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

Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 231 / Friday, November 29, 1996 / The
                            Regulatory Plan

[[Page 62137]]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
An Era of Opportunity
As the next century approaches, consensus is emerging that a new 
environmental management system is needed to move us beyond the 
environmental and public health achievements of the past 25 years. 
While advocates and critics alike agree that remarkable improvements 
have been made, it is becoming increasingly obvious that we are nearing 
a plateau or point of diminishing returns where continued gains are 
uncertain. This realization of the need for new approaches is occurring 
at a time when the President and the Vice President are strongly 
committed to creating a Federal Government that works better and costs 
less. Together, these two forces represent an unprecedented opportunity 
for evaluating what works and what doesn't and applying this 
information to the development of a new system that can meet the 
challenges of today and the next century.
Building a Better System
EPA's efforts to produce such a new system are focused on improvements 
in four priority areas: Eliminating unnecessary regulations and 
reporting requirements, improving environmental compliance, regulating 
for greater results, and increasing community participation and 
partnerships. These improvements are being pursued through every 
possible venue--internally and externally--and results are already 
being seen. Internally, EPA management has been streamlined, programs 
have been restructured, and EPA employees have been given broader 
responsibilities: 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. Externally, stakeholders in 
businesses, State and local governments, labor, or public interest 
groups are joining us at the table and participating in designing 
novel, more effective, and less costly approaches for improving 
conditions in their communities. These actions, and others like them, 
are increasing flexibility, promoting local stewardship, and helping 
establish and strengthen partnerships between the public and private 
sectors--without sacrificing environmental or public health protection.
Eliminating Unnecessary Regulations
The Agency continues to examine existing environmental regulations and 
reporting requirements in order to simplify and streamline compliance 
for the regulated community. As a result of the President's 
announcement in February 1995 for all Federal agencies to conduct a 
line-by-line review of their regulations and eliminate those that were 
obsolete or redundant, EPA is making changes to more than 70 percent of 
its regulations and working to eliminate 1,400 pages of obsolete 
rules--some 10 percent of EPA's total regulations. In keeping with the 
goal of reducing paperwork requirements by as much as 25 percent, over 
1.5 million hours of requirements have been cut with an additional 8 
million hours scheduled for elimination by the end of 1996. These hours 
are being turned back to communities and businesses for investment in 
more beneficial activities.
Other mechanisms are being created for similar purposes. New electronic 
systems are being established that allow facilities to transfer 
environmental permitting and compliance data on-line. This capability 
can save businesses and other regulated facilities time and money, help 
bring quicker decisions on permitting and compliance actions, improve 
data accuracy, and create better access to information for the public. 
A new policy allows facilities to significantly cut routine water 
quality monitoring and reporting requirements and focus on other 
activities, as long as they achieve and maintain strong compliance 
records. Another mechanism allows companies to certify that low-risk 
pesticides comply with regulatory requirements, a major enchancement to 
the registration process.
Improving Environmental Compliance
Along with its responsibility for establishing regulatory requirements 
that protect public health and our environment, EPA also has a 
responsibility to ensure that businesses and others understand and 
comply with these requirements, particularly small businesses and 
communities that may have added difficulty because of limited staff and 
resources. To help improve understanding, EPA is establishing 
compliance assistance centers to serve as a direct, readily available 
source of information on the latest regulatory requirements. EPA also 
is offering to reduce or eliminate penalties for violations if 
facilities establish programs to detect, publicly disclose, and fix 
problems found--as long as the violation does not involve criminal 
activity or a serious risk to public health or the environment. In 
addition to making life easier for businesses and other regulated 
facilities, these steps can help prevent pollution and the burden and 
expense of cleanup.
Increasing Community Participation and Partnerships
EPA recognizes that a new and improved system of environmental 
protection will depend to a large extent on the establishment of 
stronger partnerships between public and private sectors and a stronger 
role for the individual in local, community-based decisionmaking. EPA 
is working hard to address both needs. EPA is developing joint 
Performance Partnership Agreements with the States which provide them 
with greater opportunity to address their most pressing environmental 
and public health problems. Brownfields grants and Sustainable 
Development Challenge grants are being provided to help communities 
cleanup and restore environmental quality and economic prosperity for 
the people that live there. EPA continues to strengthen the public's 
ability to access environmental data and information specific to their 
community--over 3.5 million EPA documents are retrieved electronically 
every month.
EPA is consulting regularly with regulated industries earlier in its 
rule development processes, relying sometimes on formal consensus-based 
rulemaking, such as regulatory negotiations, and more frequently on 
informal outreach to potentially affected parties. EPA has long been 
prominent among Federal agencies in reaching out to small businesses, 
and the Agency continues to place a strong emphasis on helping these 
entities understand and comply with environmental regulatory 
requirements. The Agency's Small Business Ombudsman, the Office of 
State and Local Relations, and trade representatives and public 
interest groups routinely assist with our outreach efforts.
The goal of creating a new system of environmental protection that 
delivers truly superior performance will not be accomplished through 
these actions alone. But, collectively, these actions do represent a 
strong step in the right direction and demonstrate EPA's commitment to 
finding more cost-effective, common-sense procedures that make sense to 
those that participate in them. This commitment can be seen in EPA 
actions underway, as well as in

[[Page 62138]]

its plans for the immediate future, including this annual plan for 
regulatory development. The entries in this year's plan feature 
multiple opportunities for building upon the progress that has been 
made and creating a new system of environmental and public health 
protections for the benefit of present and future generations.
Highligts of EPA's Regulatory Plan for 1996
The entries contained in EPA's regulatory plan reflect the Agency's 
intention to streamline and simplify its regulatory programs to achieve 
better public health and 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 non-regulatory in nature, 
since this document is the annual regulatory plan, it necessarily 
focuses on regulatory actions. A number of the entries below are 
deregulatory in nature. Others propose new regulatory requirements, 
generally required by statute, but benefit from the ``cleaner, cheaper, 
smarter philosophy'' at work in the Agency. Here are some of the 
highlights:
Office of Air and Radiation
EPA is committed to using 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 a proposal requiring additional reduction of 
nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and particulate matter from mobile 
heavy-duty engines. This action initiates work on a rulemaking to 
establish standards for model year 2004 and later heavy-duty engines. A 
similar proposal is expected next year covering heavy-duty engines that 
are not used in highway vehicles. These rulemakings seek to bring 
together potentially affected industries, States, regional air 
management organizations, public health, and environmental interest 
groups to further their mutual goal of reducing emission of harmful air 
pollutants. To address the nitrogen oxides problem on another front, 
EPA will issue a second-phase regulation on NOx emissions from electric 
power plants.
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 changes, 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 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 help areas to meet or maintain the established ozone 
standard at far less cost and provide greater incentive for companies 
to develop innovative emission reduction technologies.
EPA also plans to modify requirements in two other significant air 
regulatory programs. We have proposed changes to simplify and 
streamline the New Source Review program which requires newly built 
facilities or those undergoing major modification to obtain a permit to 
ensure that emissions will not cause or contribute to air pollution 
problems.
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. The conformity process is a set of procedures ensuring that 
transportation planning ``conforms'' to the Clean Air Act; i.e., that 
the planning process adequately considers the air quality effects of 
transportation improvements, such as road-building. This rulemaking, 
initiated in response to stakeholder concerns, will further enhance 
State and local governments' ability to meet requirements under the 
Clean Air Act in common-sense, cost-effective ways and assure that 
transportation plans do not exacerbate existing air quality problems.
Other significant activities related to EPA's air programs include 
legally required reviews of the national ambient air quality standards 
(NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter. These reviews seek to 
incorporate new scientific and technical information that has become 
available since the last reviews. EPA is also developing an 
implementation strategy for any revised standards that may result from 
these NAAQS 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 emissions vehicle program. 
EPA anticipates that this program would relieve the 13 States in the 
Northeast 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 a final rule for medical waste incinerators 
and an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to support a participatory 
process to develop a requirement for several classes of industrial 
incinerators. EPA has already completed a final rule for municipal 
waste combustion which incorporates 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, including municipal, medical, and 
industrial, 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.
Realizing that the ozone-smog problem in the cities cannot be solved by 
emissions reductions from cars and factories alone, in the Clean Air 
Act, Congress directed EPA to reduce emissions from smaller sources of 
smog-causing volatile organic compounds (VOCs). EPA is now developing 
final rules to require such reductions from

[[Page 62139]]

consumer products and architectural coatings. These rules are being 
developed with extensive input from the regulated industries 
(especially small businesses) and are being designed to maximize their 
cost-effectiveness and sensitivity to small business concerns.
EPA is developing a final rule that will introduce additional 
flexibility into its air emissions monitoring program (Compliance 
Assurance Monitoring). 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 will assure compliance by placing the burden on regulated 
sources to monitor their performance and act independently to minimize 
emission exceedances.
From discussions with affected industries, EPA has learned that many 
companies find it difficult to know what is expected of them under the 
complex regulatory system that has been put in place over the last 25 
years. In many cases, there may be duplicative, overlapping, or 
inconsistent requirements, especially in the areas of monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting. In response to these problems, early next 
year, EPA will propose a rule intended to consolidate and synchronize 
all Federal air regulations applicable to a single industry--in this 
case, the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing industry. If this 
pilot program proves successful, it will later be expanded to cover air 
rules for other industries and possibly to water and waste requirements 
as well.
EPA will also carry out its statutory responsibility to certify by rule 
whether the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) 
complies with applicable regulations governing the disposal of 
radioactive waste. EPA will also establish health and safety standards 
for the high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada 
and will set safety standards to be met in cleanup of radioactively 
contaminated sites.
Office of Water
On August 6, President Clinton signed the Safe Drinking Water Act 
Amendments of 1996. The Office of Water is responsible for implementing 
this Act. Passage of these Amendments will bring substantial changes to 
the national drinking water program for EPA, States, and water 
utilities, as well as greater protection and information to the 240 
million Americans served by public water systems. Significant areas of 
change in the law include new and stronger approaches to prevent 
contamination of drinking water, including establishment of a new 
source water protection program, and better information for consumers, 
which will include consumer confidence reports from water suppliers to 
their customers. The law eliminates the requirement to regulate 25 
chemicals every 3 years and replaces that with increased requirements 
for research, cost-benefit analysis, and data. The Amendments also 
create a new billion-dollar drinking water State revolving fund. EPA is 
currently developing an implementation plan for the new law, which it 
intends to complete this fall. As regulatory and program changes are 
identified, EPA will make the necessary additions to the regulatory 
agenda.
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 underway.
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. EPA has published guidance to revise the permit 
application requirements for municipal separate storm water sewer 
systems to reduce the cost and burden of reapplication for succeeding 
permit terms. EPA will not require resubmission of information 
available from the earlier application or information which is not 
pertinent to the approval process.
EPA will streamline and revise regulations in the NPDES pretreatment 
program for publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) (part 403) to delete 
obsolete requirements, simplify program operation, and eliminate 
unnecessary reporting requirements. For example, under streamlined 
procedures a POTW's NPDES permit would include only the most 
significant elements of an approved pretreatment program, 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 for the listing of water bodies by State 
water quality management programs.
In addition, the Agency will be pursuing innovative, non-regulatory 
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 (OPPTS) is 
responsible for implementing the Food Quality Protection Act, which was 
signed into law by the President on August 3, 1996. This new law 
significantly modifies the two statutes that govern pesticide safety 
and use and therefore affects a number of EPA's existing policies and 
procedures under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act 
(FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This 
pesticide regulation establishes new policies in the areas of setting 
pesticide tolerances (including special protections for children), 
minor uses of pesticides, emergency exemptions, antimicrobial and 
public health pesticides, reduced-risk pesticides, and fees. The Agency 
is currently studying the implications of the new law, but it is clear 
that, over the next 2 years, EPA will be engaged in an intensive 
implementation effort, which will include new regulations, guidance, 
and programs. EPA intends to issue a comprehensive implementation plan 
for the new legislation this fall. As regulatory and program changes 
are identified, EPA will make the necessary additions to the regulatory 
agenda.
In addition, OPPTS intends to continue its efforts to improve the 
public's right to know about toxic chemicals in their community by 
expanding the information made available to the public in the Toxic 
Release Inventory (TRI) program of the Emergency Planning and Community

[[Page 62140]]

Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). The TRI is a data base that provides 
communities with information on releases to air, water, and land for 
approximately 600 toxic chemicals. TRI is the most complete and 
accessible source of information for the public on toxic chemical 
releases in communities across the United States. The intention of 
Congress was for TRI, and indeed all of EPCRA, to provide information 
to local communities. Armed with this information, communities can 
better understand the nature of the releases at the local level, assess 
their risk, and make informed decisions about local priorities.
This fall, EPA issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking 
announcing the Agency's intent to expand the public's right to know by 
requiring facility reporting of chemical use information and seeking 
public comment on various aspects of this initiative. EPA believes that 
increased information on chemical use--amounts of a toxic chemical 
coming into a facility, amounts transferred into products and wastes, 
and the resulting amounts leaving the facility site--will provide the 
local public with a more comprehensive picture of environmental 
performance and toxic chemicals in the community. EPA is also 
evaluating whether to lower the reporting threshold amount for those 
toxic chemicals that are highly toxic at very low dose levels or which 
have physical, chemical, or biological properties that make the 
chemicals persist for extended periods in the environment, which 
bioaccumulate through the food chain. In addition, EPA intends to issue 
a final rule that will expand the universe of industry sectors required 
to provide information to the TRI data base.
In early 1997, EPA plans to issue a final rule that will make over 50 
modifications, additions, and deletions to the existing PCB management 
program under the Toxic Substances Control Act (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 
and is expected to result in significant cost savings for the regulated 
community.
Pursuant to its data consolidation initiative, EPA recently issued a 
notice seeking comment on its initiative for developing a uniform 
facility identification system. A uniform facility identification 
system would collect common facility information separately from any 
other reporting requirement. The facility would receive a single 
identification number that would be used by the facility whenever it 
provided information to EPA or the States. This number would also be 
used to link data reported by the facility under various Federal 
environmental laws. This initiative is intended to improve access to 
information reported to EPA under the various Federal mandates (for 
EPA, States, and the public) and is intended to help reduce regulatory 
burden for facilities.
EPA intends to propose amendments to the TSCA Inventory Update Rule to 
require chemical manufacturers to report data on exposures and the 
industrial and consumer end uses of the chemicals they produce. 
Currently, EPA requires chemical manufacturers to report the names of 
the chemicals they produce, the quantity produced, and the locations of 
manufacturing facilities. About 2,400 facilities reported data on about 
8,300 unique chemicals during the last reporting cycle. EPA and others 
would use this additional data to: Better understand the potential for 
chemical exposures and then screen the chemicals now in commerce and 
identify those of highest concern; establish priorities and goals for 
their chemical assessment, risk management, and prevention programs and 
monitor their progress; encourage pollution prevention by identifying 
potentially safer substitute chemicals for uses of potential concern; 
and enhance the effectiveness of chemical risk communication efforts.
EPA also intends to issue the remaining regulations mandated by the 
Residential Lead-Based Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, which requires EPA 
to promulgate regulations that establish standards for determining 
hazards associated with lead-based paint, lead-contaminated soil, and 
lead-contaminated dust. EPA has recently finalized the 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.) This fall, EPA will 
finalize the regulations (section 406) requiring renovators to provide 
a lead hazard information brochure (developed separately by EPA) to 
clients before beginning work and will propose the regulations 
identifying 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.)
Finally, EPA will continue its efforts to evaluate existing pesticide 
and toxic regulations to identify those regulatory requirements that 
can be eliminated or otherwise modified to reduce regulatory burden. 
EPA welcomes comments from the public and affected entities to help in 
the development of 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 to streamline and simplify compliance under 
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). As part of its 
effort to refocus hazardous waste regulations on high-risk wastes, EPA 
is undertaking a number of actions in 1996 to tailor standards to the 
nature or degree of risk posed by particular wastes. One example is the 
regulation being developed for the management of cement kiln dust. The 
proposed standards for this large volume waste from the cement kiln 
manufacturing process will be tailored to protect public health and the 
environment while imposing minimal burden on the regulated community.
EPA is developing a rule entitled ``Hazardous Waste Identification: 
Contaminated Media'' to resolve problems with the current RCRA cleanup 
program by deregulating large volumes of low-risk contaminated media 
(e.g., soil). The Agency is also creating a more common-sense 
regulatory structure for those cleanup wastes that remain regulated.
EPA is also streamlining the regulation of materials that themselves 
contain substances listed as hazardous waste. Certain current 
regulations are overly-broad--applying regardless of the concentrations 
of the listed wastes or the mobility of the toxicant in the waste. As a 
result, they regulate certain low-risk wastes and, in particular, 
treatment residuals, as if they posed high risk. EPA's common-sense 
approach exempts these low-risk wastes from the full management 
requirements intended for

[[Page 62141]]

the ``listed'' hazardous wastes themselves.
On May 1, 1996, EPA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
seeking comment on several alternative approaches to the cleanup of 
contamination at hazardous waste management facilities. EPA believes 
final regulations are needed in this area to promote national 
consistency, clarify cleanup requirements, and reduce the number of 
site-specific negotiations and costly litigation.
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 providing important 
public health and environmental protections from risks posed by 
chlorinated dioxins and furans.
Finally, EPA will propose new streamlined rules governing the 
definition of solid waste, making it easier for companies to determine 
what wastes/processes are and are not subject to RCRA jurisdiction. In 
addition, EPA is streamlining the requirements for managing recycled 
hazardous waste to provide more clarity and to remove disincentives to 
safe recycling.
Summary
In developing all of these actions, EPA is committed to flexible, 
common-sense, cost-effective regulatory programs that protect public 
health and the environment.
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------

94. DATA CONSOLIDATED INITIATIVE: KEY FACILITATOR INFORMATION
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
eliminate existing text in the CFR.


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) 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 
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 States. The Key Facility 
Information Initiative is a necessary first step toward consolidation 
of such reporting requirements. The facilities involved must now 
periodically supply and update varying combinations of facility 
identification data to different data collections. Many of these 
facility data elements are common among the reporting requirements, 
such as name, address, standard industrial classification (SIC) code, 
and parent company indentification. The burden to continually supply 
such data in varying formats could be reduced by establishing one 
authoritative record for each facility. A new, unique identification 
number would be supplied to the facility which would become the ``key'' 
to the basic identification information for the facility. Entering this 
key id number on any given reporting form would signal that the Agency 
or State has a detailed identification record for the facility on file. 
It would also allow for information related to that facility to be 
linked together, regardless of how the data was reported to the Agency 
or State.


Alternatives:


An alternative to this initiative 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, 
and would require the submission of the same data to the Agency or 
State multiple times at a greater burden to the regulated community.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Cost 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 the 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

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice                                                         10/00/96
NPRM                                                           06/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3630.


Agency Contact:
Mary Hanley
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
(7407)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-1624
Email: [email protected]
Sam Sasnett
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Phone: 202-260-8020
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AD01

[[Page 62142]]

_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
95.  REPORTING THRESHOLD AMENDMENT; TOXIC CHEMICALS RELEASE 
REPORTING; COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Legal Authority:


 PL 9909-499


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 372


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) currently requires reporting from 
facilities which manufacture or process at least 25,000 pounds of a 
listed chemical, or otherwise use 10,000 lbs of a listed chemical. 
These thresholds were initially established under the Emergency 
Planning and Community Right-to-know Act (EPCRA) section 313(f)(1). 
Section 313(f)(2) of EPCRA gives the Administrator the power to 
``establish a threshold amount for a toxic chemical different from the 
amount established by paragraph (1)'' and that such altered thresholds 
may be based on ``classes of chemicals.'' EPA is considering lowering 
the thresholds for those chemicals which it determines to be highly 
toxic at very low dose levels and/or have physical, chemical, or 
biological properties that make the chemicals persist for extended 
periods in the environment, and/or bioaccumulate through the food 
chain. Persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals are of particular 
concern in ecosystems such as the Great Lakes Basin due to the long 
retention time of the individual lakes and the cycling of the chemicals 
from one component of the ecosystem to another. EPA is currently 
conducting analysis to determine which chemicals present the specific 
problems described above, and to determine what the altered threshold 
value(s) should be.


Statement of Need:


TRI is the most complete and accessible source of information for the 
public on toxic chemical releases in communities across the United 
States. The intention of Congress was for TRI, and indeed all of EPCRA, 
to provide information to local communities. Communities need this 
information to better understand the nature of the releases at the 
local level. The intent of TRI has been to share information on 
releases with local communities to help in their assessments of the 
risks. This basic local empowerment is the cornerstone of the right-to-
know program.
Yet because of the current reporting thresholds, TRI does not collect 
release and transfer data on small quantities of chemicals that may 
persist and bioaccumulate in the environment. Even small releases of 
such chemicals can have significant impacts on human health and the 
environment. Congress gave EPA the authority to adjust reporting 
thresholds, because it recognized that this might be necessary in order 
to address the American publics right to know what is happening to the 
environment near their homes, schools, and businesses.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


42 USC 11013; 42 USC 11023; 42 USC 11048; 42 USC 11076; EPCRA S313


Alternatives:


EPA recognizes the reporting burden inherent in TRI, and is continuing 
to take every reasonable opportunity to minimize this burden while 
ensuring the public's right-to-know. As such, all available 
alternatives will be identified and evaluated.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The anticipated costs related to this action are unknown at present. At 
this point the Agency is still unsure how low to set reporting 
thresholds or for what specific list of chemicals the lower reporting 
thresholds should apply. The information reported in TRI increases the 
knowledge levels of pollutants released to the environment and pathways 
to exposure, improving scientific understanding of the health and 
environmental risks of toxic chemicals; allows the public to make 
informed decisions on where to work and live; enhances the ability of 
corporate lenders and purchasers to more accurately gauge a facility's 
potential liability; and assists Federal, State, and local authorities 
in making better decisions on acceptable levels of toxics in 
communities.


Risks:


Currently communities do not have access to TRI data on chemicals that, 
although released in relatively small quantities, pose a potential risk 
to human health and the environment because they persist and 
bioaccumulate. By lowering the reporting thresholds for such chemicals 
the public will be able to determine if such chemicals are being 
released into their communities and whether any action should be taken 
to reduce potential risks.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                                                          09/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Sectors Affected:


 20 Food and Kindred Products; 21 Tobacco Products; 22 Textile Mill 
Products; 23 Apparel and Other Finished Products Made from Fabrics and 
Similar Materials


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis; RIA


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3880.


Agency Contact:
Susan B. Hazen
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
(7408)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-1024
Fax: 202 401-8142
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AD09
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
96.  DATA EXPANSION AMENDMENTS; TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE 
REPORTING; COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


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


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 372


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The original Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) required reporting from 
manufacturing facilities on the releases and transfers of toxic 
chemicals and wastes including waste treatment and

[[Page 62143]]

disposal methods. This requirement was imposed under the Emergency 
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) section 313(g). 
Information on waste management practices, including recycling, energy 
recovery, and source reduction activities, were added to TRI pursuant 
to the 1990 passage of the Pollution Prevention Act. EPA is currently 
considering whether additional data elements related to a mass balance/
materials accounting program should be considered for incorporation 
into the TRI database. The additional data elements included for 
consideration include: quantity brought on site; quantity produced on 
site; quantity consumed on site; quantities manufactured, processed or 
otherwise used; quantity contained in or as product; quantity stored on 
site as waste, and beginning and ending raw materials inventory. The 
issue of collecting mass balance/materials accounting information has 
been debated for over a decade. Congress, in enacting EPCRA, directed 
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study this issue further. NAS 
recommended that the issue of adding materials accounting data merited 
further analysis.


Statement of Need:


TRI is the most complete and accessible source of information for the 
public on toxic chemical releases in communities across the United 
States. The intention of Congress was for TRI, and indeed all of EPCRA, 
to provide information to local communities. Communities need this 
information to better understand the nature of the releases at the 
local level. The intent of TRI has been to share information on 
releases with local communities to help in their assessments of the 
risks. This basic local empowerment is the cornerstone of the right-to-
know program.
Yet TRI would be enhanced by collecting chemical use/ materials 
accounting data. This additional data would provide the public with the 
information to measure source reduction progress, better participate in 
pollution prevention planning, identify source reduction opportunities 
and follow the flow of toxic chemicals into the community, through the 
manufacturing process and leaving the plant not only as transfers and 
releases, but also in products. Materials accounting information also 
allows a method of checking data reported to TRI, provides a better 
picture for regulatory integration and can be used for others 
objectives such as research and priority-setting. Congress gave EPA the 
authority to expand TRI, both in terms of the data reported and the 
facilities required to report, because it recognized that the American 
public has a right to know what is happening to the environment near 
their homes, schools, and businesses.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


42 USC 11013; 42 USC 11023; 42 USC 11048; 42 USC 11076; EPCRA S313


Alternatives:


EPA recognizes the reporting burden inherent in TRI, and is continuing 
to take every reasonable opportunity to minimize this burden while 
ensuring the public's right-to-know. As such, all available 
alternatives will be identified and evaluated.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The anticipated costs related to this action are unknown at present. At 
this point the Agency is still unsure about what data elements need to 
be added to TRI, whether this data will even need to be collect or is 
already available and therefore is unable to estimate any costs. The 
information reported in TRI increases the knowledge levels of 
pollutants released to the environment and pathways to exposure, 
improving scientific understanding of the health and environmental 
risks of toxic chemicals; allows the public to make informed decisions 
on where to work and live; enhances the ability of corporate lenders 
and purchasers to more accurately gauge a facility's potential 
liability; and assists Federal, State, and local authorities in making 
better decisions on acceptable levels of toxics in communities.


Risks:


Currently communities do not have access to chemical use/ materials 
accounting data on the TRI. By adding such data to the TRI the public 
will have a more complete picture of the use and distribution of toxic 
chemicals in their communities as well as potential risks that might 
result from such use. The public will also be able to better assess how 
pollution prevention activities may be reducing potential risks in 
their communities.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                                                          10/00/96
ANPRM                                                          11/00/96
NPRM                                                           11/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Sectors Affected:


 20 Food and Kindred Products; 21 Tobacco Products; 22 Textile Mill 
Products; 23 Apparel and Other Finished Products Made from Fabrics and 
Similar Materials


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis; RIA


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3877.


Agency Contact:
Susan B. Hazen
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
(7408)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-1024
Fax: 202-401-8142
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AD08
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
97.  WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT (WIPP) COMPLIANCE 
CERTIFICATION RULEMAKING
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 PL 102-579


CFR Citation:


 Not yet determined


Legal Deadline:


Other, Statutory, October 31, 1997, See additional information.


Abstract:


EPA regulates the release of radioactivity from the management, storage 
and disposal of radioactive waste to protect public health and the 
environment from radiation contamination. The waste isolation pilot 
plant (WIPP), which is under development by the Department of Energy 
(DOE), is a potential geologic disposal facility for transuranic 
radioactive waste generated as by-products from nuclear weapons

[[Page 62144]]

production. If the WIPP opens, waste will be stored approximately 2,100 
feet underground in excavated, natural salt formations near Carlsbad, 
New Mexico.
Before DOE can dispose of waste at the WIPP, it must demonstrate that 
the WIPP complies with EPA's radioactive waste disposal standards at 
subparts B and C of 40 CFR 191. DOE must submit an application to EPA 
showing how the WIPP facility will meet the standards. The compliance 
criteria at 40 CFR 194, which are specific to the WIPP, will be used by 
EPA to implement the radioactive waste disposal standards. The purpose 
of this rulemaking is to certify, through the use of the compliance 
criteria, whether the WIPP complies with the disposal 
standards...before waste disposal can begin.


Statement of Need:


The DOE is developing the WIPP near Carlsbad in southeastern New Mexico 
as a potential deep geologic repository for the disposal of defense 
transuranic (TRU) radioactive waste currently being stored on Federal 
reservations in 10 states, including Washington, Ohio, Idaho, New 
Mexico, Tennessee, South Carolina, Nevada, and Colorado. TRU waste 
consists of materials containing one or more elements having atomic 
numbers greater than 92, in concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries 
of alpha-emitting TRU isotopes per gram of waste, with half-lives 
greater than twenty years. Most TRU waste consists of items that have 
become contaminated (e.g., rags, equipment, tools, and organic and 
inorganic sludges) as a result of activities associated with the 
production of nuclear weapons. TRU waste is often mixed with hazardous 
chemical constituents. Before beginning disposal of radioactive waste 
at the WIPP, DOE must demonstrate that the WIPP complies with the EPA's 
radioactive waste disposal standards at subparts B and C of 40 CFR 191.
The WIPP LWA specifies that underground emplacement of transuranic 
wastes for disposal at the WIPP may not commence until EPA makes a 
positive compliance certification decision. If the Agency certifies 
compliance, the WIPP LWA requires EPA to subsequently conduct periodic 
re-certifications of continued compliance throughout waste disposal 
operations (estimated to last about 30 years) at the WIPP. Now that the 
final compliance criteria are promulgated as Agency regulations (40 CFR 
194 on 2/1/96), DOE is responsible for submitting a compliance 
application to EPA. The Agency will review the application and make a 
decision as to WIPP's compliance with the disposal regulations. The 
WIPP compliance certification rule will be limited to consideration of 
the WIPP's compliance with the disposal regulations found in subparts B 
and C of 40 CFR 191 (which include containment requirements, assurance 
requirements, individual protection requirements, and groundwater 
protection requirements).


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, of 1954, EPA 
has the responsibility to protect people and the environment from the 
harmful effects of ionizing radiation. In addition, Reorganization Plan 
No. 3 of 1970 provides EPA with the authority to establish standards 
for the protection of people and the environment from the effects of 
all radioactive materials. Finally, the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act of 
1992 requires that EPA issue criteria to implement the Agency's 
radioactive waste disposal regulations specifically at the WIPP, and 
then certify, through use of such criteria, whether or not the WIPP 
complies with the regulations and should be allowed to open.


Alternatives:


The compliance certification rule is intended to determine whether or 
not the WIPP should be allowed to open. The Agency recognizes the 
uncertainty inherent in projections of the WIPP's performance during 
the 10,000-year regulatory period. Accordingly, the Agency requires a 
demonstration of a reasonable expectation that compliance will be 
achieved. This demonstration will be based on consideration of the 
entire application for certification submitted by DOE. The criteria 
against which the WIPP's compliance will be evaluated contain four 
subparts, consisting of:
(1) subpart A, which specifies general administrative requirements with 
which DOE must comply during the compliance application and subsequent 
rulemaking processes. Requirements are specified which contain format 
and protocols for the submission of applications plus any subsequent 
suspension, revocation or modification of compliance status.
(2) subpart B, which outlines the information necessary for inclusion 
with compliance applications. The criteria require DOE to analyze the 
performance of WIPP and predict release of waste, doses received by 
individuals and doses received through ground water. The criteria list 
the information needs for such assessments. Subsequent applications for 
determinations must note any changes in such information that might 
have occurred since initial certification.
(3) subpart C, which implements the specific containment, assurance, 
individual and groundwater protection requirements of the disposal 
standards of 40 CFR 191. To account for the likelihood of human 
activity and human intrusion into the repository during the 10,000- 
year regulatory period, the criteria specify how the frequency and 
consequences of such events shall be determined. The results of 
compliance assessments of individual and groundwater protection shall 
be expressed to show the likelihood of a given exposure or greater 
occurring. To increase confidence in performance and compliance 
assessments, the criteria specify requirements on quality assurance 
methodologies and characterization of radioactive waste proposed for 
emplacement in the repository. Assurance requirements include criteria 
for --defense-in-depth,-- such as institutional controls to warn 
potential intruders about the hazards of the waste, monitoring of the 
repository to detect


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The party primarily affected under this action is the DOE, owner and 
operator of the WIPP. The Agency prepared an Economic Impact Analysis 
(EIA) for the WIPP compliance criteria (40 CFR 194). This EIA estimated 
those costs imposed on the WIPP project in excess of those being 
incurred presently due to other applicable regulations or program 
requirements. While the total cost may have appeared sizeable, it did 
not appear to be so sizeable that it would have been ``significant'' as 
defined under the provisions of Executive Order No. 12866, i.e., more 
than $100 million per year. The portion of the criteria concerning 
human intrusion into the WIPP was the only potential contributor to 
significant increases in cost (i.e., as much as $20 million or less 
than one percent of the total cost; the total cost of the WIPP project 
is over $8 billion to date). Additional costs could be incurred if 
compliance could only be achieved through redesign of the repository or 
treatment of waste in order to reduce the likelihood and consequences 
of human intrusion.

[[Page 62145]]

Risks:


Because this regulation is not setting standards, but implementing an 
existing standard (40 CFR 191) and making a compliance decision, no 
analysis of risk has been performed.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                                                          10/00/96
NPRM                                                           05/00/97
Final                                                          11/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3873.
EPA is required under the WIPP LWA S8(d)(1)(B) to certify compliance 
within one year after receipt of the Department of Energy's compliance 
certification application which is expected to be received by EPA on 
October 31 1996. Therefore the rulemaking should be completed by 
October 31 1997.


Agency Contact:
Mary Kruger
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
(6602-J)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-233-9025
Fax: 202-233-9626
RIN: 2060-AG85
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
98. IMPLEMENTATION OF OZONE AND PARTICULATE MATTER (PM) NATIONAL 
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS) AND REGIONAL HAZE REGULATIONS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 PL 95-95; PL 101-549


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 51; 40 CFR 81


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Statutory, January 31, 1998.


Abstract:


EPA has established a process designed to provide for significant 
stakeholder involvement in the development of integrated implementation 
strategies for possible new or revised ozone and particulate matter 
national ambient air quality standards, and development of a regional 
haze reduction program. This process involves a new subcommittee under 
the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, established under the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The new subcommittee, the Subcommittee 
for Ozone, Particulate Matter and Regional Haze Implementation 
Programs, was established in September 1995 to address integrated 
strategies for implementation of potential new ozone and PM NAAQS, and 
a regional haze program. Since all three pollutants are products of 
interrelated chemical conversions in the atmosphere, new approaches 
will be needed to identify and characterize affected areas and to 
assign planning, management and control responsibilities.
The subcommittee is expected to examine key aspects of the 
implementation programs for ozone and PM to provide for more flexible 
and cost-effective implementation strategies, as well as to provide new 
approaches that could integrate broad regional and national control 
strategies with more localized efforts. In addition the subcommittee 
will consider new and innovative approaches to implementation, 
including market-based incentives. The focus of the subcommittee will 
be on assisting EPA in developing implementation control strategies, 
preparing supporting analyses, and identifying and resolving 
impediments to the adoption of the resulting programs. EPA will 
consider the subcommittee's recommendations in the development of an 
integration strategy for ozone and particulate matter, and a regional 
haze program.


Statement of Need:


Development of programs for ozone and PM are necessary to implement any 
revised NAAQS under Title 1 of the Clean Air Act.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


EPA is in the process of preparing a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) 
for implementing new ozone and PM NAAQS, as well as a regional haze 
reduction program. The RIA will be available at the time the 
implementation strategy is proposed in the Federal Register. The 
current schedule calls for publication of the notice of proposed 
rulemaking on Phase I of the implementation strategy in mid-1997.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                                                          11/00/96
- Phase I
NPRM 06/00/97
Final Action 06/00/98
- Phase II
NPRM 06/00/98
Final Action 06/00/99
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3553.
SAN No. 3552 for Regional Haze


Agency Contact:
Denise Gerth
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
OAQPS (MD-15)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5550
RIN: 2060-AF34
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
99. CONTROL OF EMISSIONS OF AIR POLLUTION FROM HIGHWAY HEAVY-DUTY 
ENGINES AND NONROAD DIESEL ENGINES
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


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 reducing emissions of nitrogen 
oxides (NOx), non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) and particulate matter 
(PM) from diesel and gasoline fueled engines used in highway trucks and 
buses and in nonroad equipment and vehicles. Nitrogen oxides are a 
significant contributor to urban ozone pollution (smog), acid rain, and 
particulate pollution. Particulates, including those emitted directly 
and secondary particulates formed in the atmosphere, have been 
associated with

[[Page 62146]]

increased death and illness rates as well as impaired visibility. Non-
Methane hydrocarbons also contribute to ozone pollution. Highway and 
nonroad engines and vehicles are very significant contributors to these 
air-quality problems. This initiative has been marked by an 
unprecedented degree of cooperation between EPA, the State of 
California, and the engine manufacturing industry, as well as the 
involvement of States, regional air-management organizations, and 
public interest and environmental organizations. The result has been a 
plan for very stringent new emission standards that have the support of 
the industry. EPA has proposed new standards for highway truck and bus 
engines, and discussions are progressing toward similar standards for 
nonroad diesel engines.


Statement of Need:


Ozone pollution poses a serious threat to the health and well-being of 
millions of Americans and a large burden to the U.S. economy. Many 
ozone nonattainment areas face great difficulties in reaching and 
maintaining attainment of the ozone health-based air quality standards 
in the years ahead. Recognizing this challenge, States, local 
governments, and others have called on the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) to promulgate additional national measures to reduce 
nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons and particulate matter in order to 
protect the public from the serious health effects of ozone pollution.


Alternatives:


EPA will consider alternatives for this rule as part of the notices of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRMs) planned for this initiative.


Risks:


Oxides of nitrogen comprise a family of highly reactive gaseous 
compounds that contribute to air pollution in both urban and rural 
environments. NOx is directly harmful to human health and the 
environment, contributes to particulate pollution, and plays a critical 
role in the formation of atmospheric ozone. Based on studies of human 
populations exposed to high concentrations of particles and laboratory 
studies of animals and humans, there are major human health concerns 
associated with PM. These include deleterious effects on breathing and 
respiratory systems, aggravation of existing respiratory and 
cardiovascular disease, alterations in the body's defense systems 
against foreign materials, damage to lung tissue, carcinogenesis, and 
premature death.

Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           60 FR 45580                                    08/30/95
NPRM Highway    61 FR 33421                                    06/27/96
ANPRM Nonroad                                                  10/00/96
NPRM Nonroad                                                   03/00/97
Final Action Highway                                           03/00/97
Final Action Nonroad                                           12/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3645 and 3878


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

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

100. PESTICIDES; SELF-CERTIFICATION
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 7 USC 136 to 136y


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 152


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is evaluating self-
certification as a possible approach to reinventing the registration 
process for pesticides. The goal of this effort is to simplify, speed 
up, and increase the efficiency of the registration process while 
maintaining protection to human health and the environment.


Statement of Need:


EPA registers pesticides for sale and use in the United States under 
the Federal, Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA 
has issued rules, notices, and guidance which specify how applicants 
may obtain approval for registration of pesticide products. Against a 
backdrop of declining resources and a continuous workload of pesticide 
applications, EPA is examining many possible ways of reinventing the 
registration process to handle applications faster, more efficiently, 
and with fewer resources. One of these approaches is self-
certification, a concept in which a registrant may certify that a 
registration application (or part of it) complies with Agency 
requirements and may then obtain EPA approval for the registration 
after an abbreviated review or no review at all. EPA has several 
projects that are exploring the possible use of self-certification in 
different ways. First, EPA has reinvented the process by which 
registrants may accomplish amendment of products by notification or 
nonnotification. The revised process allows a registrant to certify 
that an application for amendment meets EPA's criteria as a low-risk 
amendment. This revised process is described in PR Notice 95-2 (May 31, 
1995). To formally implement this type of self-certification, EPA has 
also revised existing rules (40 CFR 152.44 and 152.46) on notifications 
and nonnotifications.
Second, self-certification of 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.

[[Page 62147]]




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                                        01/00/97
Self-Certification of Acute Toxicity and Product Chemistry Data
Draft PR Notices 10/00/96
Final FR Notices 12/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3932.


Agency Contact:
Jeff Kempter
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
401 M Street, S.W. (7505C)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 305-5448
Email: [email protected]
Debby Sisco
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Phone: 703-305-7096
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AD00
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
101. TSCA INVENTORY UPDATE RULE AMENDMENTS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 15 USC 2607(a)


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 710


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action would amend the current Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 
Inventory Update Rule (IUR) to require chemical manufacturers to report 
to EPA data on exposures and the industrial and consumer end uses of 
chemicals they produce. Currently, EPA requires chemical manufacturers 
to report the names of the chemicals they produce, as well as the 
locations of manufacturing facilities and the quantities produced. 
About 2,400 facilities reported data on about 8,300 unique chemicals 
during the last reporting cycle under the IUR. Data obtained would be 
used by EPA and others to: better understand the potential for chemical 
exposures and then screen the chemicals now in commerce and identify 
those of highest concern; establish priorities and goals for their 
chemical assessment, risk management and prevention programs and 
monitor their progress; encourage pollution prevention by identifying 
potentially safer substitute chemicals for uses of potential concern; 
and enhance the effectiveness of chemical risk communication efforts. 
EPA has held meetings with representatives of the chemical industry, 
environmental groups, environmental justice leaders, labor groups, 
State governments and other Federal agencies to insure public 
involvement in the Chemical Use Inventory project.


Statement of Need:


There are approximately 70,000 chemicals in commerce and listed on the 
updated TSCA Inventory. EPA faces the challenge of sorting through 
these chemicals to identify the ones of most concern and then taking 
action to mitigate unreasonable risks. The current IUR collects some of 
the key data, such as production volumes, that help to identify 
chemicals of concern, but information on how chemicals are used 
commercially, which is essential to determining possible exposure 
routes and scenarios and potential safer substitute chemicals, is not 
covered by IUR. This action will propose to modify the inventory update 
process so that data essential to an effective TSCA Inventory screening 
program are available to EPA.
In addition to the specifics of the kind and format of the desired end 
use data reporting, EPA will consider reforms of the IUR: How to 
include inorganic chemicals, which have been exempted from reporting in 
the past, so that risks from these chemicals can be better assessed and 
managed; How to ease the linkage of amended IUR data to other 
environmental data sources like the Toxic Release Inventory to enhance 
its usefulness; and How to change IUR reporting so that the frequency 
of submitter confidentiality claims is reduced so that the public can 
have better access to relevant data on toxics.
A national report will make data collected via the amended IUR publicly 
available. This report will not contain any information claimed to be 
confidential. information claimed to be confidential.


Alternatives:


Several alternate approaches to securing the desired chemical use data 
have been evaluated. One of the alternatives considered was whether to 
add materials accounting and other data elements to the Toxic Release 
Inventory. EPA plans to evaluate this approach in a separate project.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Total costs of this action depend on the amendments to IUR that are 
contained in a proposed rule. The amended IUR will assist EPA in 
screening chemicals not in commerce and identify those of highest 
concern; establishing priorities and goals for its

[[Page 62148]]

chemical assessment, risk management and prevention programs and 
monitor their progress; identifying potentially safer substitute 
chemicals for uses of potential concern; and enhancing the 
effectiveness of chemical risk communication efforts.


Risks:


This action will secure data on chemicals in commerce which describes 
how they are used which is essential to determining possible exposure 
routes and scenarios. EPA's toxics program will be able to better focus 
on chemical risks of most concern.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3301.


Agency Contact:
Ward Penberthy
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-1664
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AC61
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
102. SELECTED RULEMAKINGS FOR ABATING LEAD HAZARDS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 15 USC 2683; PL 102-550


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 745


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, April 28, 1994.


Final, Statutory, April 28, 1994, (Sections 403: 402: 404).


Final, Statutory, April 28, 1994, Final.


Final, Statutory, April 28, 1994, Statutory April 28.


Final, Statutory, April 28, 1994, 1994 (Sections 403.


Final, Statutory, April 28, 1994, 402.


Final, Statutory, April 28, 1994, 404).


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, and (e) promulgate regulations (Section 
402(c)(3)) addressing lead risks from renovation and remodeling 
activities or state why no regulation is necessary.


Statement of Need:


Childhood lead poisoning is a pervasive problem in the United States, 
with 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 section 406 cost estimates have been 
provided with the proposed rule, and will be available with the final 
rule. For sections 402, 404 and 1018, the costs have been provided in 
the final economic impact analysis that was prepared in conjunction 
with the final rules. For section 403, costs will still need to be 
estimated in a draft economic impact analysis that will be prepared for 
the proposed rule. Since benefits depend on private sector 
implementation of certain lead hazard abatement activities which are 
not mandated by any of these rules, benefits will be difficult to 
quantify.


Risks:


These rules are aimed at reducing the prevalence and severity of lead 
poisoning, particularly in children.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Section 1018
NPRM 11/02/94 (59 FR 54984)
Final Action 03/06/96 (61 FR 9064)
Section 402(c)(3)
NPRM 12/00/97
Final Action 12/00/98
Section 403
NPRM 11/00/96
Final Action 09/00/97
Section 406
NPRM 03/02/94 (59 FR 11108)
Final Action 12/00/96
Sections 402 and 404
NPRM 09/02/94 (59 FR 45872)
Final Action 08/29/96 (61 FR 45778)
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Analysis:


 RIA

[[Page 62149]]

Additional Information:


SAN No. 3243.
403: 3243, 402/404: 3244; 406: 3242; 1018: 3499; 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); Lead-
Based Paint Activities, Training, and Certification: Renovation and 
Remodeling (Section 402(c)(3))(RIN: 2070-AC83).
Legal Deadlines: Statutory: (Sections 403: 402: 404) Final : Statutory 
April 28; 1994 (Sections 403; 402; 404), Other Statutory: (Sections 
406: 1018) Final; Statutory; October 28; 1994 (Sections 406; 1018); 
Final Statutory; October 28; 1996 (Section 402(c)(3).


Agency Contact:
Doreen Cantor
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
SE.
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-1777
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AD06
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
103. 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, 1995, 
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 S60 FR 62546ipal Permit Application Forms and Ru12/06/95
NPRM Procedures 61 FR 39804ing and Maintaining Approved POTW Pr07/30/96
NPRM Round II NPDES Streamlining Rule                          10/00/96
Final Action Procedures for Developing and Maintaining Approved POTW 
        Program                                                03/00/97
Final Action Round II NPDES Streamlining Rule                  03/00/97
NPRM NPDES Industrial Permit Application Form and Regulations  04/00/97
NPRM General Pretreatment for Existing and New Sources of Pollu06/00/97
NPRM Round III NPDES Streamlining Rule                         06/00/97
Final Action NPDES and Sludge Municipal Permit Application Forms and 
        Rules                                                  08/00/97
Final Action General Pretreatment for Existing and New Sources of 
        Pollution                                              06/00/98
Final Action Round III NPDES Streamlining Rule                 12/00/98
Final Action NPDES Industrial Permit Application Form and Regul01/00/99

[[Page 62150]]

Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3861.


Agency Contact:
Traci Brown
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
(4203)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-8487
RIN: 2040-AC69
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
104. 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 would 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

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           08/00/97
Final Action                                                   12/00/98
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


State, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3700.


Agency Contact:
Mimi Dannel
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
(4503F)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-1897
RIN: 2040-AC65
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
105. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RADIATION SITE CLEANUP REGULATION
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 2201/AEA 161; 42 USC 2021/AEA 274; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 
1970; 42 USC 2011-2296


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 196


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, the Agency is proposing regulations 
to set standards limiting the amount of radiation that members of the 
public may receive from a contaminated site released from federal 
control.
EPA estimates that 4,947 sites may be contaminated with radioactive 
materials in the United States. Included are sites on EPA's National 
Priorities List, and other sites under the authority of various Federal 
agencies, predominately DOE and DoD, sites licensed by the NRC and NRC 
Agreement States, and sites licensed by States. Based on data provided 
by DOE, DoD, and NRC, many of those sites are non-Federal NPL sites or 
sites licensed by either the NRC or NRC Agreement States. There are 
also sites that are under the control of either DOE, DoD, or other 
Federal agencies. Contamination extends to all environmental media and 
includes all types of radioactive materials. It also includes mixed 
waste, which contains both radioactive and hazardous components. To 
date, progress in cleaning up these sites has been slow, largely due to 
the absence of a uniform, national radiation site cleanup standard.
Under current programs, cleanup standards for radioactive materials are 
determined on a site-by-site basis. A risk assessment is conducted to 
analyze the extent of the potential threat that the radioactive 
materials at the site pose to human health. However, direction is still 
needed on the level of human health and environmental protection to be 
achieved at these sites. To address this problem, the Agency

[[Page 62151]]

has developed standards that will establish cleanup levels for these 
sites.


Statement of Need:


EPA has estimated that there are approximately 5,000 sites contaminated 
with radioactive materials in the United States. Based on preliminary 
information, it is estimated that approximately 50 million cubic meters 
of radioactively contaminated soil are located at Federal facility and 
NRC licensee sites. Progress in conducting cleanups at many of these 
radioactively contaminated sites has been limited and slow. The lack of 
specific cleanup levels for radioactive materials has been a major 
impediment to progress in many contaminated site cleanups. Under 
current programs, cleanup standards for radioactive materials are 
determined on a site-by-site basis. The current uncertainty over 
setting cleanup levels for radioactively contaminated sites increases 
the expense and time devoted to cleanup planning. This, in turn, 
impedes investment in innovative, new cleanup technologies and 
therefore wastes resources that could be devoted to cleanup of sites. 
Time and effort is instead spent on continual planning, and 
negotiations over cleanup levels to be achieved.


Alternatives:


The Radiation Site Cleanup Regulation preamble provides information on 
alternatives for dose limits, cleanup levels, and land uses, period of 
exposure and compliance, and ground water.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) estimates that the incremental 
present-value cost at 15 mrem/yr would be $1.5 billion and the benefit 
would be approximately 400 lives saved over 1,000 years.


Risks:


To analyze the benefits of the proposed and alternative cleanup 
standards, EPA evaluated the net health impacts to society of cleanup 
levels ranging from 100 mrem/yr to 0.1 mrem/yr in excess of background 
radiation levels.
To evaluate the impacts on society, the EPA quantitatively assessed and 
evaluated the following categories of health impacts: 1) Cancer 
fatalities in the general population averted due to site cleanup. These 
figures assume a given population moving onto or near a formerly 
radioactively contaminated site that has been released for a particular 
use. 2) Worker cancer fatalities and industrial fatalities due to site 
cleanup. 3) Traffic fatalities among workers and the general population 
due to transporting wastes generated from cleanup to disposal 
facilities. 4) Cancer fatalities in the general population incurred due 
to the disposal of wastes from site cleanup. EPA also examined other 
effects qualitatively, such as ecological impacts, natural resource 
damages, and effects on cultural and historically significant sites.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           58 FR 54474                                    10/21/93
NPRM                                                           10/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2073.


Agency Contact:
John M. Karhnak
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
(6603J)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 233-9237
Fax: 202 233-9650
RIN: 2060-AB31
_______________________________________________________________________
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 Streamlining Drinking Water Monitoring Requirements       01/00/97

[[Page 62152]]

Direct Final Rule Reformatting of Existing Drinking Water Regul02/00/97
Final Action Streamlining Drinking Water Monitoring Requirement01/00/98
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3862.


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. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 6905/RCRA 1004; 42 USC 6921 to 6928/RCRA 3001 to 3008


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 261; 40 CFR 266


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Recycling of hazardous waste is governed by the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste regulations. The portion of 
these regulations known as the Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) 
specifies whether hazardous materials that are recycled are regulated 
under RCRA or not. Other parts of the regulations set forth 
requirements for managing recycled hazardous waste. This regulatory 
action will revise the hazardous waste recycling regulations to address 
several issues. First, the recycling regulations have been criticized 
for being overly complex, difficult to understand, and for posing a 
barrier to safe hazardous waste recycling. Second, since the recycling 
regulations were promulgated in 1985, a number of court cases have 
clarified the scope of the Agency's authority under RCRA to regulate 
recycled materials. This regulatory action will revise both the 
Definition of Solid Waste and the requirements for managing recycled 
hazardous waste in an effort to simplify the recycling regulations, 
remove disincentives to safe recycling, and to respond to the court 
cases.


Statement of Need:


Revisions are needed to improve EPA's regulations for hazardous waste 
recycling by: (a) eliminating disincentives for the safe recycling of 
hazardous waste; (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:


At this time the Agency tentatively plans to co-propose two options for 
regulating hazardous waste recycling. These options take different 
approaches to defining what recycled materials are regulated, and the 
first includes revisions to the hazardous waste management regulations 
that will streamline the requirements for those recycled wastes that 
are regulated. These options are still under development, so the 
specifics of each will likely change, but a general description 
follows. The first option, known as the Transfer-Based Option, would 
regulate those materials that are recycled or managed in certain 
identified ways (e.g., burning for energy recovery or storage on the 
land) and materials that are transferred to an entity other than the 
generator for recycling. The proposal will include changes to the RCRA 
hazardous waste management regulations (e.g., permitting) to streamline 
and simplify compliance for those materials that are regulated only 
because they are transferred to another entity for recycling. The 
second option, known as the In-Commerce option, would regulate only 
those materials that are recycled or managed in certain identified ways 
such as burning for energy recovery or storage on the land. These 
materials would be subject to the existing RCRA regulations for those 
activities.


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                                                           04/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


State, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2872.


Agency Contact:
Charlotte Mooney
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(5304W)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703-308-7025
RIN: 2050-AD18
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
108. CORRECTIVE ACTION FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS (SWMUS) AT 
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


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.

[[Page 62153]]

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)). An advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) was published on May 1, 1996. The 
following phase (Phase II) will include assessing comments on the 
ANPRM, and striking the appropriate balance between finalizing certain 
provisions of the July 27, 1990 proposal, issuing a proposal that 
includes a reproposal of some provisions from the July 1990 notice and 
proposing new provisions. The last phase (Phase III) will involve 
finalizing any newly proposed provisions.


Statement of Need:


The corrective action program is currently 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 issued 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           61 FR 19432                                    05/01/96
NPRM                                                           09/00/97
Final (Phase II/Reproposal)                                    12/00/97
Final (Phase III)                                              12/00/98
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


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:
Hugh Davis
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(5303W)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8633
RIN: 2050-AB80
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
109. MANAGEMENT OF CEMENT KILN DUST (CKD)
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 6903(5)(b)/RCRA 1004(5)(B); 42 USC 6912(a)/RCRA 2002(a); 42 USC 
6921(b)(3)/RCRA 3001(b)(3); 42 USC 6924(x)/RCRA 3004(x)


CFR Citation:


 Not yet determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


CKD is a high volume material by-product of the cement manufacturing 
process. While it contains potentially hazardous constituents such as 
lead, cadmium and chromium, it has been exempted since November 1980 
from hazardous waste regulation under RCRA Subtitle C by the Bevill 
Amendment, which modified Section 3001 of RCRA to exempt certain 
special wastes until further studies could be completed and any 
applicable regulations were promulgated. In December 1993, EPA 
submitted a Report to Congress with its findings on the nature and 
management practices

[[Page 62154]]

associated with CKD. This was followed in January 1995 by an EPA 
regulatory determination published in the Federal Register (60 FR 7366, 
2/7/95), which concluded that additional control of CKD is warranted. 
In the regulatory determination EPA committed to develop additional 
tailored regulations under RCRA Subtitle C and, if necessary, the Clean 
Air Act. As part of its regulatory development effort, the Office of 
Solid Waste within EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 
has initiated further studies and has held informal discussions with 
stakeholders interested in regulations under RCRA Subtitle C for the 
management of CKD. The proposed regulations will be tailored to protect 
human health and the environment while imposing minimal burden on the 
regulated community.


Statement of Need:


This action follows EPA's RCRA mandated regulatory determination on 
CKD, published in the Federal Register (60 FR 7366, 2/7/95), which 
concluded that additional control of CKD is warranted in order to 
protect human health, and to prevent environmental damage associated 
with current disposal practices for this waste.


Alternatives:


EPA will develop a range of landfill management standards for sensitive 
and non-sensitive environments, each involving protections for 
groundwater and air pathways. It is anticipated that the base standards 
would be performance based, and form the basis for a conditional 
exclusion from Subtitle C regulation. If an owner/operator complied 
with the base performance standards, his CKD waste would not be subject 
to Subtitle C regulation. Alternatively, an owner/operator could comply 
with default technical requirements under Subtitle C.
It is anticipated that the conditions for exclusion and the default 
technical requirements would be similar and would include: fugitive 
dust controls, provisions and restrictions for landfills located in 
sensitive environments, groundwater monitoring requirements, 
performance standards for liners and caps, metals limits for CKD used 
as agricultural lime, and corrective action for currently active units. 
The Agency hopes to afford States considerable flexibility in setting 
and tailoring requirements in their own programs.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Analysis of costs and benefits will be conducted as part of the 
economic analysis for this rule as required under Executive Order 
12866.



Risks:


As explained in the regulatory determination for CKD, EPA believes that 
subjecting CKD waste to the full RCRA Subtitle C program would be 
prohibitively burdensome on the cement industry. EPA believes it is 
appropriate to apply only those components of Subtitle C that are 
necessary, based on our current knowledge of the cement industry and 
the human health and environmental concerns associated with CKD, 
thereby achieving a common sense result with respect to the hazards 
posed by CKD on a site-specific basis. EPA anticipates that any such 
standards would be designed to be protective, yet minimally burdensome, 
and may not necessarily apply to all facilities, or may not apply to 
all facilities in the same manner or to the same extent.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           09/00/97
Final Action                                                   10/00/98
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3856.


Agency Contact:
Bill Schoenborn
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(5306W)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8483
RIN: 2050-AE34
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
110. 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 
intervalsthereafter.


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 August and September of 1995. The CASAC met in 
September 1995 to review the Criteria Document and Staff Paper and 
provided oral and written comments, which were considered by EPA in 
revising the draft documents. A subsequent CASAC meeting was held to 
review the revised drafts of the staff paper in March 1996. Letter of 
closure to finalize review by CASAC of the Criteria Document and Staff 
Paper were sent in November 1995 and April 1996 from the chairman of 
CASAC to the Administrator. Final versions of the Staff Paper and 
Criteria Document were Completed and made available to the public in 
June 1996 and July 1996, respectively.


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 implementation of 
this rulemaking by the States will be part of the Agency's regulatory 
impact

[[Page 62155]]

analysis. The Agency is just completing 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                                                           11/00/96
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
111. NAAQS: PARTICULATE MATTER (REVIEW)
Priority:


Economically Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 7408 to 7409


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 50.6


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Judicial, November 29, 1996.


Final, Judicial, June 28, 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 has updated the 
air quality criteria for particulate matter and the associated staff 
paper. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Completed its review of the 
revised air quality Criteria Document and Staff Paper on March 15, 1996 
and June 15, 1996 respectively. 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 implementation of 
this rulemaking by the States will be part of the Agency's regulatory 
impact analysis. The Agency is just completed 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                                                           11/00/96
Final Action                                                   06/00/97
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


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
112. CONSOLIDATED FEDERAL AIR RULE FOR THE SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICAL 
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 7401 et seq


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 60; 40 CFR 61; 40 CFR 63


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Over the past 25 years, EPA has issued a series of national air 
regulations, many of which affect the same facility. Some facilities 
are now subject to five or six national rules, sometimes affecting the 
same emission points. Each rule has emission control requirements as 
well as monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements.
These requirements may be duplicative, overlaping, difficult to 
understand or inconsistent. It is often difficult for plant managers to 
determine compliance strategies to satisfy all requirements and for 
State and local permitting agencies to determine the applicability of 
different requirements for permitting purposes. Resources are often 
wasted by both industry and states and localities in ``sorting out'' 
and complying with the panoply of multiple requirements. Moreover, as 
the Agency continues to issue new air toxics rules, as mandated by the 
CAA, the problem is compounded.
All existing Federal air rules applicable to an industry sector will be 
reviewed to determine whether there provisions can be consolidated into 
a single new

[[Page 62156]]

rule. Affected industries, state agencies, and other stakeholders will 
be consulted to identify duplicative and conflicting provisions and to 
provide assistance in drafting the single rule. The chemical industry 
and state representatives have agreed to work on a pilot project with 
EPA's air programs to explore this approach. If the approach is 
successful with the chemical industry, it will be expanded to air rules 
for other industry sectors. EPA will then consider extending this 
program to water and waste requirements.


Statement of Need:


Both industry and regulatory agencies have expressed a great desire to 
streamline and simplify rules. This rule streamlines and simplifies by 
consolidating and collapsing the numerous federal rules that apply to 
the chemical industry, with resulting improved compliances.


Alternatives:


The main alternative is to do nothing and let the many rules with their 
many provisions remain in effect.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


This rule will result in considerable savings to the affected industry. 
There is significant burden reduction associated with recordkeeping and 
reporting. The rule will be easier to follow and understand. There will 
be no change in control stringency or applicability of the rules being 
consolidated


Risks:


This rulemaking deals with consolidated reporting to simplify existing 
rules. The risks addressed by each of these existing rules were 
addressed in those individual rulemakings.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           04/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Sectors Affected:


 286 Industrial Organic Chemicals


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3748.


Agency Contact:
Rick Colyer
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5262
Fax: 919 541-3470
RIN: 2060-AG28
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
113. ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN, 
NEVADA
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 Energy Policy Act, section 801


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 197


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, August 1, 1996.


Abstract:


This rulemaking is in response to section 801 of the Energy Policy Act 
of 1992 which directs the Administrator to ``promulgate public health 
and safety standards for protection of the public from releases from 
radioactive materials stored or disposed of in the repository at the 
Yucca Mountain site.'' The only regulated entity is the U.S. Department 
of Energy.


Statement of Need:


In 1985, the Agency issued generic standards for the management and 
disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The 
Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 mandated the study of Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada to determine its suitability to be a repository for 
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The Waste 
Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act of 1992 exempted Yucca 
Mountain from coverage under the 1985 generic standards. Concurrently, 
the Energy Policy Act of 1992 gave EPA the responsibility of setting 
site-specific, radiation-protection standards for Yucca Mountain.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The legal authority is derived from the Energy Policy Act of 1992.


Alternatives:


Since this action is legally mandated, there are no alternatives.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Since the potential cost is dependent upon several factors whose 
determination has not yet been made, a precise assessment of the 
economic impact of the rulemaking is not possible at this time. 
Likewise, the benefits, i.e., the adverse effects averted (which are 
required to complete a cost-benefit analysis), cannot be determined in 
a meaningful manner at this time since the effect of these standards is 
to avert potential adverse health effects that may occur during very 
long periods into the future and are, therefore, quantifiable only with 
a high degree of uncertainty.


Risks:


The potential risks which would be allowed under these standards is 
dependent upon the level of protection and the regulatory time frame 
which is selected. Since the standards have not yet been proposed, it 
is not possible to estimate the potential risks.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           10/00/96
Final Action                                                   02/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3568.


Agency Contact:
Ray Clark
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
(6602J)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 233-9198
Fax: 202 233-9626
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AG14
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
114. 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.

[[Page 62157]]

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. The EPA sought public 
comment on the need to adopt additional regulatory measures to address 
the health risk to asthmatic individuals posed by short-term peak 
sulfur dioxide exposure.
On March 7, 1995, EPA proposed implementation strategies for reducing 
short-term high concentrations of sulfur dioxide emissions in the 
ambient air.
On May 22, 1996, EPA published its final decision not to revise the 
primary sulfur dioxide NAAQS. The notice stated that EPA would shortly 
propose a new implementation strategy to assist States in addressing 
short-term peaks of sulfur dioxide.


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. 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. The 5/22/96 final decision discussed EPA's 
intent to propose a program under section 303 of the Act that will 
assist States in addressing high 5-minute peaks.


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    61 FR 25566                                    05/22/96
NPRM Revised NAAQS SO2 Implementation Plans (Part 51)          10/00/96
Final NAAQS SO2 Implementation Plans (Part 51)                 08/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 1002.
(Primary Standard) and SAN No


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
115. INTEGRATED NESHAP AND EFFLUENT GUIDELINES: PULP AND PAPER
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 7412; 42 USC 7414; 42 USC 7601; Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990 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.
This Regulatory Plan entry also includes RIN 2040-AB53, Effluent 
Guidelines and Standards for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category, 
reported in full in Part III of this issue of the Federal Register.


Statement of Need:


This action will limit surface water discharges of toxic, conventional, 
and nonconventional pollutants and emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAPs) from pulp and paper mills. The NESHAP will limit the 
release of HAPs such as chloroform, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and 
methanol. The effluent guidelines will limit the discharge of dioxin, 
furan, and other toxic and conventional pollutants to rivers and other 
surface waters. The Statutory authorities and deadlines are cited 
above. Additionally, EPA is required to promulgate these effluent 
guidelines to satisfy a provision in a Consent Decree entered in 
settlement of Environmental Defense Fund and National Wildlife 
Federation v. Thomas, Civ. No. 85-0973 (D.D.C.).

[[Page 62158]]

Alternatives:


Both the CAA and the CWA specify that these regulations be established 
on a technology basis. The CAA specifies that MACT for existing sources 
can be no less stringent than the average emission limitations achieved 
by the best-performing similar source. The CWA specifies that effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards be based on specific technology 
levels, such as the best available technology economically achievable. 
For the integration of air and water standards, EPA developed 
regulatory alternatives from combinations of process changes and 
pollution control technologies. The Agency considered the combined 
costs and impacts of these alternatives while remaining responsive to 
the statutory requirements under both laws.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The proposed integrated air and water rules comprise effluent 
guidelines for all pulp and paper mills and MACT standards for the 
noncombustion sources at all Kraft, soda, sulfite, and semi-chemical 
pulp and paper mills. The Agency plans to propose MACT standards for 
the chemical recovery combustion sources at these mills at the same 
time the Agency promulgates the integrated air and water rules. For the 
rulemaking components that have been proposed, the Agency estimated 
total annualized costs of $600 million (1992 dollars). The 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 NESHAP Sources
Final Action 11/00/97
NESHAP for Combustion Sources - Phase II
NPRM 11/00/96
Final 11/00/97
NESHAP for Nonchemical and Other Pulp and Paper Mills - Phase III
NPRM 12/00/96
NESHAP for Noncombustion and Effluent Guidelines - Phase I
Final 12/00/96
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 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
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
(MD-13)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5427
Donald F. Anderson
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
Phone: 202-260-7189
RIN: 2060-AD03
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
116. NONROAD SPARK-IGNITION ENGINES AT OR BELOW 19 KILOWATTS (25 
HORSEPOWER)(PHASE 2)
Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 7547/CAA 213


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 90


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, November 15, 1992.


NPRM, Judicial, May 31, 1997, Non-hand-held engines (5/31/97)Hand-held 
engines (12/31/97).


NPRM, Judicial, December 31, 1997, Non-hand-held engines(5/31/97) Hand-
held engines (12/31/97).


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) had been 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 
negotiations came to an end on February 16, 1996 with no consensus 
reached. EPA will now develop the rulemaking through other means.
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

[[Page 62159]]

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 Non-hand-held engines                                     05/00/97
NPRM Hand-held engines                                         12/00/97
Final Hand-held engines                                        00/00/00
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3361.


Agency Contact:
Betsy McCabe
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Lab
Ann Arbor MI 48105
Phone: 313 668-4344
RIN: 2060-AE29
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

117. FACILITY COVERAGE AMENDMENT; TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE REPORTING; 
COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.


Legal Authority:


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


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 372


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The original Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) required reporting from 
facilities in Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20-39. 
These SIC codes cover manufacturing facilities only. This requirement 
was 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 the United 
States. The intention of Congress was for TRI, and indeed all of EPCRA, 
to provide information to local communities. Communities need this 
information to better understand the nature of the releases at the 
local level. The intent of TRI has been to share information on 
releases with local communities to help in their assessments of the 
risks. This basic local empowerment is the cornerstone of the right-to-
know program.
Yet TRI collects data from only the manufacturing sector, and for only 
a subset of the 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, industry sectors were 
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 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.

[[Page 62160]]

Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


As indicated in the economic impact analysis prepared and made 
available for comment in conjunction with the proposed rule, EPA 
estimates that first year costs may be $191 million, with subsequent 
estimated to $118 million each year. 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            61 FR 33588                                    06/27/96
NPRM            61 FR 33588                                    06/27/96
Final Rule                                                     01/00/97
Final Action                                                   01/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Sectors Affected:


 20 Food and Kindred Products; 21 Tobacco Products; 22 Textile Mill 
Products; 23 Apparel and Other Finished Products Made from Fabrics and 
Similar Materials


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
Email: [email protected]
Brian Symmes
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Phone: 202-260-9121
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AC71
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
118. 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:


 40 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

[[Page 62161]]

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

_______________________________________________________________________
Direct Final Pes60 FR 32094rams Line-by-Line Review            06/19/95
Direct Final Tox60 FR 31917 Line-by-Line Review                06/19/95
Final                                                          11/00/96
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:
Angela Hofmann
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
401 M Street, S.W. (Mailcode 7101)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-2922
Fax: 202-260-0951
Email: [email protected]
Pat Johnson
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Phone: 202-260-2893
Fax: 202-260-0951
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AC97
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
119. 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 (including 
import) processing, distribution in commerce, export use, disposal, and 
marking of PCBs.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is the first comprehensive review of the PCB 
regulations in the 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                                                   12/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3860.


Agency Contact:
Tony Baney
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
401 M Street S.W. (Mailcode 7404)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-3933
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AD04
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
120. 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

[[Page 62162]]

revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 6905/1006; 42 USC 6912(a)/RCRA 2002(a); 42 USC 6921/RCRA 3001; 
42 USC 6922/RCRA 3002; 42 USC 6926/RCRA 3006


CFR Citation:


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


Legal Deadline:


Final, Judicial, February 13, 1997.


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 the proposal, EPA has 
considered the views of all members of a Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(FACA) committee. Because this action is deregulatory, it is not 
expected to have adverse impacts on small business. The cost savings 
for small quantity generators is less certain and depends on the degree 
to which they aggregate their wastes and work cooperatively with each 
other to cost-effectively gain exemption. This action will be 
implemented by EPA and authorized States.


Statement of Need:


EPA has proposed 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 the final rule will reflect a balancing of the 
Agency's informational needs for oversight and enforcement with the 
practical resource considerations of the generator. This rule 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 
rule 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 included a basic exit option and requested comment on 
contingent management alternatives.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The proposal estimated that 64 million tons of wastewater and 0.40 
million tons of non-wastewaters would be exempted, providing annual 
cost savings to industry of approximately $75 million. Additional 
options examined in the proposal could vary these volumes estimates 
upwards, providing industry annual cost savings of $99-245 million.

Risks:


This rule 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 60 FR 66344                                    12/21/95
Final Action                                                   02/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


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
(5304W)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703-308-8748
RIN: 2050-AE07
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
121. REVISED STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE COMBUSTION FACILITIES
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 6924/RCRA 3004; 42 USC 6925/RCRA 3005; Clean Air Act Amendments 
section 112


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 60; 40 CFR 63; 40 CFR 260; 40 CFR 261; 40 CFR 264; 40 CFR 265; 
40 CFR 266; 40 CFR 270; 40 CFR 271


Legal Deadline:


Final, Judicial, December 1996, See additional information.


Final, Judicial, December 1999, See additional information.


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

[[Page 62163]]

assessment and control technologies since promulgation of the current 
standards.
Consequently, the Agency plans to establish new emissions standards for 
HWCs under joint CAA and RCRA authority. This will avoid duplicative 
Agency effort and piecemeal regulation of the hazardous waste 
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:


EPA's analysis of the proposed rule indicates that some combustion 
facilities may experience a substantial change in the cost of burning 
waste, but that this change is likely to have a limited impact on 
combustion markets. In terms of effects on waste-burning cost 
structure, cement kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns (LWAKs) are 
most affected by the regulation. This is primarily a product of their 
relatively low baseline costs of burning, meaning that incremental 
compliance costs represent a large increase in their overall cost of 
burning waste. For incinerators, compliance costs are lower, represent 
smaller additions to baseline costs, and change little across 
regulatory options. The analysis concludes that cement kilns have the 
lowest waste burning costs even after regulation, and so will continue 
to have the greatest leverage to increase prices.
To the extent that compliance costs cannot be passed through to 
generators and fuel blenders, the profitability of waste burning in 
kilns will fall. Nonetheless, waste burning kilns are expected to have 
healthy operating profit margins after the rule. Market exit in all 
sectors is concentrated among facilities that burn small quantities of 
hazardous waste. While as many as 98 combustion facilities may stop 
burning hazardous wastes as a result of the proposed MACT options, the 
small quantities these facilities burn suggest that market dislocations 
will be minor.
Overall, the social costs of the rule are balanced by a set of 
potentially substantial benefits. Given the severity of the potential 
adverse health effects from dioxin and mercury (cancer, adverse 
developmental effects in children, severe neurological effects in 
adults, and bioaccumulation in ecosystems), EPA believes the 
substantial reductions of these pollutants from hazardous waste burning 
sources under the MACT standard justifies moving ahead with the 
proposed above the floor (ATF) option. An alternative way of valuing 
benefits is the potential increase in property values around closed or 
more stringently regulated combustion facilities. The fact that this 
approach also suggests potentially substantial benefits strengthens 
EPA's belief that the costs of moving forward with the proposed ATF 
option are justified.


Risks:


EPA has estimated that hazardous waste incinerators and hazardous-waste 
burning cement and light weight aggregate kilns currently emit a total 
of 0.94kg toxicity equivalent (TEQ) per year. Therefore, hazardous 
waste burning sources represent about 9 percent of total anthropogenic 
emissions of dioxins in the U.S.
EPA estimates that dioxin emissions from hazardous waste-burning 
sources will be reduced to 0.07kg TEQ per year at the floor levels and 
to 0.01kg TEQ per year at the proposed beyond the floor standard. These 
reductions would result in decreases of approximately 8 and 9 percent, 
respectively, in total estimated anthropogenic U.S. emissions. EPA 
expects that reductions in dioxin emissions from hazardous waste-
burning sources, in conjunction with reductions in emissions from other 
dioxin-emitting sources, will help reduce dioxin levels over time in 
foods used for human consumption and, therefore, reduce the likelihood 
of adverse health effects, including cancer, occurring in the general 
population.
EPA has estimated that hazardous waste incinerators and hazardous 
waste-burning cement and lightweight aggregate kilns currently emit a 
total of 10.1 Mg of mercury per year. Based on these estimates, 
hazardous waste-burning sources represent about 4 percent of total 
anthropogenic emissions of mercury in the U.S.
EPA estimates that mercury emissions from hazardous waste-burning 
sources will be reduced to 3.3Mg per year at the proposed floor levels 
and to 2.0Mg per year at the proposed beyond the floor standard. These 
reductions would result in reductions of total anthropogenic U.S. 
emissions of approximately 3 percent. EPA expects that reductions in 
emissions from other mercury-emitting sources, will help reduce mercury 
levels in fish over time and therefore, fish consuming populations.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM Industrial 61 FR 17358d Incinerators                      04/19/96
Final Rule                                                     12/00/96
NPRM Boilers                                                   09/00/98
Final Rule                                                     12/00/99
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3333.
EPA has signed a settlement agreement to promulgate revised rules for 
industrial furnaces and incinerators by December 1996 and boilers by 
December 1999. EPA may seek to extend the first date.


Agency Contact:
Larry Denyer
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5302W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8770
RIN: 2050-AE01
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
122. LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS--PHASE IV: PAPERWORK REDUCTION; 
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR WOOD PRESERVING, MINERAL PROCESSING AND 
CHARACTERISTIC METAL WASTES; RELATED MINERAL PROCESSING ISSUES
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.

[[Page 62164]]

Legal Authority:


 42 USC 6905/RCRA 1006; 42 USC 6912(a)/RCRA 2002(a); 42 USC 6921/RCRA 
3001; 42 USC 6924/RCRA 3004


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 148; 40 CFR 261; 40 CFR 268; 40 CFR 271


Legal Deadline:


Final, Judicial, October 15, 1996.


NPRM, Judicial, April 15, 1997, (Mineral Processing andCharacteristic 
Metal Wastes).


Final, Judicial, April 15, 1997, (Wood Preserving Wastes).


Final, Judicial, April 15, 1998, (Mineral Processing andCharacteristic 
Metal Wastes).


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 characteristic mineral processing wastes, wood 
preserving wastes, and TC metal wastes.


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 satisfying its 
statutory mandate to promulgate treatment standards for wood 
preserving, toxicity characteristic metal, and mineral processing 
hazardous wastes. In order to delineate what constitutes a mineral 
processing waste, EPA is considering amending the definition of solid 
waste for secondary materials that result from mineral processing and 
are recycled legitimately within that industry sector.


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:


Under RCRA, the Agency was instructed to promulgate treatment standards 
for a waste within six months of the Agency identifying or listing it 
as a hazardous waste. The Agency missed this deadline for a number of 
newly identified or listed wastes and consequently was sued. Under the 
resulting consent decree, EPA must establish treatment standards for 
wood preserving and toxicity characteristic metal waste, and for 
hazardous mineral processing wastes.
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 the 
technology on which the standard is based is inappropriate for a 
particular 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 estimates annual incremental compliance costs of $1 to $23 
million.


Risks:


The Agency expects a small reduction in cancer cases and other human 
health effects. The rule may prevent groundwater contamination that 
damages ecosystems.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           56 FR 55160                                    10/24/91
NPRM            60 FR 43654                                    08/22/95
NPRM Supplementa61 FR 2338                                     01/25/96
NPRM Supplemental (Mineral Processing and Characteristic Metal 04/00/97
Final Action (Wood Preserving Wastes)                          04/00/97
Final Action (Mineral Processing and Characteristic Metal Waste04/00/98
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3366.
Reinventing Government: 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
123. REQUIREMENTS FOR MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDOUS CONTAMINATED MEDIA 
COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS HAZARDOUS WASTE IDENTIFICATION RULE FOR 
CONTAMINATED MEDIA OR HWIR-MEDIA
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


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 2002(a); 42 USC 6921/RCRA 3001; 42 USC 6924/RCRA 
3004; 42 USC 6926/RCRA 3006; 42 USC 6927/RCRA 3007


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 260; 40 CFR 261; 40 CFR 264; 40 CFR 268; 40 CFR 269; 40 CFR 271

[[Page 62165]]

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 and other remediation wastes that are 
generated from remediating hazardous waste sites. The new regulation 
would reform the current standards by creating more flexibility for 
Agency and State decision makers in setting remediation waste 
management requirements, and by better aligning the RCRA regulations 
with the actual risks posed by managing remediation wastes. In general, 
the proposed rule would allow certain lower risk contaminated media to 
be exempted from the current RCRA regulations and would set treatment 
standards for higher risk media that reflect the differences between 
contaminated media (e.g., soils, groundwater) and newly generated 
hazardous wastes. The regulations would also simplify and streamline 
RCRA permit requirements for management of remediation wastes and State 
Authorization requirements for RCRA revisions. Also in this proposal, 
the Agency proposed an exemption from RCRA Subtitle C for dredged 
materials managed by the US Army Corps of Engineers under Clean Water 
Act or Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act permits. 
Finally, the Agency proposed to withdraw the regulations for Corrective 
Action Management Units. The Agency will reevaluate the date listed for 
publication of the final rule after review of public comment.


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 eligible for 
exemption from Subtitle C if subject to enforceable site-specific 
management plans by the overseeing agency.


Alternatives:


Alternative regulatory approaches for this rule were proposed and 
analyzed.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Analyses of costs and benefits will be conducted as part of the 
economic analysis for this rule required under Executive Order 12866.


Risks:


One of the primary objectives of this rule is to establish requirements 
for management of contaminated media and other remediation wastes that 
more accurately reflect the risks posed by such wastes. Thus, the rule 
is expected to result in cleanups that achieve the Agency's risk 
reduction objectives in a more efficient and expeditious manner. More 
quantitative analysis of the risks associated with this rule will be 
included in the economic analysis.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            57 FR 21450                                    05/20/92
Withdrawal of NP57 FR 49280                                    10/30/92
Second NPRM     61 FR 18780                                    04/29/96
Final Action                                                   06/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


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, CERCLA and State cleanup 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
124. COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE MONITORING PROGRAM (PREVIOUSLY ENHANCED 
MONITORING PROGRAM)
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


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


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 64; 40 CFR 70; 40 CFR 71


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, November 1992.


NPRM, Judicial, September 30, 1993.


Final, Judicial, July 1, 1997.


Abstract:


This action is required by the 1990 Clean Air Act (the Act) Amendments 
to assure better compliance with existing rules. This rule will require 
major stationary sources who must obtain permits under title V of the 
Act to conduct monitoring that provides reasonable assurance of ongoing 
compliance of the significant emission units with applicable 
requirements. Affected sources will use the monitoring data in 
conjunction with other compliance-related data to certify compliance 
with emission standards and other permit conditions.


Statement of Need:


The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require major stationary sources 
to provide ongoing monitoring and periodic certification of compliance. 
Current compliance data based on initial or periodic performance 
testing, provide only snapshots of the compliance status of stationary 
sources. Current minimal operation and maintenance monitoring of 
control technology performance, if applied,

[[Page 62166]]

provides little assurance of continued good pollution control and 
little incentive for the source owner or operator to maintain or 
improve performance. The compliance assurance monitoring (CAM) rule 
would require owners or operators of emission sources to increase 
awareness of the operational status of pollution control technology and 
to act on discrepancies in that operation to reduce emissions. 
Certification of compliance would be based on a combination of 
compliance testing or other compliance data and demonstration of 
continued good control technology performance and appropriate and 
timely corrective action.


Alternatives:


The CAM program is designed to assure ongoing compliance with 
requirements under the Act. If owners or operators are already required 
to determine continuous compliance with emission limitations or 
standards, that satisfies the purpose of CAM and no additional 
assurance of compliance is necessary. If these circumstances do not 
exist, CAM would use a two-pronged approach to assure compliance. 
First, CAM would require that owners or operations have reasonable 
information available to them that can indicate potential problems in 
emission control performance. Second, CAM would require that owners or 
operators act on that information in a timely fashion to avoid (if 
preventable) or reduce (if not preventable) emission control problems 
that could result in excess emissions. This type of monitoring does not 
need to be so rigorous as to 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 for assuring compliance. The result of this change will be to 
reduce the emphasis on assuring compliance through the threat of 
enforcement. Instead, CAM emphasizes assuring compliance by placing the 
burden on regulated sources to monitor their performance and take 
proactive steps to minimize emission exceedances.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


In keeping with Executive Order 12866, EPA will prepare a detailed 
regulatory impact analysis (RIA) that will provide costs and benefits 
associated with the CAM rule.
EPA believes that the adoption of CAM can result in tangible benefits 
for a facility. Although a self-monitoring program may not always be 
justified purely on the basis of economic benefit to a source, self-
monitoring can, in some situations, reduce operating costs. For 
example, monitoring data can be used to increase combustion efficiency 
in an industrial boiler or to increase capture and reuse of solvents at 
a coating plant. The CAM approach will also alert owners or operators 
that potential control device problems may exist. The owner or operator 
can use this information to target control devices for routine 
maintenance and repair, and reduce the potential for costly breakdowns.
The Agency also believes that the CAM approach will result in tangible 
benefits to the general public health and welfare. A primary benefit of 
CAM will be a reduction in overall emissions through increased 
compliance with the requirements of the Act. The key elements of CAM 
that will provide these reductions are (a) the emphasis on monitoring 
that alerts owners or operators to deteriorating control conditions and 
(b) the requirement that steps be taken to correct those conditions. 
This approach emphasizes minimizing emissions by avoiding or remedying 
as quickly as possible situations that may involve emissions in excess 
of applicable requirements. In addition to the direct environmental 
benefit of decreased emissions, increased compliance rates will also 
achieve a corollary economic benefit. As a general matter, increased 
compliance rates with existing rules will lower the long-term overall 
cost of air pollution control by decreasing the need for additional 
regulations to obtain necessary emission reductions, especially for 
nonattainment areas.


Risks:


Compliance Assurance Monitoring will apply to over 50,000 emission 
units nationally. The establishment of CAM requirements is estimated to 
impact about 97 percent of the emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen 
oxide, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic 
compounds, as well as certain hazardous air pollutants such as benzene 
and mercury; exact reductions which will be obtained are yet to be 
determined. The CAM provisions will apply to existing Clean Air Act 
standards only; new regulations will incorporate continuous compliance 
monitoring provisions. As these new rules are developed, pollution 
reduction will be achieved beyond those obtained through CAM.

Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            58 FR 54648                                    10/22/93
Supplemental Pro59 FR 66844                                    12/28/94
Final Action                                                   07/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2942.


Agency Contact:
Peter R. Westlin
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
OAQPS - MD19
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-1058
RIN: 2060-AD18
_______________________________________________________________________

EPA
125. 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 52.21; 40 CFR 52.24


Legal Deadline:


None

[[Page 62167]]

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 technology 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 
applications and recordkeeping costs to industry of at least $13 
million per year, as compared to the preexisting program, based 
primarily on the fact that fewer sources will need to apply for major 
source permits. In addition, the cost to State and local agencies will 
be reduced by approximately $1.4 million per year. The Federal 
Government should realize a savings of approximately $116,000 per year. 
Additional cost reductions, which are difficult to quantify, will be 
realized due to the streamlining effect of the rulemaking on the 
permitting process, for example, the opportunity costs for shorter time 
periods between permit application and project completion and reduced 
uncertainty in planning for future source growth.


Risks:


This is a procedural rule applicable to a wide variety of source 
categories. Moreover, it applies to criteria pollutants for which NAAQS 
have been established. This action is considered environmentally 
neutral. However, any potential risks are considered in the NAAQS 
rulemaking from a national perspective.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            61 FR 38249                                    07/23/96
Final Action                                                   09/00/97
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: 919 541-0871
RIN: 2060-AE11
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
126. 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

[[Page 62168]]

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 implementing 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 20804for Part 71                         04/27/95
NPRM Supplementa60 FR 45530for Part 70                         08/31/95
FINAL                                                          02/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3412.


Agency Contact:
Ray Vogel
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
Information Transfer and Program
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-3153
Fax: 919 541-5509
RIN: 2060-AF70
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
127. TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY RULE AMENDMENTS: FLEXIBILITY AND 
STREAMLINING
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 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

[[Page 62169]]

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            61 FR 36112                                    07/09/96
Final Action                                                   12/00/96
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
128. MEDICAL WASTE INCINERATORS (MWI)
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.


Legal Authority:


 Clean Air Act of 1990, section 129


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 60


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, November 1992.


NPRM, Judicial, February 1995.


Final, Judicial, July 1997.


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. .
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. 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                                                   07/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal

[[Page 62170]]

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. VOC REGULATION FOR ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 7401; Clean Air Act section 183


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 59


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, March 15, 1997.


Abstract:


This regulation will control volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions 
from architectural coatings. These coatings are applied to stationary 
structures and their appurtenances, to portable buildings, to 
pavements, or to curbs. Traditional VOC limitations, market-based 
approaches, and phased-in approaches are all being considered. The EPA 
is working with coating manufacturers and other stakeholders to ensure 
that this rule is based on the best possible understanding of the 
industry and that it affords the flexibility to achieve the necessary 
emission reductions in the most sensible, cost-effective ways.


Statement of Need:


This regulation will establish VOC content limits for over 50 
categories of architectural coatings. These limits will reduce the VOC 
emissions from architectural coatings and will reflect best available 
controls, as defined by Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The 
architectural coatings category is a significant contributor of VOC 
emissions in ozone nonattainment areas.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 183(e) of the CAA requires that the EPA list those categories 
of consumer and commercial products (CCP) that account for at least 80 
percent of VOC from all CCP in ozone nonattainment areas and establish 
a schedule for regulating the categories. The architectural coatings 
category was included on the list and schedule published March 23, 
1995, and is in the group of categories to be regulated by March 1997.


Alternatives:


There are many alternatives to the proposed rule that were or are being 
considered, including: alternative VOC content limits for some types of 
coatings; issuance of a control techniques guideline in lieu of a 
national rule; low-volume exemptions; payment of fees, if desired, to 
exceed the VOC content limits; variances based on economic hardship; 
and an incentive to recycle paint. The requirements in the proposed 
rule are based on product reformulation, a pollution prevention method.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The proposed rule would impose an estimated cost of $25 million per 
year for coating manufacturers and would reduce VOC emissions from 
architectural coatings by an estimated 106,000 tons per year. VOC are a 
main component in formation of ground-level ozone which can damage lung 
tissue and cause serious respiratory illness.


Risks:


In the past, the CAA has focused on reducing VOC emissions from mobile 
sources (cars and trucks) and stationary sources, such as power plants 
and factories. Requiring additional controls on these sources may be 
very costly for the emissions reductions achieved. Regulating consumer 
and commercial products may prove to be a more cost-effective way of 
substantially reducing VOC emissions nationwide. Consumer and 
commercial products, such as surface coatings, personal care products, 
and household cleaning products, contribute about six million tons 
(approximately 30 percent) annually of VOC emissions nationwide. The 
architectural coating category is one of the largest contributors.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            61 FR 32729                                    06/25/96
Final Action                                                   03/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3351.


Agency Contact:
Ellen Ducey
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5408
RIN: 2060-AE55
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
130. NATIONAL VOC EMISSION STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 7401 et seq


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 59


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, March 1997.


Abstract:


This regulation will reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions 
from 24 types of consumer products which are currently regulated by 
California and several other States. The EPA is working with consumer 
product manufacturers and other stakeholders to ensure that this rule 
is based on the best possible understanding of the industry and that it 
affords the flexibility to achieve the necessary emission reductions in 
the most sensible, cost-effective ways.


Statement of Need:


This regulation will establish VOC content limits for 24 types of 
consumer products. These limits will reduce the VOC emissions from 
these products and will reflect best available controls, as defined by 
Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act. The consumer products category is 
a significant contributor of VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment 
areas.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 183(e) of the CAA requires that the EPA list those categories 
of consumer and commercial products (CCP) that account for at least 80 
percent of VOC from all CCP in ozone nonattainment areas and establish 
a schedule for regulating the categories. The consumer products 
category was included on the list and schedule published March 23, 
1995, and is in the group of categories to be regulated by March 1997.

[[Page 62171]]

Alternatives:


Alternatives to requirements in the proposed rule that were or are 
being considered, include alternative VOC content limits; issuance of a 
control techniques guideline in lieu of a national rule; variances 
based on economic hardship; and an incentive for innovative product 
development. The requirements in the proposed rule are based on product 
reformulation, a pollution prevention method.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The rule would impose an estimated cost of $27 million per year for 
consumer product manufacturers and would reduce VOC emissions from the 
products by an estimated 90,000 tons per year. VOC are a main component 
in formation of ground-level ozone which can damage lung tissue and 
cause serious respiratory illness.


Risks:


In the past, the CAA has focused on reducing VOC emissions from mobile 
sources (cars and trucks) and stationary sources, such as power plants 
and factories. Requiring additional controls on these sources may be 
very costly for the emissions reductions achieved. Regulating consumer 
and commercial products may prove to be a more cost-effective way of 
substantially reducing VOC emissions nationwide. Consumer and 
commercial products, such as surface coatings, personal care products, 
and household cleaning products, contribute about six million tons 
(approximately 30 percent) annually of VOC emissions nationwide. The 
consumer products category is one of the largest contributors.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            61 FR 14531                                    04/02/96
Final Action                                                   12/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal


Sectors Affected:


 284 Soaps, Detergents, and Cleaning Preparations, Perfumes, Cosmetics, 
and Other Toilet Preparations; 287 Agricultural Chemicals; 289 
Miscellaneous Chemical Products


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3658.


Agency Contact:
Bruce Moore
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
(MD-13)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5460
RIN: 2060-AF62
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
131. OPEN-MARKET TRADING GUIDANCE
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 Clean Air Act, sections 182 and 187


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 51


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will issue a final policy for 
open-market trading of ozone smog precursors (volatile organic 
compounds and oxides of nitrogen) that will provide more flexibility 
than ever before for companies to trade emission credits without prior 
State or Federal approval. Once a rule is in the State implementation 
plan (SIP), companies could engage in emissions trades without prior 
regulatory approval as long as accountability is ensured in accordance 
with the guidance. The intended benefits of an active market in 
emissions trading are compliance with the ozone standard at far less 
cost and an increased incentive to develop innovative emission-
reduction technologies. standard at far less cost and an increased 
incentive to develop innovative emission-reduction technologies.


Statement of Need:


In the last 25 years great progress has been made toward achieving 
healthy air quality, yet more than 50 million people still live in 
areas that do not meet the ozone health standard. Continued reductions 
in ozone precursor emissions are important to protect public health, 
but additional emission reductions are increasingly more costly to 
obtain. Emissions trading is one way to lower the overall cost of 
achieving additional reductions. Historically, the volume of emissions 
trading under EPA's existing trading policies has been low, suggesting 
high transaction costs associated with the delays of trade-by-trade 
government review. Additionally, there have been 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
Notice - Inclusi60 FR 44290sed Model Rule                      08/25/95
Final Action                                                   12/00/96

[[Page 62172]]

Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3660.


Agency Contact:
Scott Mathias
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
132. NATIONAL 49-STATE LOW-EMISSION VEHICLES PROGRAM
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


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            60 FR 52734                                    10/10/95
Final Action                                                   11/00/96
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
133. REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE FOR EMISSIONS FROM MOTOR 
VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE ENGINES
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


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, July 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 Agency (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

[[Page 62173]]

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                                                   10/00/96
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
134. ACID RAIN PHASE II NITROGEN OXIDES REDUCTION PROGRAM
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 Section 407 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 76 (Revision)


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, January 1, 1997.


Abstract:


Title IV of the Act authorizes EPA to establish the Acid Rain Program 
to reduce the adverse effects of acidic deposition. The Nitrogen Oxides 
Emission Reduction Program Final Rule would set lower Group 1 emission 
limits and establish emission limits for several other types of coal-
fired boilers (Group 2) in Phase II. (Group 1 boilers include coal-
fired dry bottom wall-fired boilers and tangentially fired boilers; 
Group 2 boilers include boilers applying cell-burner technology, 
cyclone boilers, wet bottom boilers, and other types of coal-fired 
boilers). The annual cost of these additional reductions would be 
approximately 199 million dollars, at an average cost-effectiveness of 
220 dollars per ton of NOx removed. By the year 2000, the proposed 
Phase II reductions would achieve an additional reduction of 900,000 
tons of NOx annually.
A utility can choose to comply with the rule in one of three ways: (1) 
meet the standard annual emission limitations (2) average the emissions 
rates of two or more boilers, which allows utilities to over-control at 
units where it is technically easier and less expensive to control 
emissions, or, (3) if a utility cannot meet the standard emission 
limit, it can apply for a less stringent alternative emission limit 
(AEL) if it uses the appropriate NOx emission control technology on 
which the applicable emission limit is based.


Statement of Need:


EPA is exercising its discretion to revise the Phase II, Group 1 NOx 
emission limitations because (a) NOx emissions have significant, 
adverse effects on human health and the environment and there is a need 
to make significant, regional NOx reductions, (b) NOx emissions are 
projected to increase nationwide after 2002, (c) the revision of Phase 
II, Group 1 emission limitations is a cost-effective means of achieving 
additional NOx reductions, and (d) the additional reductions from the 
revision therefore represent a reasonable step toward achieving 
necessary NOx reductions. For the same reasons, EPA also concludes that 
the adoption of the Group 2 emission limitations set forth in today's 
rule is supported by the environmental impact of the emission 
reductions that will result.



Alternatives:


EPA investigated new ways to minimize the impact of the final rule on 
State, local government, and privately owned utilities while carrying 
out the requirements of section 407. These investigations include: (1) 
investigation of what, if any,

[[Page 62174]]

requirements of the rule imposed an inordinately high burden on any 
specific utility; and (2) investigation of incremental environmental 
and economic impacts of varying the size cutoff for wet bottom and 
cyclone boilers affected by this rulemaking. The results of these 
investigations were used in developing the emission limits and 
applicability requirements that are now being promulgated.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, EPA must identify and 
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before 
promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must be 
prepared. The Agency must select from those alternatives the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule unless the Agency explains why this alternative is not 
selected or unless the selection of this alternative is inconsistent 
with law. In the final rule, the Agency discusses several regulatory 
options and their associated costs. As discussed above, the Agency has 
completed other regulatory options beyond the options discussed in the 
proposal. The Agency believes that the final rule is the least costly, 
most effective, and least burdensome alternative that achieves the 
objectives of title IV and section 407 in particular.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The final rule would tighten the Group 1 emission limits and would 
establish limits for several other types of coal-fired boilers (i.e. 
cyclones, cell burners, wet bottoms, and vertically fired boilers). The 
final rule would, by the year 2000, achieve an additional 900,000 tons 
of NOx reductions per year. The annual cost for these additional 
reductions would be approximately $199 million with an average cost-
effectiveness of $220 per ton of NOx removed. The nationwide impact on 
electricity rates would be approximately 0.2 percent. The final rule 
does not have any disproportionate budgetary effects on any particular 
region of the nation, any State, local, or tribal government, or urban 
or rural or other type of community. Further, the rule will result in 
only a minimal increase in average electricity rates and will not have 
a material effect on the national economy.


Risks:


Electric utilities are a major contributor to NOx emissions nationwide: 
in 1994, electric utility emissions represented about 33 percent of the 
total 1994 NOx emissions. Approximately ninety percent of the emissions 
estimated for electric utilities were attributed to coal combustion. 
Much of the NOx emissions discharged into the atmosphere from the 
burning of fossil fuels reacts quickly to form nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 
and, over longer periods of time, is transformed into other pollutants, 
including ozone and fine particles. These secondary pollutants are 
harmful to public health and the environment. NO2 has been documented 
to cause eye irritation, either by itself or when oxidized 
photochemically into peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN). Ozone is a highly 
reactive chemical compound which can have serious adverse effects on 
human health, plants, animals, and materials. Fine particles at current 
ambient levels contribute adversely to morbidity and mortality. NO2 and 
airborne nitrate also degrade visibility and contribute to 
acidification of lakes and streams, and excessive nitrogen loadings to 
estuaries.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            61 FR 1442                                     01/19/96
Final Action                                                   01/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Sectors Affected:


 491 Electric Services


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3575.
(combined with SAN 3571)


Agency Contact:
Peter Tsirigotis
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
(6204J)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 233-9133
Fax: 202 233-9595
RIN: 2060-AF48
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F