995, the President directed all Federal agencies and 
departments to conduct a comprehensive review of the regulations they 
administer, and by June 1, 1995, to identify those rules that are 
obsolete or unduly burdensome. The Office of Prevention Pesticides, and 
Toxic Substances (OPPTS) has reviewed regulations under its purview, 
that is, those issued under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and 
the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). As a 
result of that review, OPPTS identified a number of regulations that 
can be eliminated from the CFR; in addition, OPPTS also identified a 
significant number of potential burden-reduction and streamlining 
opportunities through modifications to regulations and is further 
evaluating other regulations to determine if they can be simplified or 
streamlined. The Agency plans to involve the public as much as possible 
by soliciting comments and conducting stakeholder meetings and 
consultations.


Statement of Need:


There are many regulations currently on the books that pertain to 
pesticides and toxic chemicals. Some regulations are obsolete or are no 
longer applicable to the Agency's current needs, some are confusing, 
and many have become overly burdensome to all concerned, both the 
public and EPA. The goal of this project is to assess the regulations 
from a common-sense approach. The objectives are multifold: to identify 
regulations in the CFR that are confusing, contradictory, unnecessary, 
or not written in plain English; evaluate the underlying programs 
described by the regulations for streamlining possibilities; and seek 
opportunities to reduce reporting and recordkeeping burdens. OPPTS has 
identified regulations in the CFR which would benefit from 
modifications or which require evaluation prior to proposing specific 
recommendations. Current activities focus on determining the extent to 
which its regulations could be changed to achieve the objectives of the 
Regulatory Review initiative without sacrificing health or 
environmental protection. Changes are being considered at all levels 
and include, in addition to regulatory changes, procedural changes, 
policy changes, administrative changes, and legislative changes.


Alternatives:


Alternatives are being explored continually. Public suggestions and 
recommendations for deregulation activities and streamlining efforts 
are being evaluated to the extent they can be practicably implemented 
without increasing risk to the public health or environment.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


This is a streamlining exercise, therefore overall costs to the 
regulated community are expected to decrease. Benefits include reduced 
regulation, decreased paperwork, less burden, and increased Agency 
efficiency. No comprehensive analyses have been done to date. When 
specific regulatory objectives and alternatives are identified, costs 
and benefits will be evaluated.


Risks:


The principal objective of this project is to improve the 
infrastructure of the pesticide regulation system. Each recommendation 
for change is assessed for potential impact on public health and 
environmental protection. In considering modifying existing 
regulations, any alternatives must be at least as protective as current 
requirements.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           11/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:



SAN No. 3755
A number of program activities and regulations are being evaluated for 
the regulatory reform initiative. As these activities are developed, 
they will be included in the Regulatory Agenda when appropriate. 
Current regulatory reform initiatives are identified in the Regulatory 
Agenda individually.


Agency Contact:
Allan Abramson
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
(7101)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-2906
RIN: 2070-AC97
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
105.  STREAMLINING NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION 
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING GENERAL PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
Priority:


Economically 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 1251/CWA 101; 33 USC 1311/CWA 301; 33 USC 1314/CWA 304; 33 USC 
1317/CWA 307; 33 USC 1328/CWA 318; 33 USC 1342/CWA 402; 33 USC 1345/CWA 
405


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 122; 40 CFR 403


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising regulations, 
guidance documents, and forms to streamline procedures for compliance 
with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
requirements. The rule and form revisions will eliminate redundant 
regulations, provide clarification, and remove unnecessary procedures 
which do not provide any environmental benefit. Revising and reducing 
burdensome procedures will promote efficiency and simplify the 
operation of the NPDES programs. Where possible, through the reliance 
on existing data and collection of data in electronic form, the burden 
on small businesses and other entities will be reduced.


Statement of Need:


EPA identified these rulemaking actions in response to the President's 
request to undertake a line-by-line review of the Parts of the Code of 
Federal Regulations relevant to the Agency's programs. These revisions 
should reduce the burdens associated with the NPDES Program, including 
pretreatment, and make the programs more efficient. EPA's June 1 
``Report to the President: Eliminating and Streamlining Regulations'' 
included commitments to streamline the NPDES Program.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


EPA has no statutory or court obligation to complete these rules.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Firm cost-benefit data is not available at this time. While some of the 
rule revisions will include new requirements which have costs 
associated with them (e.g., the permit application forms and associated 
regulation revisions), most of the revisions will lead to cost savings. 
The proposals under development will consolidate application forms and 
clarify/streamline application procedures (e.g., minimize the need for 
sequential requests for additional information). The revisions are 
expected to reduce permit backlogs, the cost of duplicative work, and 
paperwork burdens and costs for State and local governments, 
businesses, and others that must comply with NPDES regulations.


Risks:


For the most part, EPA's streamlining efforts will address 
opportunities to reduce program implementation costs without 
jeopardizing public health or environmental protection. While the 
Industrial, Municipal, and Sludge Permit Application Rules will include 
new requirements which have costs associated with them, they should 
make the permit process more efficient and predictable. The revised 
application requirements should make it easier for the Agency and 
States to collect the information they need regarding the discharge of 
toxic contaminants and support the development of permit limits that 
will protect the quality of our Nation's waters.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM NPDES and Sludge Municipal Permit Application Forms and Ru10/00/95
NPRM Procedures for Developing and Maintaining Approved POTW Pr12/00/95
NPRM Round II NPDES Streamlining Rule                          02/00/96
NPRM NPDES Industrial Permit Application Form and Regulations  04/00/96
NPRM Permit Application for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Syst05/00/96
NPRM Round III NPDES Streamlining Rule                         06/00/96
Final Action Round II NPDES Streamlining Rule                  08/00/96
Final Action Procedures for Developing and Maintaining Approved POTW 
        Program                                                12/00/96
NPRM General Pretreatment for Existing and New Sources of Pollu03/00/97
Final Action NPDES and Sludge Municipal Permit Application Forms and 
        Rules                                                  06/00/97
Final Action Permit Application for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer 
        Systems                                                06/00/97
Final Action Round III NPDES Streamlining Rule                 12/00/97
Final Action NPDES Industrial Permit Application Form and Regul01/00/98
Final Action General Pretreatment for Existing and New Sources of 
        Pollution                                              03/00/98
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Agency Contact:
Traci Brown
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
(4203)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-8487
RIN: 2040-AC69
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
106.  STREAMLINING REVISIONS TO THE NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING 
WATER REGULATIONS
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 300/SDWA 1412


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 141


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


As part of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) efforts to 
realign regulatory development priorities for the Drinking Water 
Program to maximize risk reduction and to focus and improve 
implementation of the existing regulatory program, EPA is initiating 
work on several streamlining rules. First, EPA is reorganizing/
reformatting Part 141 to make it easier for public water systems to 
understand and comply with and for States, local, and tribal 
governments to implement. EPA is also undertaking a comprehensive 
review of numerous monitoring and reporting requirements to identify 
opportunities to reduce the monitoring and reporting burden associated 
with both regulated and unregulated contaminants. Along with the 
comprehensive review of monitoring requirements, EPA is reexamining 
existing requirements that trigger increased monitoring of individual 
pollutants to try to raise the trigger and, thereby, reduce particular 
increased monitoring requirements. Finally, EPA is reviewing and 
streamlining existing public notification (PN) requirements which apply 
to systems which do not comply with drinking water standards. EPA plans 
to streamline PN requirements to allow States increased flexibility to 
design programs which will ensure notice to the public in a timely and 
effective manner.


Statement of Need:


EPA identified these rulemaking actions in response to the President's 
request to undertake a line-by-line review of the Parts of the Code of 
Federal Regulations relevant to the Agency's programs. These revisions 
should reduce the burdens associated with the National Primary Drinking 
Water Program and make the regulations easier to read and understand. 
EPA's June 1 ``Report to the President: Eliminating and Streamlining 
Regulations'' included commitments to streamline the Drinking Water 
Program.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


EPA has no Statutory or Court obligation to complete these rules.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Firm cost-benefit data is not available at this time.


Risks:


EPA's streamlining efforts will address opportunities to reduce program 
implementation costs without jeopardizing public health protection.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM Reformatting of Existing Drinking Water Regulations       03/00/96
NPRM Requirements for Triggering Increased Drinking Water Monit03/00/96
NPRM Streamlining Drinking Water Monitoring Requirements       12/00/96
NPRM Streamlining Drinking Water Public Notification Requiremen12/00/96
Final Action Requirements for Triggering Increased Drinking Water 
        Monitoring                                             01/00/97
Final Action Reformatting of Existing Drinking Water Regulation06/00/97
Final Action Streamlining Drinking Water Monitoring Requirement12/00/98
Final Action Streamlining Drinking Water Public Notification 
        Requirements                                           12/00/98
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


Revision of Current Requirements for Triggering Increased Drinking 
Water Monitoring (SAN 3565)
Reformatting of Existing Drinking Water Regulations (SAN 3563)
Comprehensive Review of Drinking Water Monitoring Requirements (SAN)
Revisions to Drinking Water Public Notification Requirements (SAN)


Agency Contact:
George Hoessel
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
(4602)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-7097
RIN: 2040-AC66
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
107. 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/RCRA 1004; 42 USC 6921 to 6928/RCRA 3001 to 3008


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 261; 40 CFR 266


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The benefits include lessening the burden on the regulated community by 
clarifying requirements for all hazardous waste recyclers, and reducing 
those requirements for many recyclers. Costs will be determined as the 
Agency decides which recycling facilities will be under Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) jurisdiction.


Statement of Need:


Revisions are needed to improve EPA's regulation hazardous waste 
recycling by: (a) eliminating disincentives for the safe recycling of 
hazardous waste; (b) concentrating on higher-risk materials that pose 
greater hazards; and (c) 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 respond to several court decisions by clarifying 
which recyclable materials are excluded from RCRA hazardous waste 
management requirements.


Alternatives:


Alternatives to be considered include not modifying the current 
regulations. Other alternatives include different mechanisms for 
determining which recyclable materials are subject to RCRA, such as the 
degree to which the recycling process resembles ongoing manufacturing 
and whether the materials are transferred off-site. For recyclable 
materials remaining under RCRA, we are examining alternative management 
requirements and approval systems for different types of recyclers.


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                                                           09/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


State, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2872.


Agency Contact:
Marilyn Goode
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(5304)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-8551
RIN: 2050-AD18
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
108. IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTES: HAZARDOUS WASTE 
IDENTIFICATION RULE (HWIR); WASTE
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, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6926


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 260; 40 CFR 261; 40 CFR 262; 40 CFR 264; 40 CFR 268


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Judicial, November 13, 1995. Final, Judicial, December 15, 1996.


Abstract:


Under the current Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 
``mixture'' and ``derived from'' rules, some low-risk wastes are 
currently regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 
hazardous waste regulations. To address this problem, this deregulatory 
action will make modifications to the ``mixture'' and ``derived from'' 
rules, and establish new criteria that would exempt certain low-risk 
wastes from the hazardous waste regulations. In developing this action, 
EPA is considering the views of all members of a Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (FACA) committee. This action will be implemented by EPA 
and authorized States.


Statement of Need:


EPA is proposing to amend its regulations under RCRA for hazardous 
waste identification. The amendment would establish exemption criteria 
for low-risk listed hazardous wastes, waste mixtures, and derivatives.
Under the amendment, low-risk listed hazardous wastes, waste mixtures, 
and derivatives meeting the exemption criteria would no longer be 
subject to hazardous waste management requirements under subtitle C of 
RCRA.
The provisions of this proposal will reflect a balancing of the 
Agency's informational needs for oversight and enforcement with the 
practical resource considerations of the generator. This proposal would 
reduce the demand on scarce subtitle C landfill capacity and would not 
increase risk to humans or the environment, because the exempt waste 
would be low-risk and not warrant management under subtitle C. This 
proposal will also promote pollution prevention, waste minimization, 
and development of innovative waste treatment technology.
This notice will also contain the Agency's response to a petition for 
rulemaking submitted by the Chemical Manufacturers Association.


Alternatives:


A variety of alternatives for establishing the exemption criteria and 
the implementation requirements were identified by a FACA committee co-
chaired by EPA and the States. EPA is forging a strong partnership with 
the States in the interest of our co-regulator, co-implementor roles. 
The proposal will include a basic exit option and request comment on 
contingent management alternatives.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Draft estimates are that 60-80 million tons of waste water, and 0.25 to 
0.28 million tons of nonwastewater could exit subtitle C annually. Cost 
savings to industry could range from $70-$80 million annually.


Risks:


This proposal would maintain current levels of risk protection.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            57 FR 21450                                    05/20/92
NPRM Withdrawn  57 FR 49280                                    10/30/92
NPRM Reproposal                                                11/00/95
Final Action                                                   12/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3328.
Reinventing Government: The rule was highlighted as one of the top 
regulatory reform initiatives in the President's March 16, 1995 Report, 
``Reinventing Environmental Regulations.''


Agency Contact:
William A. Collins, Jr.
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(5304)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-4791
RIN: 2050-AE07
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
109. REVISED STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE COMBUSTION FACILITIES
Priority:


Economically Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC /RCRA 3004(a)(q); RCRA 3005(a), CAAA section 112


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 60; 40 CFR 61; 40 CFR 260; 40 CFR 261; 40 CFR 264; 40 CFR 265; 
40 CFR 266; 40 CFR 270


Legal Deadline:


None


EPA has signed a settlement agreement to promulgate revised rules for 
industrial furnaces and incinerators by December 1996 and boilers by 
December 1999.


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 there are no emission standards for 
chlorinated dioxins and furans 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. This will avoid duplicative Agency 
effort and piecemeal regulation of the hazardous waste management 
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).


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The cost and benefit analyses are currently undergoing internal Agency 
review.


Risks:


The risk analyses for this rulemaking are undergoing internal Agency 
review.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM Industrial Furnaces and Incinerators                      11/00/95
Final Rule                                                     12/00/96
NPRM - Boilers                                                 09/00/98
Final Rule                                                     12/00/99
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


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
110. IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTES; HAZARDOUS WASTE 
IDENTIFICATION RULE (HWIR): CONTAMINATED 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)/RCRA 3001; 42 USC 6905; 42 USC 6921; 42 USC 6922; 42 
USC 6926


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 260; 40 CFR 261; 40 CFR 262; 40 CFR 264; 40 CFR 268


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The goal of this regulation is to establish a new regulatory framework 
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for the 
management of contaminated media that are generated from remediating 
hazardous waste sites. The new regulation will reform the current 
standards by creating more flexibility for Agency decisionmakers in 
setting cleanup requirements, and by better aligning the RCRA 
regulations with the actual risks posed by managing contaminated media. 
The rule will exempt certain lower risk contaminated media from the 
traditional RCRA regulations and will set treatment standards for 
higher risk media that reflect the inherent differences between 
contaminated media (e.g., soils, groundwater) and newly generated 
hazardous wastes. The regulations will also simplify and streamline 
RCRA permit requirements for cleanups that involve managing hazardous 
materials.


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 primarily to 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.
In 1993, EPA, States, and representatives from industry, environmental 
groups, and the hazardous waste treatment industry (constituting a 
Federal Advisory Committee (FACA)) reached a tentative agreement on a 
``harmonized approach'' to address this issue. This approach 
distinguishes between ``higher'' and ``lower'' level (bright line) 
contaminated media based on assessment of potential human health and 
environmental risks. The bright line would be set at a relatively high-
risk level to allow States and EPA to identify hot spots that would be 
subject to subtitle C requirements (land-disposal regulations and MTR). 
Media above bright-line concentrations would be subject to specific 
national treatment requirements; media below the bright line would be 
exempt from subtitle C if subject to enforceable site-specific 
management by the overseeing agency.


Alternatives:


Alternative regulatory approaches for this rule will be 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 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 Withdrawal 57 FR 49280                                    10/30/92
Reproposal                                                     12/00/95
Final Action                                                   03/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2982.
Reinventing Government: The rule was highlighted as one of the Agency's 
top regulatory reform initiatives in the President's March 16, 1995 
report, ``Reinventing Environmental Regulations.'' The HWIR Media rule 
is an important component of EPA's regulatory efforts to make the RCRA 
hazardous waste program more risk based and to expedite cleanups at 
RCRA, UST, and CERCLA sites.


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
111. 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 as amended in 1990, title I


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 51.160 to 51.166; 40 CFR 51, app S; 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 (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 seeks to 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 will more clearly define the roles and requirements 
of sources, permitting authorities and Federal land managers 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 August 1992 and March 1993, public workshops were held to obtain 
ideas and comments and discuss options for reforming NSR, but not to 
attempt to reach consensus with the group. 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 is 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). Six subgroups were 
formed to address Class I area and control technoloy issues identified 
by the Subcommittee. Another two subgroups were formed at the November 
1993 meeting, one to address NSR applicability issues and the other to 
address the impact of existing sources on Class I areas.


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.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


From a cost perspective, this rulemaking represents a decrease in costs 
to industry of at least $6 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                                                           10/00/95
Final Action                                                   09/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3259.


Agency Contact:
Dennis Crumpler
New Source Review Section
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
MD-12
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5433
RIN: 2060-AE11
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
112. NAAQS: OZONE (REVIEW)
Priority:


Economically Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 7408 section 108 Clean Air Act; 42 USC 7409 Section 109 Clean 
Air Act


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 50.9


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, December 31, 1980.


Review at 5-year intervals thereafter.


Abstract:


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reviewing and updating the 
air quality criteria for ozone to incorporate new scientific and 
technical information. Based on the revised criteria, the EPA will 
determine whether revisions to the standards are appropriate.


Statement of Need:


In March 1993, the EPA concluded that revision of the NAAQS was 
inappropriate, based on the existing air quality criteria for ozone, 
but decided to expedite the next review of the ozone criteria and NAAQS 
in light of potentially significant new information. On February 3, 
1994, EPA announced an accelerated schedule for completing the new 
review. In litigation challenging the March 1993 decision, the EPA 
subsequently sought and received a voluntary remand of the decision so 
that it could be reconsidered in light of the new information. The EPA 
intends to complete the remand proceedings on the schedule announced in 
February. Consistent with that schedule, a draft Criteria Document was 
sent to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and made 
available for public review during February and March of 1994. The 
CASAC met in July 1994 to review the criteria document and provided 
oral and written comments, which are being considered by EPA in 
revising the draft document. Subsequent CASAC meetings were held to 
review the revised draft criteria document and drafts of the staff 
paper in March and September 1995.


Alternatives:


Section 109 of the Clean Air Act requires periodic review of the NAAQS. 
This review is being undertaken to satisfy the statutory requirement.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The anticipated costs and benefits resulting from this rulemaking will 
be part of the Agency's regulatory impact analysis of this rule. The 
Agency has just begun this analysis; therefore, the anticipated costs 
and benefits are not available at this time.


Risks:


As part of this review, EPA is preparing exposure/risk analyses. These 
analyses are undergoing review. Therefore the results are not available 
at this time.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           06/00/96
Final Action                                                   06/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3353.


Agency Contact:
John Haines
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
MD-15
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5533
RIN: 2060-AE57
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
113. NAAQS: PARTICULATE MATTER (REVIEW)
Priority:


Economically Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 7408 to 7409


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 50.6


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Judicial, June 30, 1996. Final, Judicial, January 31, 1997.


Abstract:


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reviewing and updating the 
air quality criteria for particulate matter to incorporate new 
scientific and technical information that has become available since 
the last review. Based on the revised criteria, EPA will determine 
whether revisions to the standards are appropriate.


Statement of Need:


The EPA last completed a review of the particulate matter NAAQS in July 
1987. Since that time a growing body of scientific information has 
associated particle pollution with excess-mortality and morbidity 
effects at levels below the existing 24-hour primary standard. Many in 
the scientific community believe that these effects are most likely 
associated with fine particles. In light of this, EPA is in the process 
of updating the air quality criteria for particulate matter. An 
external review draft of revised criteria document was reviewed by the 
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) in August 1995. The 
CASAC will meet to review the associated staff paper in November/
December 1995.


Alternatives:


Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7409) requires periodic review 
of the NAAQS. This review is being undertaken to satisfy the 
satisfactory requirement.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The anticipated costs and benefits resulting from this rulemaking will 
be part of the Agency's regulatory impact analysis of this rule. The 
Agency has just begun this analysis; therefore, the anticipated costs 
and benefits are not available at this time.


Risks:


Particle pollution has been associated with excess mortality and with 
respiratory illness at levels below existing 24-hour standards. As part 
of this review, EPA will examine the risk associated with particle 
pollution.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           06/30/96
Final Action                                                   01/31/97
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Sectors Affected:


 10 Metal Mining; 12 Coal Mining; 14 Mining and Quarrying of 
Nonmetallic Minerals, Except Fuels; 33 Primary Metal Industries; 491 
Electric Services


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3448.


Agency Contact:
John Haines
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
MD-15
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5533
RIN: 2060-AE66
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
114. 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


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 certain smaller research and 
development facilities; and changes in procedural requirements in order 
to clarify the flexibility States possess in processing 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 
response to comments on the initial notice of proposed rulemaking, the 
EPA sought further input from representatives from State and local 
permitting authorities, industry and environmental groups to learn more 
directly of their implementation concerns. This action incorporates 
many of those recommendations into a final rule.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs were estimated in terms of the administrative burden on 
permitting authorities, EPA, and permitted sources. 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 of implmementing these 
revisions to parts 70 and 71 is estimated to be approximately $33 
million. In comparison, implementing the current part 70 permit 
revision system is estimated to be approximately $118 million in 
administrative burden. The actual impact of implementing the revised 
regulations represents a significant reduction in costs over 
implementing the current regulations.


Risks:


All major sources of air pollution are required to have a permit to 
operate by the Clean Air Act and are subject to the emission 
requirements of the State Implementation Plans. No adverse effect on 
the public health or ecosystems should result from this action.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            59 FR 44460                                    08/29/94
NPRM Supplementa60 FR 20804                                    04/27/95
NPRM                                                           10/00/95
FINAL                                                          03/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3412.


Agency Contact:
Michael A. Trutna
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
Information Transfer and Program Integration
Division, OAQPS, MD-12
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5345
Fax: 919 541-5509
RIN: 2060-AF70
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
115.  TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY FLEXIBILITY AND STREAMLINING
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 7521(a)/CAA 176(c)


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 51; 40 CFR 93


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 recognized that 
transportation planning and air quality planning must be coordinated 
towards achieving the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 
The transportation conformity rule was promulgated in November of 1993, 
in response to CAAA concerns. Conformity ensures that transportation 
planning does not (a) produce new air quality violations, (b) worsen 
existing violations, and (c) delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. This 
rulemaking is the third in a series of amendments to the original 
transportation conformity rule. This rulemaking will streamline the 
original rule to simplify the conformity process in response to 
conformity stakeholder concerns. Flexibility will be added for rural 
nonattainment areas. Difficulties associated with the build/no-build 
test and adding transportation projects to plans will be resolved, and 
non-Federal projects will have additional flexibility through these 
amendments.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking will streamline the original transportation conformity 
rule in response to stakeholder concerns. This rulemaking will continue 
to ensure attainment and maintenance of the CAAA's air quality 
standards in order to protect public and environmental health.


Alternatives:


This rulemaking amends the original transportation conformity rule to 
simplify the conformity process for State and local transportation and 
air quality agencies. Conformity stakeholders have assisted EPA and the 
Department of Transportation (DOT) in formulating a new approach to 
reaching attainment through the conformity process. Several alternative 
approaches to conformity revisions have been considered by involved 
stakeholders. Since this rulemaking is a direct result of the 
stakeholder process, opting for the alternative (i.e., maintaining the 
original transportation conformity rule as currently written) would not 
address stakeholder concerns in a satisfactory manner.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


There are no significant direct monetary costs associated with this 
rulemaking as stipulated in Executive Order 12866. Benefits associated 
with this rulemaking include all benefits connected to attaining the 
NAAQS. In addition, by involving transportation and air quality 
agencies during initial planning processes, long-term planning will 
become more efficient by ensuring that transportation investments do 
not interfere with clean air goals.


Risks:


This rulemaking addresses risks which are associated with not attaining 
the NAAQS.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           10/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3740.


Agency Contact:
Kathryn Sargeant
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Phone: 313 668-4441
RIN: 2060-AG16
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
116. INTEGRATED NESHAP AND EFFLUENT GUIDELINES: PULP AND PAPER
Priority:


Economically Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 7412; 42 USC 7414; 42 USC 7601; Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990 section 112, 114, and 301; 33 USC 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 
and 1361; Clean Water Act section 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and 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.


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.


Alternatives:


Both the CAA and the CWA specify that these regulations be established 
on a technology basis. The CAA specifices 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 those mills. The Agency plans to propose MACT 
standards for the combustion sources in early 1996 and include them in 
the integrated air and water rules to be promulgated. For the 
rulemaking components that have been proposed, the Agency estimated 
total annualized costs of $600 million (1992 dollars). The Agency has 
received extensive public comments on the cost estimates; revisions are 
likely, but the magnitude of those revisions has not been determined.
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.


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.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
For All Sources
Final Action 00/00/00
NESHAP for Combustion Sources and Effluent Guidelines - Phase II
NPRM 04/00/96
NESHAP for Nonchemical and Other Pulp and Paper Mills
NPRM 11/15/96
NESHAP for Noncombustion and Combustions Sources and Guidelines
Final 00/00/00
NESHAP for Noncombustion Sources and Effluent Guidelines -Phase 1
NPRM 12/17/93 (58 FR 66078)
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3105 (was 2914) for NESHAP and SAN No. 2712 for Effluent 
Guidelines
ADDITIONAL AGENCY CONTACT: Jeff Telander (Combustion Sources)
ADDITIONAL AGENCY CONTACT: Elaine Manning (Nonchemical and other Pulp 
and Paper Mills)
ADDITIONAL AGENCY CONTACT: Debra Nicoll (Effluent Guidelines) Office of 
Water, 4303, Washington, DC 20460, 202-260-5386
See also RIN 2040-AB53.


Agency Contact:
Penny Lassiter (Noncombustion Sources, etc.)
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
(MD-13)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Lassiter 919/541-5396 & Telander
Phone: 919 541-5427
RIN: 2060-AD03
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
117. NATIONAL 49-STATE LOW-EMISSION VEHICLES PROGRAM
Priority:


Economically Significant


Legal Authority:


 Clean Air Act secs 202 and 301(a)


CFR Citation:


 None


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                                                           10/00/95
Final Action                                                   01/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


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
118. CONTROL OF NITROGEN OXIDE AND PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM HEAVY-
DUTY ENGINES
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 Clean Air Act secs 202(a), 211(c), 213(a), 301(a)


CFR Citation:


 None


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The primary focus of this action will be on the potential for reduced 
nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions from mobile sources, 
particularly diesel engines and fuels. 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. In addition, this action also will investigate the 
potential for reducing ozone hydrocarbon emissions from mobile sources, 
particularly from diesel engines and fuels.
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking is intended to notify the 
public of the Agency's intent to investigate the feasibility of 
reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulates from mobile 
sources. It is also intended to solicit involvement and input from a 
broad cross-section of the public, including potentially affected 
industries, States, regional air management organizations, public 
health and environmental protection interest groups, and the general 
public.


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 oxide (NOx) and hydrocarbons in order to protect the public 
from the serious health effects of ozone pollution. The control of 
particulate matter emissions from heavy-duty engines is also a priority 
for these stakeholders.


Alternatives:


EPA will consider alternatives for this rule as part of the response to 
the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).


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                                                           02/00/96
Final Action                                                   11/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3645.


Agency Contact:
Tad Wysor
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 313 668-4332
RIN: 2060-AF76
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
119. NONROAD SPARK-IGNITION ENGINES AT OR BELOW 19 KILOWATTS (25 
HORSEPOWER)(PHASE 2)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 7547/CAA 213


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 90


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Judicial, April 30, 1996. Final, Statutory, November 15, 1992. 
Final, Judicial, April 30, 1997.


Abstract:


This action will establish the second phase of emissions standards for 
new nonroad spark-ignition engines at or below 19 kilowatts (25 
horsepower), as required by section 213(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act as 
Amended. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing the 
second phase of small-engine regulations through a negotiated 
rulemaking, with representation by engine manufacturers, equipment 
manufacturers, emissions control manufacturers, equipment dealers, 
environment and public health interests, and State air programs.
The affected engines are used in lawn, garden, and utility equipment, 
such as lawnmowers, string trimmers, chain saws, and small pumps and 
generators. The first phase was established July 3, 1995 (60 FR 34582), 
effective for the 1997 model year, and was very similar to the tier 1 
small-engine regulations developed by California for the same engines. 
Regulated pollutants are hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and oxides of 
nitrogen.


Statement of Need:


Nonroad engines contribute significantly to total ozone precursor and 
CO emissions in areas that have failed to attain the National ambient 
air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and CO. Requirements for 
emissions reductions will help many areas achieve the NAAQS. The second 
phase will include additional controls not achievable in the timeframe 
of the first phase, which are necessary for continued attainment of 
NAAQS.


Alternatives:


Regulation of this category of engines was split into two phases on the 
recommendation of the regulated industry, in order to obtain some early 
reductions quickly while providing sufficient lead-time to develop and 
implement an appropriate second phase. The regulatory negotiation 
committee was convened for the second phase to ensure that all possible 
options for achieving appropriate emissions reductions from this sector 
were considered.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The regulatory negotiation committee is developing the rule, including 
setting of emissions standards levels, based on a cost/benefit analysis 
that considers cost per ton of emissions reduced as well as cost per 
engine. Until that process is complete, the specific costs and benefits 
are unknown. The benefits of phase 1 were a 32 percent reduction in 
hydrocarbons and a 7 percent reduction in carbon monoxide from these 
engines, at a cost of $266 per ton of hydrocarbons reduced.


Risks:


Over 89 million small engines contribute to unhealthy ozone and carbon 
monoxide levels in nearly 100 cities across the country. An estimated 
6.8 million tons of air pollution are generated from lawn and garden 
equipment each year. Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless 
poisonous gas. Hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen contribute to the 
formation of ground-level ozone, which is a noxious pollutant that 
impairs lung functioning and is a key ingredient in smog.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           04/00/96
Final Action                                                   04/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3361.


Agency Contact:
Lucie Audette
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Lab
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 313 741-7850
RIN: 2060-AE29
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

120.  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 is revising 
existing rules (40 CFR 152.44 and 152.46) on notifications and 
nonnotifications.
Second, self-certification of acute toxicity and product chemistry data 
is being considered as a means of reducing the number of studies 
reviewed by EPA in connection with registration applications. While 
being done as two separate projects (acute toxicity and product 
chemistry), these efforts are being closely coordinated to assure 
consistency. One or more PR Notices will be drafted and made available 
for public comment before any final decisions are made in this area.
Third, possible options for self-certification of new products similar 
or identical to those already registered are being developed and 
evaluated. A draft issue paper will be made available for public 
comment before any final decisions are made about this kind of self-
certification.


Alternatives:


Various alternatives to self-certification are being considered by EPA 
for reinventing or improving the registration process, including, but 
not limited to, sharing acute toxicity data 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 Notification Rule                                        10/00/95
Draft PR Notices Self-Certification of Acute Toxicity and Product 
        Chemistry Data                                         12/00/95
Final FR Notices Self-Certification of Acute Toxicity and Product 
        Chemistry Data                                         11/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Agency Contact:
Jeff Kempter
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
(7505C)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 305-5448
RIN: 2070-AD00
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
121.  SELECTED RULEMAKINGS FOR ABATING LEAD HAZARDS
Priority:


Economically Significant


Legal Authority:


 15 USC 2683; PL 102-550


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 745


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, April 28, 1994. Other, Statutory, October 28, 1994.


Final Statutory, April 28, 1994 (Sections 403, 402, 404) Final 
Statutory, October 28, 1994 (Sections 406, 1018)


Abstract:


The Residential Lead-Based Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 requires EPA to 
promulgate regulations that establish standards for determining hazards 
associated with lead-based paint, lead-contaminated soil, and lead-
contaminated dust. EPA is to (a)identify the paint conditions and lead 
levels in dust and soil that would result in adverse human health 
effects (on July 14, 1994, EPA issued guidance on section 403 to 
provide preliminary information while a proposal is being developed); 
(b) promulgate regulations (section 402) 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.


Statement of Need:


Childhood lead poisoning is a pervasive problem in the United States, 
with 1.7 million young children (8.9%) 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. Under Section 403, the 
alternatives being considered include: (a) tiered standards; (b) 
integrated standards vs. independent standards; and (c) the possible 
acceptance of a usage factor in determining hazards.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


For rules promulgated under sections 402, 404, 406, and 1018, cost 
estimates have been provided with the proposed rule, and will be 
available with the final rule. For Section 403, costs will still need 
to be estimated in the draft Regulatory Impact Analysis 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 45872                                    09/02/94
NPRM Section 10159 FR 54984                                    11/02/94
Final Action Section 1018                                      11/00/95
Final Action Section 406                                       12/00/95
Final Action Sections 402 and 404                              12/00/95
NPRM Section 403                                               09/00/96
Final Action Section 403                                       09/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis; Regulatory Impact Analysis


Additional Information:


Lead Hazard Standards (Section 403) (RIN 2070-AC63)
Lead-Based Paint Activities Rules: Training, Accreditation and 
Certification Rule and Model State Plan Rule (Sections 402 and 404) 
(RIN: 2070-AC64)
Lead-Based Paint Disclosure Requirements at Renovation of Target 
Housing (Section 406) (RIN: 2070-AC65)
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Information Requirements at the Transfer of 
Target Housing: Joint with HUD (Section 1018) (RIN: 2070-AC75)


Agency Contact:
Doreen Cantor
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
(7404)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-1777
RIN: 2070-AD06
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
122.  POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS) DISPOSAL AMENDMENTS
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)/TSCA 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, processing, 
distribution in commerce (including export), use (including import), 
disposal, and marking of PCBs.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is the first comprehensive review of the PCB 
regulations in the 17-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

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            59 FR 62788                                    12/06/94
Final Action                                                   06/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Agency Contact:
Tony Baney
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
(7404)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-3933
RIN: 2070-AD04
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
123. EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR THE METAL PRODUCTS AND 
MACHINERY CATEGORY, PHASE I
Priority:


Economically Significant


Legal Authority:


 33 USC 1311/CWA 301; 33 USC 1314/CWA 304; 33 USC 1316/CWA 306; 33 USC 
1317/CWA 307; 33 USC 1361/CWA 501


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 438


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Judicial, March 31, 1995. Final, Judicial, September 30, 1996.


Dates contained in Consent Decree (NRDC v. Reilly)


Abstract:


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing effluent 
limitation guidelines for facilities that generate wastewater while 
processing metal parts; metal products; and machinery, including 
manufacture, assembly, rebuilding, repair, and maintenance. The phase I 
regulation will cover seven industrial groups: aircraft, aerospace, 
hardware, ordnance, stationary industrial equipment, mobile industrial 
equipment, and electronic equipment. This regulation is performance-
based and does not specify a method of compliance.


Statement of Need:


Discharges of wastewater from industrial facilities contain pollutants 
that may cause deleterious effects on surface waters and adverse 
impacts on human health and aquatic life. Discharges from metal 
products and machinery (MP&M) facilities contain priority and 
nonconventional metals, organics and conventional pollutants. Many of 
these pollutants are human carcinogens, human systemic toxicants, 
aquatic life toxicants, or all of the above. MP&M facilities discharge 
wastewater directly to surface waters of the United States or 
indirectly to surface waters via sewer systems and publicly owned 
treatment works (POTWs) and contribute to the pollution of surface 
waters and POTW sludges.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The Clean Water Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
to establish national technology-based standards to control or 
eliminate the discharge of pollutants into surface water and to POTWs. 
This proposed regulation is required under a 1992 consent decree with 
the Natural Resources Defense Council and must be developed according 
to the schedule in that decree.


Alternatives:


EPA's proposed rule described three major treatment alternatives the 
Agency had considered in developing its recommended approach. The three 
alternatives included: (a) end-of-pipe treatment controls, (b) end-of-
pipe controls plus in-process controls, and (c) end-of-pipe treatment 
(e.g., reverse osmosis, ion exchange). The Agency proposed the second 
alternative with an exemption for low-flow indirect discharges of 
process wastewater (i.e., those discharging less than one million 
gallons per year to publicly owned treatment works) as its recommended 
approach.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


At the time of proposal, the MP&M Phase I Guidelines were estimated to 
impose a total capital cost for direct and indirect dischargers of $414 
million and an estimated annualized cost of $161 million. Total 
monetized benefits were estimated to range from $70 million to $207 
million (in 1994 dollars). The proposed MP&M phase I guidelines were 
estimated to result in a reduction of almost a million pounds of toxic 
pollutants discharged by the industry each year, thereby reducing 
violations of water quality standards (which were bodies across the 
country). The proposed limits were also estimated to reduce the metals 
content of municipal sludge, thereby allowing approximately 184 
additional POTWs to make beneficial use of 439,000 dry metric tons of 
sewage sludge annually by land applying the sludge rather than 
incinerating or landfilling it. The expected cost savings for sewage 
sludge disposal is estimated to range from $39 million to $86 million 
(in 1994 dollars). Final cost and benefits will be determined once EPA 
completes its review of the public comments on the proposed rule and 
makes decisions on the final rule.


Risks:


EPA estimates that the proposed limitations would eliminate 2.7 cancer 
cases per year (from a baseline of about 11.1 cases estimated at the 
current discharge level); lower risk indicator for systemic, noncancer 
risks of illness; and lessen excursions of health-based water quality 
toxic effect levels.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            60 FR 28210                                    05/30/95
Final Action                                                   09/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2806.


Agency Contact:
Steven Geil
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
(4303)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-9817
RIN: 2040-AB79
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
124. LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS--PHASE IV: TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 
CERTAIN MINERAL PROCESSING WASTES; TC METALS; NEWLY LISTED WASTES FROM 
WOOD PRESERVING AND DYES AND PIGMENTS
Priority:


Economically 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, 6912(a), 6921, 6924


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 268


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Judicial, June 1996.


Abstract:


The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 require the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate regulations 
establishing treatment standards that must be met before hazardous 
waste may be disposed of on land. The proposed rulemaking establishes 
treatment standards for certain characteristic mineral processing 
wastes, wood preserving wastes, and TC metals. It also addresses issues 
arising from a September 25, 1992 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals 
in Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 976 F. 2d (D.C. Cir. 1992) on the 
equivalency of treatment in wastewater treatment systems regulated 
under the Clean Water Act to treatment of wastes under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).


Statement of Need:


Land disposal of hazardous wastes can result in the contamination of 
groundwater and surface water and the emission of hazardous 
constituents to the air. Studies have indicated that these hazardous 
constituents can cause adverse human health and environmental effects. 
In addition, land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes can have 
significant economic effects, as demonstrated in the high costs of 
cleaning up past land disposal sites.
As a result of these problems, Congress, in section 3004 of RCRA, 
mandated that land disposal of hazardous waste is prohibited, unless 
the waste is treated to minimize threats to human health and the 
environment. In the phase IV final rule, EPA is targeting the potential 
risks of leaks and air emissions from surface impoundments that are 
part of wastewater treatment systems. Primary treatment surface 
impoundments and other surface impoundments that precede the biological 
treatment surface impoundment may pose a particular risk that untreated 
organic constituents could leak to groundwater. There is also a chance 
that hazardous constituents could be emitted into the air from an 
uncovered surface impoundment, thus this risk will also be addressed. 
In addition, EPA is satisfying its statutory mandate to promulgate 
treatment standards for wood preserving, toxicity characteristic metal, 
and mineral processing hazardous wastes.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Portions of the rule are subject to a consent decree that requires 
promulgation of final treatment standards for wood preserving and 
toxicity characteristic metal wastes, and hazardous mineral processing 
wastes.


Alternatives:


In a final rule issued on May 8, 1990, EPA allowed certain hazardous 
wastes to be diluted rather than treated to meet the land disposal 
restrictions (LDR) treatment standards when they were managed in 
surface impoundments regulated by the Clean Water Act (CWA). This 
approach was taken in order to harmonize the requirements of RCRA and 
CWA. EPA was sued on the 1990 final rule ( Chemical Waste Management, 
Inc. et al. (CWM) v.  EPA)T1. In  CWM v. EPA, the court held that these 
diluted wastes may be placed in a surface impoundment only if the 
underlying hazardous constituents in the waste are treated to the same 
extent as they would be under RCRA, such that threats to human health 
and the environment are minimized. As a direct result of the court 
decision, EPA entered into a settlement agreement which required EPA to 
examine whether treatment in a CWA (and CWA-equivalent) wastewater 
treatment surface impoundment is equivalent to treatment under RCRA LDR 
requirements. The Agency examined edquivalency under the two programs 
by looking at the potential for cross-media transfers of hazardous 
constituents in CWA and CWA-equivalent surface impoundments in the 
Phase IV proposal. It will be necessary to identify the Agency's final 
approach in the Phase IV final rule.
The Phase IV final rule will finalize EPA's decision on three proposed 
options to address the issue of whether EPA should establish RCRA 
controls for releases of hazardous constituents through air emissions, 
leaks to groundwater, and sludges from CWA and CWA-equivalent 
wastewater treatment surface impoundments. The proposal neutrally 
presented two options for addressing potential cross-media transfers. 
The first option was to rely on existing Clean Air Act (CAA) provisions 
to address air emissions, and on State programs and the RCRA industrial 
nonhazardous waste control mechanisms to address leaks and sludges. The 
second option was to rely on existing controls, but also establish LDR 
regulations to fill the gaps that were identified in existing 
regulations. As compliance alternatives for this option, EPA proposed a 
de minimis exclusion, and an approach for giving credit for pollution 
prevention activities that reduced the mass loadings of hazardous 
wastes to the environment. A third option, presented for completeness 
but believed to be inappropriate and costly, was to require that 
facilities comply with LDR treatment standards before placing their 
wastes in the wastewater treatment surface impoundments. If LDR 
standards were met before land disposal in the surface impoundment, 
then the issue of equivalency would be moot.
Futhermore, under RCRA, the Agency was instructed to promulgate 
treatment standards for a waste within six months of the Agency 
determining that it is a hazardous waste. The Agency missed this 
deadline in a number of cases and was sued. The Phase IV final rule is 
subject to a consent decree that requires the establishment of 
treatment standards for wood preserving and toxicity characteristic 
metal wastes, and for hazardous mineral processing wastes. The 
treatment standards for hazardous mineral processing wastes will be 
proposed in a supplemental rule to be issued in December, 1995.
Treatment standards for wood preserving and toxicity characteristic 
metal wastes, as well as for hazardous mineral processing wastes, are 
based upon the performance of best demonstrated available technologies 
(BDAT). Section 3004(m) of RCRA requires that the treatment standards 
ensure substantial reductions in hazardous waste toxicity and mobility, 
such that threats to human health and the environment arising form 
subsequent land disposal are minimized. Variances from these treatment 
standards may be granted if a petitioner can show EPA that the waste is 
different from the waste EPA used to set the treatment standard or that 
the treatment is unavailable on a waste. In addition, if treatment is 
unavailable on a nationwide basis, or on a case-by-case basis, EPA may 
postpone the effective date of the treatment standards for up to four 
years.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The Agency's analysis of the cost of addressing cross-media transfers 
indicates that under Option 1, no impacts would occur because the 
Agency proposed to defer to other regulations. For Option 2, annual 
compliance costs to facilities would range from an estimated $10 to $65 
million. Estimated annual compliance costs to facilities under Option 3 
would range from $200 to $300 million.
The Agency estimates annual incremental compliance costs of treating 
wood preserving wastes to be $9.5 million. Costs to treat metal 
toxicity characteristic wastes to comply with the revised standards are 
expected to be minimal.
EPA estimates that cancer risks from leaks to groundwater at wastewater 
treatment systems range up to one in one thousand. In one-fifth of 
samples with volatile organic constituents at the point of generation, 
concentrations exceeded the risk-based regulatory threshold established 
in the RCRA Subpart CC rule to control air emissions.


Risks:


Please see the previous section titled ``Anticipated Costs and 
Benefits'' for a discussion on risks.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           56 FR 55160                                    10/24/91
NPRM            60 FR 43654                                    08/22/95
Final Action                                                   06/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3366.
Reinventing Government: The options that were proposed for addressing 
cross-media transfers would encourage pollution prevention by allowing 
facilities to comply by reducing mass loadings of toxics to the 
environment through source reduction from wastestreams not directly at 
issue. An exemption from the options was proposed for de minimis levels 
of waste. Importantly, EPA seeks to preserve its partnership with 
States and Tribes by embracing their programs that control the cross-
media transfer problems at issue. EPA also took the common-sense 
approach of crafting its options for cross-media transfers to fulfill 
its obligations and protect environmental resources without undue 
disruption to waste treatment systems that are already adequately 
protective of the environment. Additionally, the rule will focus on 
environmental risk by isolating for regulation those waste management 
scenarios that pose risks rather than imposing controls across the 
board. The Agency built in maximum flexibility so that those complying 
with the requirements can choose the most cost-effective means of 
limiting toxic releases or for treating wastes to meet LDR treatment 
standards. Furthermore, the Agency is mindful of the multi-media 
context of environmental problems and has designed the proposed rule to 
defer to existing federal programs to avoid duplication of regulation. 
Furthermore, this rule will reduce the paperwork burden on the 
regulated community by revising a number of the LDR program's 
administrative requirements. Other regulatory changes will eliminate 
outdated regulations and clarify areas of the regulations that are 
confusing.


Agency Contact:
Sue Slotnick
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5302W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8462
RIN: 2050-AE05
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
125. LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS--PHASE III: DECHARACTERIZED 
WASTEWATERS, CARBAMATE WASTES, AND SPENT ALUMINUM POTLINERS
Priority:


Economically 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, 6912(a), 6921, 6924


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 268


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Judicial, January 1996.


Abstract:


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be proposing rules 
addressing a rule pursuant to the September 25, 1992, decision of the 
U.S. Court of Appeals in Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 976 F. 2d 
(D.C. Cir. 1992). The underlying rule at issue was signed on May 8, 
1990, and published on June 1, 1990 (55 FR 22520). The phase III 
proposal will establish treatment standards for formerly characteristic 
wastes primarily managed in land-based wastewater treatment systems 
whose ultimate discharge is regulated under the Clean Water Act. 
Treatment standards will also be established for newly listed 
carbamates and organobromine wastes. The phase IV proposal will address 
whether land-based wastewater systems provide treatment that is 
equivalent to that conducted under the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA) land disposal restrictions (LDR) program. Treatment 
standards will also be established for wood preserving and mineral-
processing wastes.


Statement of Need:


Land disposal of hazardous wastes can result in the contamination of 
groundwater and surface water. Studies have indicated that these 
hazardous constituents can cause adverse human health and environmental 
effects. In addition, land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes can 
have significant economic effects, as demonstrated in the high costs of 
cleaning up past land disposal sites.
As a result of these problems, Congress, in section 3004 of RCRA, 
mandated that land disposal of hazardous waste is prohibited, unless 
threats to human health and the environment are minimized. In the phase 
III final rule, EPA is targeting the potential risks of discharges from 
surface impoundments that are part of wastewater treatment systems. 
Biological treatment surface impoundments may not treat all underlying 
hazardous constituents in RCRA characteristic wastes (that are diluted 
to remove the hazardous characteristic) to the same extent as those 
constituents would be treated using other technologies to achieve LDR 
treatment standards. In addition, characteristic wastes are often 
diluted and injected into deep wells, without actually being treated to 
minimize the potential threat of underlying hazardous constituents in 
that waste. These risks will be addressed by establishing LDR treatment 
standards that apply at the point of discharge from the impoundment or 
into an underground injection well (i.e., at ``end-of-pipe''). In 
addition, EPA is promulgating treatment standards for carbamate wastes 
and spent aluminum potliners.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The end-of-pipe treatment standards are subject to a consent decree 
that mandates that this rule be finalized by January, 1996.


Alternatives:


In a final rule issued on May 8, 1990, EPA allowed certain hazardous 
wastes to be diluted rather than treated to meet the LDR treatment 
standards when they were managed in surface impoundments regulated by 
the Clean Water Act (CWA). This approach was taken in order to 
harmonize the requirements of RCRA and CWA. EPA was sued on the 1990 
final rule (Chemical Waste Management, Inc. et al. (CWM) v. EPA). In 
CWM v. EPA, the court held that these diluted wastes may be placed in a 
surface impoundment only if the underlying hazardous constituents in 
the waste are treated to the same extent as they would be under RCRA, 
in such a way that threats to human health and the environment are 
minimized. As a direct result of the court decision, EPA entered into a 
settlement agreement which required EPA to establish treatment 
standards for any underlying hazardous constituents reasonably expected 
to be present in characteristic (i.e., ignitable, corrosive, reactive, 
or toxic) hazardous wastes that are diluted to remove the hazardous 
characteristic, that must be met at the point the waste is discharged 
to the water or the land, or injected into a deep well.
The phase III final rule will introduce two new LDR compliance options 
for deep injection wells: a de minimis exclusion for very small-volume 
hazardous waste streams that are mixed with other nonhazardous waste 
streams; and a pollution prevention option that allows facilities to 
reduce the mass loadings of underlying hazardous constituents to the 
same extent as they would be reduced by meeting the LDR treatment 
standards.
Furthermore, under RCRA, the Agency was instructed to promulgate 
treatment standards for a waste within 6 months of the Agency 
determining that it is a hazardous waste. The Agency missed this 
deadline in a number of cases. The phase III rule will promulgate 
treatment standards for two ``newly listed'' categories of hazardous 
wastes: wastes from carbamate production, and spent aluminum potliners.
All of the treatment standards in the phase III rule are based upon the 
performance of best demonstrated available technologies (BDAT). Section 
3004(m) of RCRA requires that the treatment standards ensure 
substantial reductions in hazardous waste toxicity and mobility, in 
such a way that threats to human health and the environment arising 
form subsequent land disposal are minimized. Variances from these 
treatment standards may be granted if a petitioner can show EPA that 
the waste is different from the waste EPA used to set the treatment 
standard or that the treatment is inappropriate for the waste. In 
addition, if treatment is unavailable on a nationwide basis, or on a 
case-by-case basis, EPA may postpone the effective date of the 
treatment standards for up to 4 years.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The Agency's analysis of the estimated one-time cost of establishing 
end-of-pipe treatment standards for characteristic wastes that are 
diluted and placed in treatment surface impundment is $0.9 - $2.9 
million. The estimated cost for treating characteristic hazardous 
wastes that are diluted and injected into UIC wells is $9.2 - $13.2 
million for on-site treatment and $486.5 - $805.3 million for off-site 
treatment. The estimated annual cost for treating carbamate wastes and 
spent aluminum potliners is $11.9 - $47.3 million.
Benefit estimates for surface impoundments include loadings reductions 
between 36 and 407 tons/year for direct discharges, and between 1,490 
and 24,391 tons/year for indirect discharges. In addition, cancer risks 
for two constituents, aniline and acrylamide will be reduced. EPA 
estimates that cancer risks from leaks to groundwater from deep 
injection wells are below regulatory concern. It is estimated that 
between 100,000 and 118,000 tons of spent aluminum potliners are 
generated annually. Improper management of these wastes has caused many 
serious past damage incidents. However, data are limited with regard to 
current management practices and risk levels. Because the quantity of 
waste is very small, benefits for newly listed carbamate wastes are 
expected to be minimal.


Risks:


Please see the previous section titled ``Anticipated Costs and 
Benefits'' for a discussion on risks.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           56 FR 55160                                    10/24/91
NPRM            60 FR 11702                                    03/02/95
Final Action                                                   01/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3365.
Reinventing Government: The phase III rule would encourage pollution 
prevention by allowing facilities to comply by reducing mass loadings 
of toxics to the environment through source reduction from wastestreams 
not directly at issue. An exemption was proposed for de minimis levels 
of waste. Importantly, EPA seeks to avoid duplicative regulations by 
deferring in all cases to limits established in a wastewater treatment 
system's CWA NPDES or pretreatment permit. LDR treatment standards 
would only apply in cases where the underlying upcoming EPA regulation 
that is currently underway. In this way, EPA is taking the common-sense 
approach to fulfill its obligations and protect environmental resources 
without undue disruption to waste treatment systems that are already 
adequately protective of the environment. The Agency built in maximum 
flexibility so that those complying with the requirements can choose 
the most cost-effective means of treating wastes to meet LDR treatment 
standards.
Furthermore, this rule will reduce the paperwork burden on the 
regulated community by creating minimal new recordkeeping requirements 
for wastewater treatment surface impoundments, and by revising some of 
the LDR programs's existing administrative requirements. Other 
regulatory changes will clarify existing areas of the regulations that 
are confusing.


Agency Contact:
Peggy Vyas
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5302W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8594
RIN: 2050-AD38
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
126. COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE MONITORING PROGRAM (PREVIOUSLY ENHANCED 
MONITORING PROGRAM)
Priority:


Economically Significant


Legal Authority:


 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, sections 114(a)(3), 503(b),; 504(b)


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 64; 40 CFR 70


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Judicial, September 30, 1993. Final, Statutory, November 1992. 
Final, Judicial, July 1, 1996.


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 technoloy performance, if applied, provides 
little assurance of continued good pollution control and little 
incentive for the source owner or operator to maintain or improve 
performance. The compliance assistance 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 exactly determine 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 of 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                                                   07/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2942.


Agency Contact:
Peter R. Westlin
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
OAQPS - MD19
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-1058
RIN: 2060-AD18
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
127. NAAQS: SULFUR DIOXIDE (REVIEW)
Priority:


Economically Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 7409/CAA 109


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 50.4; 40 CFR 50.5


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Judicial, November 1, 1994. Final, Judicial, April 15, 1996.


Abstract:


On November 15, 1994, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
published a notice announcing a proposed decision not to revise the 
existing 24-hour and annual primary standards. In that notice EPA 
sought public comment on the possible need to adopt additional 
regulatory measures to address short-term peak sulfur dioxide exposure 
and thereby further reduce the health risk to asthmatic individuals.
On March 7, 1995, EPA published the proposed requirements for 
implementation plans and ambient air quality surveillance for sulfur 
dioxide. The action proposes implementation strategies for reducing 
short-term high concentrations of sulfur dioxide emissions in the 
ambient air.


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 a 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. The 
EPA is presently assessing the public comments on the November 1994 
proposal as well as the related implementation and air quality 
surveillance requirements and will announce a final decision on April 
15, 1996.


Alternatives:


The November 15, 1994, 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.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


A draft regulatory impact analysis was completed and made available for 
public comment at the time of proposal.


Risks:


Exposure analyses were completed and made for public comment at the 
time of proposal. These 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            59 FR 58958                                    11/15/94
NPRM NAAQS SO2 I60 FR 12492on Plans(Part 51)                   03/07/95
Final Action                                                   04/00/96
Final NAAQS SO2 Implementation Plans (Part 51)                 00/00/00
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 1002 (Primary Standard) and SAN No. 3588 (Implementation)
Docket No. A-84-25.


Agency Contact:
John Haines
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
(MD-15)
Research Triangle Park
NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5533
RIN: 2060-AA61
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
128. MEDICAL WASTE INCINERATORS (MWI)
Priority:


Economically Significant


Legal Authority:


 Clean Air Act of 1990, section 129


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 60


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Judicial, February 1995. Final, Statutory, November 1992. Final, 
Judicial, April 1996.


Abstract:


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing new source 
performance standards (NSPS) for new MWIs and emission guidelines (EG) 
for existing MWIs under sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act. The 
NSPS are to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions that 
is achievable for new units. The EG may be less stringent than the 
standards for new units. States must submit plans for implementing and 
enforcing the guidelines. Section 129 requires that emission limits be 
established for particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, 
oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, dioxins, 
and dibenzofurans. These standards are being developed under EPA's 
integrated combustion strategy, whereby EPA will regulate various forms 
of combustion under a coordinated plan. Two other elements of this 
strategy, the emission standards for municipal waste combustion and 
hazardous waste combustion, are summarized elsewhere in this Regulatory 
Plan.
EPA is working intensively with MWI owners and operators, as well as 
with other stakeholders, to assure that this rule is based on the best 
understanding of the industry, and that it affords the flexibility to 
achieve the necessary emission reductions in the most sensible, cost-
effective ways, including the transfer of wastes to larger, more 
efficient regional facilities.


Statement of Need:


The medical waste incinerator rules will establish emission limits for 
dioxins, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, cadmium, lead, mercury, 
sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, and nitrogen oxide. These rules will 
establish emission limits that will reflect maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT), as defined by section 129, to reduce emissions of 
the above pollutants.


Alternatives:


The Clean Air Act specifies that the emission guidelines and the new 
source performance standards be based on MACT, and that MACT for 
existing sources can be no less stringent than the average emission 
limitations achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of units; and 
for new sources, can be no less stringent than the best-performing 
similar source. All control technologies for each pollutant as 
stringent as the floor or more stringent have been analyzed during the 
development of the standard.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The annualized cost of the proposed standards for new incinerators will 
be in the range of $75 million to $215 million. The annualized cost of 
implementing the proposed guidelines for existing incinerators will be 
in the range of $350 million to $1.2 billion. The combined proposed 
standards and guidelines will result in reductions of dioxin emissions 
by more than 99 percent, as will reductions in the 90 percent to 98 
percent range for particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, hydrogen 
chloride, and carbon monoxide.


Risks:


Medical waste incinerators are among the larger sources of dioxin 
emissions in the country. Because of the adverse effects of dioxin 
emissions on the public health and ecosystems, it is one of the 
Agency's highest priorities to reduce the exposure to dioxin emissions.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            60 FR 10654                                    02/27/95
Final Action                                                   04/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2719.


Agency Contact:
Rick Copland
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
(MD-13)
Research Triangle Park
NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5265
RIN: 2060-AC62
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
129. NSPS: MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION--PHASE II AND PHASE III, 
INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIAL WASTE INCINERATORS, AND OTHER SOLID WASTE 
INCINERATORS
Priority:


Economically Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 4111/Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, section 129


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 60


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, November 1991, for Phase II/Large MWCs.


NPRM, Statutory, November 1992, for Phase III/Small MWCs.


NPRM, Judicial, September 1, 1994, for Municpal Waste Combustors 
(MWC's).


Final, Judicial, September 1, 1995, for Municipal Waste Combustors 
(MWC's), Extension request for 10/ 31/95.


NPRM, Judicial, March 1, 1996, for Industrial-Commercial Waste 
Incinerators (ICWI).


Final, Judicial, March 1, 1997, for Industrial-Commercial 
WasteIncinerators (ICWI).


Abstract:


The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 direct the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) to set standards of performance and emission 
guidelines for new and existing municipal waste combustors under 
Sections 111 and 129; to base these standards and guidelines on maximum 
achievable control technology; and to include emission limits for 
particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, oxides of 
nitrogen, carbon monoxide, mercury, lead, cadmium, and dioxins and 
dibenzofurans. The standards for both large and small municipal waste 
combustors have been combined into one set of standards. The 
industrial-commercial waste incinerator standard and other solid waste 
incinerator standards will be managed as separate projects and separate 
standards will be developed. These standards are being developed under 
EPA's integrated combustion strategy, whereby EPA will regulate various 
forms of combustion under a coordinated plan. Two other elements of 
this strategy, the emission standards for medical waste and hazardous 
waste combustion, are summarized elsewhere in this Regulatory Plan.


Statement of Need:


The municipal waste combustor rules will establish emission limits for 
dioxins, particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, SO2, HC1, and NOx. 
These rules will require maximum achievable control technology (MACT) 
as defined by section 129 to be installed on all applicable facilities 
to reduce emissions of the above pollutants.


Alternatives:


The Clean Air Act specifies that the emission guidelines and the new 
source performance standards be based on MACT and that MACT for 
existing sources can be no less stringent than the average emission 
limitations achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of units and/or 
new sources can be no less stringent than the average emission 
limitations achieved by the best-performing similar source. The EPA has 
reviewed all alternatives analyzed to assure they are no less stringent 
than the MACT ``floor.''
For the industrial-commercial waste incinerator standard and other 
solid waste incinerator standards on control alternatives have not been 
developed or analyzed at this time, and the potential cost and benefits 
are unknown. It is anticipated that the same type of controls used 
under the municipal waste combustor standard will be evaluated for 
industrial-commercial waste incinerators and other solid waste 
incinerators.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The annualized cost for the new source performance standards for new 
municipal waste combustors will be less than $43 million. The 
annualized cost for the emission guidelines for existing municipal 
waste combustors will be less than $445 million. Dioxin, particulate 
matter, cadmium, and lead emissions will be reduced by more than 99 
percent. Mercury emissions will be reduced by 85 percent, sulfuric acid 
and hydrochloric acid emissions by 95 percent, and nitrogen oxide (NOx) 
emissions by 45 percent. The quantified benefits associated with the 
rule and the guidelines are in excess of $266 million per year, but the 
benefit assessment is incomplete at this time. In particular, the 
current benefit estimate does not include benefits for the control of 
dioxin, mercury, lead, cadmium, NOx, or carbon monoxide. No evaluation 
of these pollutants is possible at this time.
For the industrial-commercial waste incinerator standard and the other 
solid waste incinerator standard, no control alternatives have been 
developed or analyzed at this time, and the potential cost is unknown. 
It is anticipated that the same type of controls used for the municipal 
waste combustor standard will be evaluated for industrial-commercial 
and other solid waste incinerator standards.


Risks:


Municipal waste combustors are among the larger sources of dioxin 
emissions in the country. Because of the adverse effects of dioxin 
emissions on the public health and ecosystems, it is one of the 
Agency's highest priorities to minimize public exposure to dioxin.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            59 FR 48198                                    09/20/94
Final Action                                                   10/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2916.


Agency Contact:
Walt Stevenson
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
(MD-13)
Research Triangle Park
NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5264
RIN: 2060-AD00
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
130. OPEN-MARKET TRADING RULE FOR OZONE PRECURSORS
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, sections 182 and 187


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 51


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will issue a final policy and 
model rule 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. After issuance by EPA, any 
State that adopts an identical rule will receive automatic EPA approval 
of its rule. Once the 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 
rule. 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.


Statement of Need:


In the last 25 years great progress has been made toward achieving 
healthy air quality, yet more than 100 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 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 bubbling under the 1986 
Emissions Trading Policy Statement, and emissions budget programs which 
cap areawide emissions from major emitters. 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
Final                                                          06/00/96
Inclusion of Model Rule
Notice 08/25/95 (60 FR 44290)
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, AQSSD (MD-15)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5310
Fax: 919 541-0839
RIN: 2060-AF60
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
131. REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE FOR EMISSIONS FROM MOTOR 
VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE ENGINES
Priority:


Economically Significant


Legal Authority:


 PL 101-549, Sec 208


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 86


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Judicial, January 31, 1995. Final, Statutory, May 15, 1992. 
Final, Judicial, April 30, 1996. Other, Judicial, May 15, 1993.


Original statutory deadline (5/15/92) is from 11/90 Clean Air Act 
Amendments. Other Judicial date: per U.S. District Court Consent 
Decree, EPA issued a preliminary technical report on 5/15/93.


Abstract:


Section 206(h) of the Clean Air Act requires the Environmental 
Protection Agengy (EPA) to ``review and revise as necessary'' the 
regulations governing the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) to ``insure that 
vehicles are tested under circumstances which reflect the actual 
current driving conditions under which motor vehicles are used, 
including conditions relating to fuel, temperature, acceleration, and 
altitude.'' The driving behavior used for the FTP was adopted over 20 
years ago, and accumulated research suggests that it no longer 
adequately represents overall vehicle emission control performance 
under current driving conditions.
This action revises the FTP used to design all Federal emissions test 
methods, as well as all federally approved methods of estimating and 
projecting emissions from automobiles. This revision will advance the 
Agency's strategic aim of using better science and better data by 
assuring that automobiles can be accurately tested for compliance with 
Federal standards, and it will also enable EPA and others to obtain 
accurate emission inventories and projections to assist in planning for 
attainment of national air quality standards.


Statement of Need:


Extensive surveys of current driving behavior conducted by the EPA 
indicate significant difference between actual driving behavior and the 
current FTP. New test cycles determined from the driving behavior 
surveys were used to compare emissions predicted by the FTP with 
emissions that occur in actual driving. The test results support the 
need to control emissions at high speeds, acceleration, and during air 
conditioner operation, modes that are not adequately controlled with 
the current test procedures.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


EPA is under court order to revise the FTP.


Alternatives:


The Clean Air Act specifies that the test procedures reflect actual 
driving conditions. Extensive research indicates that the existing 
procedures are severely deficient in the areas of high speeds, high 
accelerations, and air conditioning operation. The most appropriate 
method of controlling emissions during these conditions have been 
analyzed during the development of this rulemaking.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The per vehicle cost to comply with the test procedure revisions is 
expected to be well under $10 and the annualized cost less than $100 
million. Overall hydrocarbon emissions from light-duty vehicles and 
trucks are expected to be reduced by about 6 percent, carbon monoxide 
emission by about 18 percent, and NOx emissions by about 12 percent. On 
a national basis, the cost of reducing non-methane hydrocarbon and NOx 
emissions is expected to be about $200 per ton.


Risks:


The risks addressed by this action are those associated with not 
attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon 
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. These risks have been 
extensively detailed as part of the individual rulemakings setting 
these national standards. Achievement and maintenance of attainment of 
the standards depend in part on accurate knowledge of the emissions 
characteristics of sources, including automobiles. This action will 
increase the accuracy of such knowledge by incorporating the latest 
techniques of emission measurement.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            60 FR 7404                                     02/07/95
Final Action                                                   04/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3323.


Agency Contact:
John German
Chief, Special Projects Staff
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Lab
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 313 668-4214
RIN: 2060-AE27
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
132. RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR CHEMICAL ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION
Priority:


Economically Significant


Legal Authority:


 PL 101-549; Clean Air Act Section 112(r)


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 68


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, November 15, 1993. Other, Judicial, March 29, 1996.


Court Decree - Settlement Agreement


Abstract:


Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, required the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate by November 15, 
1993, reasonable regulations and appropriate guidance to provide for 
prevention and detection of accidental releases of chemicals and for 
response to such releases. The regulations shall require the owner or 
operator of stationary sources at which a regulated substance is 
present to prepare and implement a risk management plan (RMP) that must 
include a hazard assessment that evaluates the potential effects of an 
accidental release of any regulated substance and must also include a 
five-year accident release history. The RMP must document a prevention 
program and document a response program that provides specific actions 
to be taken to protect human health and the environment in response to 
a release. The RMPs must be registered with EPA and must be submitted 
to the State in which the facility is located and to any local agency 
that has responsibility for planning for or responding to chemical 
accidents. EPA must establish a system for auditing the RMPs to ensure 
that plans are periodically updated.
EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking on October 20, 1993. In 
reviewing close to 1,000 comments received, the Agency recognized the 
need for a supplemental notice to clarify some of the issues raised by 
commenters and seek additional public comments on several of the 
issues. The supplemental notice was signed by the Administrator on 
February 28, 1995. The deadline for the final RMP rule is March 29, 
1996, following which, regulated sources will have three years to 
comply with the RMP requirements.
EPA promulgated a list of substances and thresholds on January 30, 1994 
(59 FR 4478), which determines which facilities must comply with the 
accident prevention regulations. The regulated universe includes small 
businesses and state/local/and tribal governments that have more than a 
threshold quantity of a regulated substance. In order to minimize the 
impact on smaller sources, EPA is planning to develop model RMPs for 
industry sectors that utilize similar equipment and handle a single 
chemical. To further reduce the burden on medium and smaller sources, 
EPA is planning to develop ``lookup tables'' for at least the most 
ubiquitous chemicals that facilities could use in the evaluation of 
their offsite consequence analysis based on worst-case scenarios.
Model RMPs and ``lookup tables'' will also ease the burden on State and 
local agencies responsible for implementing the program and who will 
review the adequacy and quality of the RMP.


Statement of Need:


Existing Federal regulations addressing the potential for catastrophic 
events related to chemical substances are focused on emergency 
preparedness and response. Specifically, the Emergency Planning and 
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) established the structure at the 
State and local levels to deal with emergency planning and response to 
chemical accidents. Several other laws and programs at the Federal 
level dealt with emergency response to chemical accidents: the Clean 
Water Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
and Liability Act (CERCLA) created the National Oil and Hazardous 
Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP sets up the Federal 
Government's emergency response structure and procedures for responding 
to chemical accidents. The accidental-release prevention provisions 
under the CAA recognize the need for integrating emergency preparedness 
and response with activities to prevent accidental releases from 
occurring in the first place.
The proposed rule for the prevention and detection program, including 
RMPs for accidental-release prevention, required industry to develop an 
integrated, holistic approach to managing the risk posed by the 
presence and use of regulated substances. In the development of its 
risk management program, EPA has also been coordinating with the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). EPA's proposed 
RMP rule adopts and builds on process safety management elements 
included in OSHA's chemical process safety standard required under 
section 304 of the CAA amendments of 1990. (OSHA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on July 17, 1990, 55 FR 29150, and a final 
rule on February 24, 1992, 57 FR 6316.) These elements include process 
information, process hazard analysis, standard operating procedures, 
training, prestartup reviews, mechanical integrity, management of 
change, accident investigation, safety audits, and emergency response.


Summary of the Legal Basis:



The legal basis for this rulemaking is summarized in the ``Abstract'' 
section.


Alternatives:


EPA developed its proposed rule after an extensive information-
gathering effort. Three States--California, New Jersey, and Delaware--
have risk-management plan requirements under State laws. EPA met with 
officials in all three States and held interviews with seven facilities 
in these States. EPA then held eight focus groups, five with facilities 
and three with implementing agencies, in the three States to solicit 
their opinions on existing and proposed regulations. Finally, EPA held 
a 2-day roundtable seminar associated with the risk management planning 
requirements. State officials, trade associations, labor unions, 
environmentalists, and organizations of public officials participated 
in the discussions.
EPA evaluated two options for the risk management program: Program 
Option 1, the proposed rule, included the statutorily mandated elements 
(hazard assessment, registration, emergency response program, and risk 
management plan) plus the mandated prevention program that adopted 
OSHA's process safety management standard. Program Option 2, based on 
the New Jersey risk management program, includes all listed elements 
but requires a greater level of documentation and more detailed 
requirements for many elements.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Because, from an economic perspective, the RMP regulations and the list 
of regulated substances are inseparable, EPA prepared a regulatory 
impact analysis (RIA) that combines the two requirements. As indicated 
in the previous section, the RIA evaluated two options for the risk 
management program. Because the two program options cover the same 
elements with the only difference between the two the level of detail, 
it was not possible to develop separate estimates of the benefits for 
the two program options based on data available. Consequently, only one 
set of benefits estimates was developed.
EPA's proposed option is list 2 in Program Option 1, which is estimated 
to have an initial cost of $503 million and quantifiable annual 
benefits of $890 million. The proposed rule is expected to result in 
other, nonquantifiable benefits as well. By reducing the likelihood of 
accidental releases and the likelihood that any release will be 
catastrophic, the rule should reduce facility operating costs which may 
result in greater output, higher wages, and lower costs for the output. 
The rule will also encourage facilities to reduce the quantity of 
hazardous substances stored onsite and to shift to less toxic 
chemicals, reducing the risk to both workers and the public. Finally, 
the information provided to the public through the mandated RMP will be 
useful to both the public and governments at all levels.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            58 FR 54190                                    10/22/93
Supplemental NPR60 FR 13526                                    03/13/95
Final Action                                                   03/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2979.


Agency Contact:
Lyse Helsing
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(5101)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-6128
RIN: 2050-AD26
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F