Improving Our Regulations:
Final Plan for
Periodic Retrospective Reviews
of Existing Regulations
By:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
August 2011

-------
Table of Contend
1	Overview	4
This overview describes broad initiatives to help EPA achieve a 21st century, efficient regulatory
program, including replacing outdated paper-based reporting with electronic reporting, expanding
information disclosure to improve transparency, and more.
1.1	A 21 st century approach to environmental protection	5
1.2	A more efficient approach to regulation	10
1.3	Conduct of reviews	11
2	Regulations We Plan to Review	14
EPA intends to undertake 35 regulatory reviews for this, our initial review period. These reviews
are expected to lead to 16 early actions in 2011, with many more in subsequent years of the review
period. This section describes each one.
2.1	Early actions	17
2.2	Longer term actions	31
3	Public Involvement and Agency Input for this Plan	48
In parallel efforts, EPA sought to learn how public and Agency stakeholders would recommend
designing this plan. Both efforts are described in this section.
3.1	Public involvement in developing this Plan	48
3.2	Agency input into this Plan	50
4	EPA's Plan for Future Periodic Regulatory Reviews	51
This section defines a process that EPA intends to use for predictable, transparent future regulatory
reviews, to be conducted every five years.
4.1
Management and oversight of the Plan
51
4.2
Process for conducting retrospective reviews
51
4.3
Criteria for regulatory reviews
52
4.4
Public involvement in future review periods
55
4.5
Reporting on each review period
56
4.6
Frequency of review periods
56
5 Evaluation of the First Review Period	57
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 2 of 62

-------
6 Contact Information	58
Appendix: Questions offered during the public comment period to help the public formulate their
comments	59
General Questions	59
Questions Specific to an Issue or Impact	59
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 3 of 62

-------
1 Overview
EPA developed this Final Plan for Periodic
Retrospective Reviews of Existing
Regulations (the Plan) in response to
President Obama's charge in Executive Order
13563 for each federal agency to
"develop.. .a.. .plan, consistent with law and
its resources and regulatory priorities, under
which the agency will periodically review its
existing significant regulations to determine
whether any such regulations should be
modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed
so as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving
the regulatory objectives."1 The Executive Order (EO) also enumerates a number of principles
and directives to guide agencies as they work to improve the Nation's regulatory system, which
the Agency intends to use to guide regulatory reviews and related EPA activities.
Though EPA and its partners have made great progress in protecting the environment, the
Agency is committed to continual improvement. EPA has a long history of thoughtfully
examining its existing regulations to make sure they are effectively and efficiently meeting the
needs of the American people. Both statutory and judicial obligations have compelled some of
our reviews. Others arise from independent EPA decisions to improve upon existing regulations.
In fact, of EPA's current regulatory workload, almost two-thirds of our activity is a review of an
existing regulation.2 Just as EPA intends to apply the principles and directives of EO 13563 to
the priority actions listed in section 2 of this Plan, we intend to likewise apply the EO's
principles and directives to the regulatory reviews that appear in the Regulatory Agenda.
EO 13563 is an opportunity to take a fresh look at the Agency's approach to protecting human
health and the environment and an opportunity to modernize our regulatory program. What
should a 21st century regulatory program look like? How can we better understand the impacts
of existing regulations? How do we determine which regulations should be modified,
streamlined, expanded, or repealed to be more effective and less burdensome? How can EPA
improve collaborations with our partners such as state, local, and tribal governments? What new
tools should the Agency employ to improve environmental quality? The initiatives and
regulatory reviews described in this Plan are intended to help us thoroughly modernize
regulations that are priorities right now, regulations we intend to review as a matter of course
1	"Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (Executive Order 13563)." 76 FR 3821 (January 21, 2011).
Available from: the Government Printing Office's Federal Digital System (FDsys):
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-201 l-01-21/pdf/201 l-1385.pdf: Accessed: 08/15/11.
2	This estimate is based on active actions published in EPA's Spring 2011 Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, and does
not include actions in the "Completed" or "Long Term" rulemaking stages.
Text Box 1: EPA to Undertake
35 Priority Regulatory Reviews
In this Plan, EPA defines 35 regulatory reviews fo r
our initial review period. Sixteen of them fit into I lie
category of "early actions," meaning the Agency
intends to propose or finalize an action to modify,
streamline, expand, or repeal a regulation or related
program during the 2011 calendar year. The other I''
reviews are longer term actions, whereby we will
review the regulations in question and assess whelhcr
revisions are needed. See section 2 of this Plan for
details on each of the 35 reviews.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 4 of 62

-------
because of statutory or judicial requirements, and regulations brought to our attention by the
public.
The current Plan describes a large number of burden-reducing, cost-saving reforms, including 35
priority initiatives. Some of these have recently been completed; others are in process; still others
are in their earliest stages. The potential economic savings are significant. For example, a recent
final rule exempts milk producers from regulations designed to protect against oil spills; that rule
will save $145 million - $148 million annually. A recently proposed rule would eliminate
redundant air pollution control requirements now imposed on gas stations; that rule would save
$87 million annually. Taken as a whole, recent reforms, already finalized or formally proposed,
are anticiapted to save up to $1.5 billion over the next five years. Other reforms described here,
including efforts to streamline requirements and to move to electronic reporting, could save
more.
EPA emphasizes that Executive Order 13563 calls not for a single exercise, but for "periodic
review of existing significant regulations." It explicitly states that "retrospective analyses,
including supporting data, should be released online wherever possible." Consistent with the
commitment to periodic review and to public participation, EPA intends to continue to assess its
existing significant regulations in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13563.
EPA welcomes public suggestions about appropriate reforms. If, at any time, members of the
public identify possible reforms to modify, streamline, expand or repeal existing regulations,
EPA intends to give those suggestions careful consideration.
ฆ A	---ntury appr\:ซ = ..v - wiroBirnr 1 election
During our 40-year history, EPA and our federal, state, local, tribal, and community partners
have made enormous progress in protecting the Nation's health and environment through EPA's
regulatory and stewardship programs. However, just as today's economy is vastly different from
that of 40 years before, EPA's regulatory program is evolving to recognize the progress that has
already been made in environmental protection and to incorporate new technologies and
approaches that allow us to accomplish our mission more efficiently and effectively. A central
goal, consistent with Executive Order 13563, is to identify methods for reducing unjustified
burdens and costs.
High-speed information technologies allow real-time reporting of emissions and provide
unprecedented opportunities for transparency and public involvement in matters affecting local
environmental conditions. These technological advances allow us to better track environmental
progress, apply innovative approaches to compliance and reduce regulatory costs. New emission
control technologies allow greatly improved environmental performance. Citizens' interest in
living sustainably has grown, and the marketplace increasingly values green products.
EPA's evolving regulatory program builds upon these nationwide trends, and improvements to
our regulatory program should be made not only through our retrospective reviews but also
prospectively. Therefore, EPA intends to apply the principles and directives of EO 13563 to
both retrospective reviews of existing regulations and the development of new regulations.
While this Plan focuses on retrospective reviews, which are enumerated in section 2, it is
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 5 of 62

-------
important to understand the broader context within which the reviews are being conducted.
During our retrospective reviews, EPA intends to seek ways to promote program effectiveness
and burden reduction through the following broad initiatives:
•	Electronic reporting,
•	Improved transparency,
•	Innovative compliance approaches, and
•	Systems approaches and integrated problem-solving.
1.1.1	Electronic reporting
First, EPA intends to replace outdated paper reporting with electronic reporting. Agency
reporting requirements are still largely paper-based, which is inefficient and unnecessarily costly
and resource-intensive for reporting entities and states, and ineffective for compliance
monitoring and assurance. To reduce these burdens, increase efficiency and effectiveness,
improve compliance and reduce pollution over the long-term, the Agency needs a comprehensive
plan to convert to 21st century electronic reporting technology while maintaining data security
and confidentiality. This will require some short-term investments of time and technology
development, but is expected to provide substantial long-term benefits for industry, states, EPA,
and the public. A number of the specific regulatory reviews outlined in section 2 of this Plan
contain as an essential element a shift to electronic submission of information. In addition to
these specific proposals, EPA intends to move away from paper reporting and modernize EPA
reporting processes as follows:
•	By conducting a targeted review to convert key existing paper reporting requirements to
electronic reporting, perhaps through an omnibus rule. As part of this targeted review,
EPA may identify some outdated paper reporting requirements that can be eliminated or
streamlined once electronic reporting is in place. For example, we are developing a
proposed rule for converting existing selected paper-based National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) reporting obligations to a national electronic reporting
format. The NPDES e-reporting rule will allow us to eliminate the current annual and
quarterly reporting requirements from the states since this information will be generated
by the NPDES data systems. The rule will also require the regulated community to
submit their Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) electronically reducing the need for
manual data entry. These changes represent a significant reduction in paper-based
reporting required to be managed and reported by the states. EPA could convert existing
paper-based reporting by regulated facilities for other environmental programs to a
similar nationally consistent electronic reporting format.
Several program areas in EPA either have recently added electronic reporting
requirements to their regulations or have recently proposed adding this requirement.
EPA recently promulgated the following Clean Air Act (CAA) rules that require
electronic reporting: Coal Preparation and Processing Plants rule (74 FR 51950, Oct. 8,
2009); the Portland Cement rule (75 FR 54970, Sept. 9, 2010); and the Gold Mine Ore
rule (76 FR 9450, Feb. 17, 2011). EPA is considering expanding the electronic reporting
concept to existing rules in additional program areas under the Safe Drinking Water Act
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 6 of 62

-------
(SDWA), parts of the CAA, or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA).
•	By developing a strategy for ensuring that new rules incorporate the most efficient
electronic reporting techniques.
•	By encouraging private sector development of reporting tools to drive innovation, reduce
costs, and help regulated entities to comply. Based on the successful Internal Revenue
Service model for enabling private vendors to build reporting tools, EPA intends to
conduct a proof-of-concept pilot project to see if private vendors could create electronic
tools for regulated entities to electronically report their environmental compliance data
using an open platform approach. If feasible, this could create opportunities for
innovation by private sector entrepreneurs to develop such electronic tools along with
incentives for starting and growing companies to commercialize them and create new
jobs.
1.1.2	Improved Transparency
Second, in order to improve regulatory effectiveness, EPA intends to enhance transparency by
striving to expand public disclosure of pollution, compliance, and other regulatory information to
more efficiently provide information to the public upon which choices can be made. Disclosure
of pollution, compliance, and other regulatory information can drive better results for health and
the environment, and provides communities with information they need about environmental
problems that affect them. Improved
transparency can help to level the playing field
by helping facilities, governments, and the
public know what is being accomplished or
required in other locations. Both when
reviewing existing regulations and when
developing new regulations, EPA intends to
seek ways to expand public disclosure of
pollution, compliance, and other regulatory
information to improve the actual results of
regulatory requirements and more efficiently
provide the public with information necessary
to participate in the regulatory process.
1.1.3	Innovative Compliance
Approaches
Third, the Agency intends to reduce pollution
by improving compliance with EPA regulations
in ways that are more effective and efficient
while reducing burden. EPA will seek ways to
achieve greater compliance both when
reviewing existing regulations and when
developing new regulations. Effective
Text Box 2: EPA Creatively Strueturcs
Regulations to Efficiently and
Cost Effectively Increase Compliance
EPA already has experience demonstrating that
creative approaches can increase compliance while
reducing cost. For example, we learned in the
1970's that the most effective way to ensure
compliance with new unleaded gasoline
requirements was not widespread inspections, but
simply changing the size of the nozzle used to fill
gas tanks. Following the 1996 Safe Drinking
Water Act amendments, researchers found that the
simple requirement of mailing Consumer
Confidence Reports to consumers resulted in a 30-
50% increase in utilities' compliance rates with
drinking water requirements in Massachusetts.
While we are aware that the provision of
Consumer Confidence Reports is a means of
increasing compliance, we are also aware that their
production and distribution can be burdensome on
water purveyors and states. EPA intends to review
these reporting requirements to determine if
burden may be reduced while compliance is
maintained or increased; this review is described in
detail later in the Plan.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 7 of 62

-------
enforcement of environmental regulations
promotes the welfare of Americans by
protecting the air we breathe and the water
we drink, and assuring that complying
facilities are not at a competitive
disadvantage with those that violate the
law. However, due to the sheer number of
regulated facilities, the increasing
contributions of large numbers of smaller
sources to important environmental
problems, and federal and state budget
constraints, we can no longer rely
primarily on the traditional single facility
inspection and enforcement approach to
ensure compliance across the country.
EPA needs to embed innovative
mechanisms in the structure of its rules to
do a better job of encouraging compliance
on a wide scale. (See text box 2.)
To supplement traditional compliance
approaches, EPA plans to routinely
structure federal regulations and permits as
effectively as possible to achieve
compliance, through adequate monitoring
requirements, public disclosure,
information and reporting mechanisms,
and other structural flexibilities, including
self-certification, and third-party
verification.
1.1.4	Systems Approaches
and Integrated
Problem-Solving
Fourth, the Agency intends to design a 21st
century approach to environmental
regulation by using systems approaches
and integrated problem-solving strategies
to accelerate pollution prevention and
other beneficial environmental outcomes.
A primary way to promote pollution
prevention and sustainable outcomes is
through broader adoption of problem-
solving approaches that bring to bear all
relevant tools - regulatory and non-
regulatory - to provide integrated and
Text Box 3: Promoting the Green Eeonomv
and Innovation
Pollution prevention efforts across EPA have helped
protect children and families in this country from exposure
to harmful pollutants and has significantly reduced the
amount of contaminants released into the environment.
These ongoing efforts include Energy Star, WasteWise,
Plug-In To eCycling, WaterSense, and our Green
Electronics, Green Chemistry, Green Engineering, Design
for the Environment (DfE), and Economy, Energy and
Environment (E3) programs. EPA intends to improve
coordination among these programs to maximize their
effectivenss.
EPA engaged the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to
convene national experts and prepare a report on how to
make sustainability operational at EPA. One charge to the
academy was to identify the critical tools, methods, and
scientific approaches needed to advance sustainability.
While the concept of sustainability science has evolved
over the past two decades, it has not been formerly
incorporated into EPA's operational framework. The NAS
Report (the so-called Green Book) was made publically
available on August 2. EPA has begun to review the
recommendations and will aim for timely responses in the
months ahead.
Text Box 4: Integrated Problem Solving:
A Drinking Water Example
EPA is seeking a new approach to expand public health
protection for drinking water by going beyond the
traditional framework that addresses contaminants one at a
time. The Agency has conducted a national conversation
to identify better ways to address contaminants in groups,
improve drinking water technology, and more effectively
address potential risks to give Americans greater
confidence in the quality of their drinking water.
EPA is focused on four principles that will provide greater
protection of drinking water. These are:
•	Address contaminants as groups rather than one
at a time so that enhancement of drinking water
protection can be achieved cost-effectively.
•	Foster development of new drinking water
technologies to address health risks posed by a
broad array of contaminants.
•	Use the authority of multiple statutes to help
protect drinking water.
•	Partner with states to share more complete data
from monitoring at public water systems (PWS).
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 8 of 62

-------
comprehensive solutions to priority
environmental problems.
EPA's research and development activities
can help provide a strong scientific
foundation for innovative solutions.
Strategic sequencing of regulations as they
are developed will allow us to consider the
cumulative impacts of our rules and to
regulate more efficiently. Use of systems
and life cycle analyses allows us to pinpoint
the most effective points for policy
intervention. Applying the full spectrum of
policy tools available to the Agency can
maximize environmental results while
reducing costs. (See text box 3.)
Another example where the Agency has
successfully applied this integrated
approach is in the CAA area source rule for
auto body shops. A technology based
control limit was complemented by a non-
regulatory pollution prevention approach.
Partners in the Design for Environment's
Safer Product Labeling Program developed
an alternative solvent that does not require
emissions control technology, thus
providing industry a way to avoid the costs
of installing pollution control equipment by
using alternative chemicals. A third
example is EPA's current efforts to develop an integrated approach to drinking water protection.
(See text box 4.)
One final example of EPA's commitment to integrated solutions is EPA's strong support and
promotion of the use of green infrastructure (GI) approaches to manage wet weather through
infiltration, evapotranspiration, and rainwater harvesting. EPA is using GI in National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, as well as remedies designed to comply with
the Clean Water Act (CWA), recognizing that green infrastructure can be a cost-effective,
flexible, and environmentally-sound approach to reduce stormwater runoff and sewer overflows
and to meet CWA requirements. Green infrastructure also provides a variety of community
benefits including economic savings, green jobs, neighborhood enhancements and sustainable
communities. Because of these benefits, EPA is working with communities around the country
to incorporate green designs into NPDES permits and enforcement agreements. (See text box 5.)
Text Box 5: Integrated Problem Solving: Green
Infrastrueture and Management of Munieipal
Wastewater Systems
EPA continues to work closely with many communities to
develop pragmatic and effective solutions, including
green infrastructure (GI) and traditional engineering that
address both long-term and daily management of their
wastewater systems. EPA recognizes the need to provide
municipalities with flexibility to implement GI so that the
solutions can be sustained over the long term and
communities can realize the multiple benefits of GI,
including neighborhood enhancements, green jobs, and
energy savings. EPA also incorporates flexibility into
both performance criteria and implementation schedules
as evidenced by recent settlements with the cities of
Kansas City, Cleveland, and St. Louis. More information
on St. Louis appears below. For information on:
•	Cleveland, see:
http://www.epa. gov/agingepa/press/epanews/201
0/2010 1222 2 htm
•	Kansas City, see:
http://epa.gOv/compliance/resources/cases/civil/c
wa/kansascity.html
St. Louis, MO - The St. Louis proposed consent decree,
includes a $100 million green infrastructure storm water
retrofit program, focused in low income neighborhoods.
This will reduce CSO flows to the Mississippi River by 10
percent annually or approximately 85 million gallons per
year, beyond the gray infrastructure portion of the
remedy. The green infrastructure program will start with
a pilot project to determine the most effective green
infrastructure techniques, such as green roofs, green
streets and green parking retrofits.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 9 of 62

-------
• ^	" • ier, .-.troach
to regulation
EPA recognizes that there is potential for
regulatory overlap and contradiction
between various jurisdictional
requirements. (See Executive Order 13563,
section 3, on integration and innovation.)
In this setting, regulations often appear to
be excessive. Businesses are concerned
with inconsistency and duplication across
varying jurisdictions. The Agency is
seeking ways to introduce greater
efficiencies into our regulatory program
and achieve greater harmonization among
related regulations, both among EPA
regulations and among the regulations of
other federal, state, local, and tribal
agencies. With the broad initiatives
outlined previously, as well as the
regulatory reviews described in section 2,
EPA will look for ways to protect human
health and the environment more
efficiently and effectively.
As an example, and consistent with
Executive Order 13563, section 3, EPA is
examining ways to harmonize its vehicle
regulations with those of California and
other federal agencies in the following
areas:
1.	Fuel economy labeling with the
California Air Resources Control
Board (CARB) and the Federal
Trade Commission;
2.	Vehicle greenhouse gas standards
and fuel-economy standards in
conjunction with the Department of Transportation (DOT) and CARB; and
3.	Vehicle testing and compliance standards with CARB.
Another example is described in the text box 6. By using a flexible systems approach to vehicle
and fuel regulations, EPA has spurred a sustainable transportation market and given the industry
the flexibility to design innovative technological responses to regulatory requirements.
Text Box 6: Making Transportation More Sustainable:
A Flexible Systems Approaeh
The substantial emission reductions achieved through
vehicle and fuel standards depends on extensive
collaboration between EPA and vehicle, engine, and fuel
manufacturers; state and local governments;
transportation planners; and individual citizens. EPA
takes a systems approach, setting standards for both
vehicles and fuels. For example, the Vehicle Tier 2
standards were combined with low sulfur gasoline
standards to enable cleaner vehicle technologies. This
results in greater emissions reductions at lower costs.
Vehicle, engine, and fuel regulations include a number of
flexibilities to help industry achieve the standards and
reduce compliance costs, such as averaging, banking and
trading, early credits, phase-in schedules, exemptions, and
hardship relief. Compliance reports by vehicle
manufacturers, fuel producers and others are virtually all
submitted electronically. This flexible approach to mobile
source emission control is responsible for greatly reducing
mobile source air pollution during the last 30 years.
The transportation industry has responded to this flexible
systems approach with improvements to engine and
vehicle technologies that help to make transportation
more sustainable. These improvements include:
•	Designing highly efficient combustion systems
to minimize exhaust pollution.
•	Introducing vapor recovery systems to capture
evaporating gasoline.
•	Using computer technologies to monitor and
control engine performance.
•	Developing effective "after treatment"
technologies, such as catalytic converters and
particulate filters, that remove pollutants from
the exhaust stream before they can escape into
the atmosphere.
•	More recently, reducing greenhouse gases and
improving fuel economy through engine
improvements like gasoline direct injection and
use of turbochargers, increased production of
hybrids and initial commercialization of electric
vehicles.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 10 of 62

-------
The technological advances of the
Information Age also provide an
opportunity to make
environmental protection more
data-driven and analytically
rigorous while still collecting data
and analyzing performance in a
more efficient way. (As an
example, see text box 7.) As the
costs of acquiring, analyzing, and
disseminating data is reduced, it
becomes easier for EPA to cost-
effectively achieve its mission.
EPA is committed to moving the
regulatory process into alignment
with the opportunities presented
by new information technology.
Simultaneously, EPA is working
to be responsive to President's
memorandum "Administrative
Flexibility, Lower Costs, and
Better Results for State, Local,
and Tribal Governments." This
memorandum is complementary
to EO 13563 as it encourages
agencies to identify ways to
reduce unnecessary regulatory
and administrative burdens on
state, local and tribal partners,
and redirect resources to services
that are essential to achieving
better outcomes at lower cost.
*	---views
On a predictable, transparent,
five-year cycle, EPA intends to
ask the public to nominate
additional regulations for review
and intends to commit to new
3 "Administrative Flexibility, Lower Costs, and Better Results for State, Local, and Tribal Governments, February
28, 2011 (Presidential Memorandum from President Barack Obama to Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies)" Daily Compilation of Presidential Documents, No. 201100123. Available from: FDsys,
htto://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/DCPD-201100123/pdf/DCPD-201100123.pdF: Accessed: 08/15/11.
Text Box 7: Technological Advances Lead to Cheaper and
Cleaner Outcomes: Onboard Diagnostics
By capitalizing on advances in information technology for vehicle
diagnostics, the Agency has helped to achieve cheaper and cleaner
outcomes in our automotive emissions control program. Vehicles are
equipped with a "Check Engine Light" that illuminates if a
component failure could cause emission problems. The use of
Onboard Diagnostic Systems (OBD) has resulted in dramatic
improvements in the performance and operation of motor vehicles,
reducing emissions significantly, reducing costs associated with
emission control, and improving durability and maintenance. OBD
systems set the dashboard light which is visible to the owner at the
point in time either a malfunction of an emission related component
or an actual emission problem occurs. This provides a vehicle owner
the opportunity to fix the problem when it occurs shortening the
amount of time the problem exists. In addition, in areas with
inspection and maintenance programs vehicles with such a light on
must be repaired prior to passing the inspection. In both cases OBD
identifies potential emission problems prior to the point in time such
problems would have been identified by prior testing technologies. It
has also made it easier for motorists and repair technicians to identify
and correct problems as they arise, before problems compound and
develop into more serious and costly situations. As a result of Clean
Air Act requirements, all 1996 and newer cars and trucks were
required to include onboard diagnostic systems (OBD) that use
sensors and computer technology to monitor the performance of the
engine and emission control systems on vehicles. EPA issued
regulations to implement the OBD program in 1993.
A simple OBD scan tool can now determine if there are problems
with the emission control system and can replace equipment costing
100 times more. Correspondingly, the cost of vehicle inspection has
dropped from around $25 per vehicle to about $10 per vehicle in most
areas doing only OBD testing, leading to major savings to motorists.
Vehicle emissions inspections are also conducted much more quickly,
saving time for motorists.
EPA recently expanded the implementation of OBD to include heavy-
duty vehicles. It is anticipated that OBD systems will reduce
emissions from this segment of the vehicle fleet, reduce costs
associated with controlling heavy-duty vehicle emissions, and
improve the quality and longevity of emission related repairs on such
vehicles.
For more information, see:
• "Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and
New Motor Vehicle Engines (Final Rule)." 58 FR 9468
(February 19, 1993). Print.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 11 of 62

-------
reviews to supplement those described in this Plan. As explained in section 4 of this Plan, future
review priorities will be determined by:
•	Comments gathered from the public, other federal agencies, and EPA experts;
•	The expertise of the EPA offices writing the regulations;
•	Agency and Administration priorities, such as judicial rulings, emergencies, etc.;
•	The principles and directives of EO 13563; and
•	Agency resources.
EPA plans to use the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda and relevant portions of the EPA website
to regularly report on the reviews that are underway.
With regard to EPA's initial list of initiatives and retrospective reviews, and with regard to future
reviews, the Agency intends to reduce costs, promote simplification, and to:
•	Maintain focus on EPA's mission. First and foremost, EPA intends to focus our
regulatory reviews on protecting human health and safeguarding the environment as
efficiently and effectively as possible.
•	Meet the Agency's current obligations. This Plan recognizes the Agency's existing
statutory and judicial requirements for regulatory reviews. As EPA moves forward, we
intend to ensure that resources continue to be available to meet these mandatory
obligations while still addressing the many discretionary reviews identified in this Plan.
As we conduct regulatory reviews, EPA will follow any statutory and/or judicial
requirements that apply to the particular regulation(s) under review. Statutes may
affirmatively require the Agency to consider specific factors in reviewing regulations or
contain express limitations on the factors the Agency may take into account.
•	Make the Plan predictable. EPA managers, who are responsible for budgeting for the
Plan, as well as EPA staff who implement it and external stakeholders who want to
participate, need to be able to forecast and plan for the upcoming work.
•	Make the Plan flexible and responsive to priority needs. Despite the desire to keep to
a predictable schedule, EPA retains the discretion to modify the schedule as new
priorities, emergencies, resource constraints, and other considerations arise.
•	Follow statutorily mandated procedural requirements. This Plan establishes the
means by which EPA intends to select candidates for regulatory review, but once a
regulation is selected, the Agency intends to follow our established, comprehensive
regulatory development process to discern what, if any, revisions are necessary and to
develop the revisions. The Agency intends to follow the procedures set out in, and
conduct the analyses required by, the Administrative Procedure Act, other applicable
administrative statutes, applicable Executive Orders, and internal EPA rulemaking
procedures that constitute the legal and policy framework for EPA's rule development
activities. In revising regulations, EPA intends to follow its established policies to
provide meaningful opportunities for public involvement, evaluate direct and indirect
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 12 of 62

-------
public health and environmental implications, and analyze the benefits and costs of its
rules.
•	Provide leadership regarding environmental justice issues. Consistent with EO
12898 and the Administrator's priorities, EPA also intends to continue its leading role on
environmental justice matters to ensure that, in the development of its regulations, EPA
considers overburdened communities and vulnerable populations, as well as the potential
for adverse disproportionate impacts to low income, minority, and tribal populations.
Further EPA intends to continue advancing environmental justice across the federal
government through the actions outlined in Plan EJ 2014 's draft implementation plans,
the Agency's overarching strategy for integrating environmental justice in its programs,
policies and activities, as well as through its review of other federal EO 13563 plans.
•	Provide leadership regarding children's health issues. Consistent with EO 13045,
EPA's Children's Health Policy, EPA's FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan, and the
Administrator's priorities, EPA will continue to lead efforts to protect children from
environmental health risks. To accomplish this, EPA intends to use a variety of
approaches, including regulation, enforcement, research, outreach, community-based
programs, and partnerships to protect pregnant women, infants, children, and adolescents
from environmental and human health hazards. The Agency's strategy for integrating
children's health protection is described in EPA's FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan, Cross-
Cutting Fundamental Strategy, "Working for Environmental Justice and Children's
Health." EPA utilizes the document, "Guide to Considering Children's Health When
Developing EPA Actions," to implement EO 13045 and EPA's Policy on Evaluating
Health Risks to Children.4
• Strengthen intergovernmental partnerships. Consistent with the principles
underpinning EO 13132 (Federalism), and in recognition of the fact that environmental
professionals at the state, local, and tribal government level play a critical role in the
implementation of federal environmental regulations, EO 13563 - through its rule
identification and revision processes - provides EPA and its intergovernmental partners
with an opportunity to further strengthen their working relationship and, thereby, more
effectively pursue their shared goal of protecting the nation's environmental and public
health.
4 United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Guide to Considering Children's Health When Developing EPA
Actions. " Washington: EPA, October 2006. Available from: EPA website,
http://vosemite.epa. gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/ADPguide.htm/$File/EP A ADP Guide 508.pdf: Accessed:
08/15/11.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 13 of 62

-------
2 Regulations We Plan to Review
EPA intends to undertake 35 regulatory reviews for this, our initial review period. Of these,
EPA is statutorily required to conduct two; all of the rest are discretionary reviews that may
make EPA's regulatory program more effective or
less burdensome. Sixteen of them fit into the
category of "early actions," meaning the Agency
intends to take a specific step which could lead to
modifying, streamlining, expanding, or repealing
a regulation or related program during the 2011
calendar year. The other 19 reviews are longer
term actions; the Agency intends to review the
regulations in question and assess whether
revisions are needed. Each action is described in
this section, and the next milestone for each action
is included where available.
It is important to keep in mind that the 35 reviews
in this section are our priority activities for
meeting the principles of EO 13563, but the
Agency is undertaking many more reviews than
this, and it is expected that a number of these will
reduce costs. Of the approximately 200 active
actions that are listed in EPA's Spring 2011
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, roughly 60% are
reviews of existing regulations.5
Although many of these ongoing reviews already
meet the spirit and principles of EO 13563, the
Agency is also considering the thoughtful public
comments we received during our public
involvement process (described in section 3).
Those, too, are serving to inform the reviews.
EPA views EO 13563 as an opportunity to
improve the way the Agency does business - to
help create a more efficient, 21st century
regulatory program.
The Agency has recently completed a number of
actions, consistent with Executive Order 13563,
that are illustrative of efforts we intend to pursue
under this Plan:
Text Box 8: Meeting the Principles of EO
13563: The Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule
The SPCC amendments for the dairy industry
are a good example of how the Agency strives to
meet the principles of the EO, such as
minimizing cumulative burden, maximizing net
benefits, eliminating direct regulation when
alternatives exist, and simplifying and
harmonizing regulations across federal agencies.
On January 15, 2009, EPA proposed
amendments to the SPCC rule to tailor and
streamline requirements for the dairy industry by
excluding from the SPCC requirements milk
containers and associated piping and
appurtenances. The rule proposed to address
concerns raised specifically by the dairy farm
sector on the applicability of the SPCC
requirements to milk containers. In April 2011,
EPA finalized this action and excluded all milk
and milk product containers, and associated
piping and appurtenances, from the SPCC
requirements, including an exclusion of the
capacity of these milk and milk product
containers from a facility's total oil storage
capacity calculation to determine if the facility is
subject to SPCC. EPA estimates that dairy
farms and milk product manufacturing plants
will incur savings of $ 145 - 148 million per year
(2010$).
For more information, see:
• "Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC)
Rule— Amendments for Milk and Milk
Product Containers; Final Rule," 76 FR
21652. Available from: FDsys
htto://www. gpo. gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-2011-04-
18/pdf/2011-9288.pdf: Accessed
08/15/2011.
5 This estimate is based on active actions published in EPA's Spring 2011 Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, and does
not include actions in the "Completed" or "Long Term" rulemaking stages.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 14 of 62

-------
•	The Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) amendments for the dairy
industry are a good example of a review which met EO principles such as minimizing
cumulative burden, maximizing net benefits, and simplifying and harmonizing
regulations across federal agencies, while producing annual cost savings of $145 to $148
million (in 2010 dollars (2010$)).6 (See text box 8.)
n
•	On March 29, 2011, EPA finalized a regulation pertaining to alternative fuel conversions
of vehicles and engines. The regulation responded to concerns that the approval process
for converting gasoline or diesel vehicles to operate on alternative fuels (e.g., natural gas,
propane, alcohol, or electricity) is too costly and cumbersome. The Agency adopted a
new approach that streamlines and simplifies the process by which manufacturers of
clean alternative fuel conversion systems may qualify for exemption from the CAA
prohibition against tampering. The new options reduce some economic and procedural
impediments to clean alternative fuel conversions while maintaining environmental
safeguards to ensure that acceptable emission levels from converted vehicles and engines
are sustained. For light-duty engines, the broad average cost of compliance for one
certificate prior to the issuance of this regulation was about $43,687 (2010$); but as a
result of EPA's regulatory review, the estimated cost under the same assumed conversion
scenario would be about $36,177 for new light-duty engines and $12,972 for
intermediate-age and older light-duty engines. For heavy-duty engines, the cost savings
are expected to be even greater. Total annual cost savings are estimated at $1.1 million
(2010$).
•	On July 15, 2011, EPA finalized a regulation that modified the Lead Renovation, Repair
and Painting Rule.8 Common renovation activities like sanding, cutting, and demolition
can create hazardous lead dust and chips by disturbing lead-based paint, which can be
harmful to adults and children. To protect against this risk, on April 22, 2008, EPA
issued the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program rule (Lead RRP) requiring the
use of lead-safe practices and other actions aimed at preventing lead poisoning. Under
the rule, beginning April 22, 2010, contractors performing renovation, repair, and
painting projects that disturb lead-based paint in homes, child care facilities, and schools
built before 1978 must be certified and must follow specific work practices to prevent
lead contamination. On May 6, 2010, EPA proposed additional requirements designed to
ensure that renovation work areas are adequately cleaned after renovation work is
6	Cost savings estimates provided in the final rule are in 2009$. All cost savings estimates in this Plan are presented
in 2010$ and therefore may differ from those presented in the rule's original analyses.
7	"Clean Alternative Fuel Vehicle and Engine Conversions (Final Rule)." 76 FR 19830 (April 08, 2011). Available
from: FDsys, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-201 l-04-08/pdf/201 l-7910.pdf: Accessed: 08/15/11.
8	"Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (Final
Rule)." 76 FR 47918 (August 05, 2011). Available from: FDsys, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-2011-08-
05/pdf/201 l-19417.pdf: Accessed: 08/15/11.
9	"Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (Final Rule)." 73 FR 21692 (April 22, 2008). Available from:
FDsys, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-2008-04-22/pdf/E8-8141 .pdf: Accessed: 08/15/11.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 15 of 62

-------
finished and before the areas are re-occupied.10 The proposed rule would have added
requirements including dust wipe testing after renovations and additional cleaning, if
needed, designed to ensure that renovation work areas meet clearance standards before
re-occupancy. The cost of EPA's proposed additional testing requirements were between
$278 million to $300 million per year (2010$).11 After carefully weighing the issues and
considering the comments from over 300 stakeholders, EPA has determined that there are
currently no data or information that call into question the reliability, safety, and efficacy
of the lead safe work practices established in the 2008 RRP rule. Therefore, EPA did not
finalize additional "clearance" requirements that contractors obtain lead-dust testing and
laboratory analysis of the results for renovation jobs. EPA believes that if certified and
trained renovation contractors follow EPA's 2008 RRP rule by using lead-safe work
practices and following the cleaning protocol after the job is finished, lead-dust hazards
will be effectively reduced.
ฎ Working in coordination with DOT, EPA finalized changes to the fuel economy label that
consumers see on the window of every new vehicle in dealer showrooms.12 This
summer, EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
unveiled the most dramatic overhaul to fuel economy labels since they were introduced
35 years ago. When the new labels start to appear in showrooms and online, shoppers
will have more information at their fingertips than ever before. The redesigned label,
representing a harmonized and coordinated effort with DOT, will provide the public with
new information on vehicles' fuel economy, energy use, fuel costs, and environmental
impacts. For the first time, for instance, comparable fuel economy and environmental
ratings will be available for all new vehicles, including advanced technology vehicles like
electric cars. Consumers will be able to make comparisons - car by car - to ensure they
have the best information to help save on fuel costs and reduce emissions.
• In June 2011, EPA issued direct final amendments to the air toxic standards for the
plating and polishing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP). Toxic air pollutants, or air toxics, are known or suspected to cause cancer
and other health problems. Area sources are smaller facilities who emit less than the
"major source" threshold of 10 tons per year of pollution, but whose emissions jointly
contribute to pollution problems. The direct final amendments clarify that the plating and
polishing NESHAP does not apply to any bench-scale activities. It was not our intent to
include those activities in the original rule because these emissions are too small to
accurately measure and it would be an unreasonable burden to the public to do so. Bench-
scale is defined to be any operation that is small enough to be performed on a bench,
table, or similar structure so that the equipment is not directly contacting the floor. The
10	"Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program
(Proposed Rule)." 75 FR 25038 (May 06, 2010). Available from: FDsys, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-2010-
05-06/pdf/2010-10102.pdf: Accessed: 08/15/11.
11	To achieve comparable estimates across regulations, this cost savings estimate was updated to 2010$. The
analysis for this particular rulemaking originally used 2009$.
12	"Revisions and Additions to Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Label (Final Rule)." 76 FR 39478 (July 06, 2011).
Available from: FDsys, http://www.gpo. gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-2011 -07-06/pdf/2011 -14291 .pdf: Accessed: 08/15/11.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 16 of 62

-------
direct final amendments also make several technical corrections and clarifications to the
rule's text to reduce misinterpretations. These corrections and clarifications do not make
material changes in the rule's requirements. The Direct Final Rule published June 20,
2011, along with a related proposal that invited public comments.
These sorts of efforts, where we worked with stakeholders and other agencies to achieve a
positive outcome for the regulated community while protecting human health and the
environment, is what the Agency will strive to replicate in the priority activities described later in
this section. EPA expects to realize substantial cost and burden reductions as a result of a
number of our reviews. Table 1 provides cost and other savings estimates associated with our
completed reviews and draft cost savings estimates for some of the ongoing priority reviews
described in the rest of this section. We estimate that EPA will achieve between $309.1 and
$360.1 million (2010$) in costs savings annually from the four completed and proposed
retrospective reviews listed in Table 1. Taken as a whole, recent reforms, already finalized or
formally proposed, are anticipated to save up to $1.5 billion over the next five years. Keep in
mind that there are a total of five completed and 35 ongoing regulatory reviews in this Plan.
EPA expects the total cost savings of all of the reviews to be greater than shown in this table;
however, we are unable to provide draft cost saving estimates for many of our ongoing reviews
since it is too soon in the review process.
Table 1: Savings Estimates from Review of EPA Regulations
Uc\ ic'\\
( os( S;i\ inปs
(Millions :<)|<)S)
(Completed

Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure amendments for the dairy
$145-$148
industry

Alternative fuel conversions of vehicles and engines
$1.1
Proposed

Vehicle vapor recovery systems (#2.2.1)
$87
F,-Manifest (#2.2.4)
$76-$124
1 Olill
S^O'J 1 - S^(i() 1
Reexamined Proposal

Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program clearance standards
$278 - $300
Draft Estimates from Ongoing Reviews

Consumer confidence reports for primary drinking water regulations
(#2.2.6)
$1
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): coordinating
permit requirements and removing outdated requirements (#2.1.8)
$1.6
f actions
Of the 35 priority regulatory reviews presented in this section, the following 16 are early actions
that are intended to yield in 2011 a specific step toward modifying, streamlining, expanding, or
repealing a regulation or related program. Asterisks (**) preceding the heading of a review
indicate those reviews which were suggested during the public comment periods held for this
Plan.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 17 of 62

-------
1.	** Gasoline and diesel regulations: reducing reporting and recordkeeping
2.	** Equipment leak detection and repair: reducing burden
3.	Regulatory certainty for farmers: working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) and states
4.	** Modern science and technology methods in the chemical regulation arena: reducing
whole-animal testing, reducing costs and burdens, and improving efficiencies
5.	** Electronic online reporting of health and safety data under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); and
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA): reducing burden and improving
efficiencies
6.	** National Priorities List rules: improving transparency
7.	Quick changes to some TSCA reporting requirements: reducing burden
8.	** National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): coordinating permit
requirements and removing outdated requirements
9.	** National primary drinking water regulations - Long Term 2 Enhances Surface Water
Treatment: evaluating approaches that may maintain, or provide greater, public health
protection
10.	** Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) and integrated planning for wet weather
infrastructure investments: providing flexibilities
11.	** Vehicle regulations: harmonizing requirements for:
a.	Greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards
b.	Vehicle emission standards
12.	Multiple air pollutants: coordinating emission reduction regulations and using innovative
technologies
13.	** NSPS reviews and revisions under the CAA: setting priorities to ensure updates to
outdated technologies
14.	** CAA Title V Permit programs: simplifying and clarifying requirements
15.	Innovative technology: seeking to spur new markets and utilize technological innovations
16.	** The costs of regulations: improving cost estimates
2.1.1	**13 Gasoline and diesel regulations: reducing reporting and
recordkeeping
Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to review existing gasoline and diesel regulations that apply
to fuel producers, ethanol blenders, fuel distributors, and others for areas where recordkeeping
and reporting obligations can be modified to reduce burden. This is consistent with EO 13563's
directive to relieve regulatory burden.
Background: EPA intends to conduct this review in conjunction with the rulemaking on the next
set of vehicle emission and fuel standards, known as "Tier 3 motor vehicle emission and fuel
standards," informed by public comments received in the EO 13563 public outreach process.
13 Asterisks (**) preceding the heading of a review indicate those reviews which were suggested during the public
comment periods held for this Plan.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 18 of 62

-------
Next step: EPA expects to propose modifications to gasoline and diesel regulations in late 2011.
2.1.2	** Equipment leak detection and repair: reducing burden
Reason for inclusion: The associated actions are included in the EO Plan so that EPA can
reduce the burden on industry and streamline leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs. This
is done in support of EO 13563, which promotes innovative technologies while upholding EPA's
mission to protect human health and the environment. These goals are expected to be achieved
by creating uniform equipment leak standards and removing regulatory overlap.
Background on the action: Currently, there are many rules (both NESHAP and NSPS)
applicable to sources in the Chemical and Petroleum Refining sectors that establish LDAR
requirements. These rules often vary, but generally include requirements for periodic monitoring
via Method 21, which specifies the use of a hand-held probe to detect leaks.
Two primary efforts are underway with respect to LDAR. First, we are developing "Uniform
Standards" for Equipment Leaks. These standards are intended to establish uniform equipment
leak definitions, monitoring frequencies and uniform requirements for reporting, recordkeeping,
and repair. A referencing subpart, such as the Chemical Sector rule or the Refinery Sector rule
would then point to the LDAR Uniform Standards. The end result is expected to be a consistent
set of requirements across these industries.
The second effort is the Alternative Work Practice (AWP) to Detect Leaks from Equipment,
which was promulgated in 2008 as a voluntary AWP for LDAR. The AWP includes using an
optical gas imaging camera and annual Method 21 screening for leak detection. We received a
request for administrative reconsideration of the AWP from the American Petroleum Institute in
2009 to remove the Method 21 requirement. We are currently considering our response.
Next step: We are currently considering comments received on the AWP petition. We intend to
evaluate the comments related to the proposed Oil and Gas NSPS, using this feedback to respond
to the AWP petition.
We plan to propose the Equipment Leak Uniform Standards in fall 2011.
2.1.3	Regulatory certainty for farmers: working with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and states
Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to work with USDA and state governments to explore
flexible, voluntary approaches for farmers to achieve water quality improvements, consistent
with EO 13563's directives of achieving greater coordination across agencies and allowing for
flexibility.
Background: In conjunction with USDA and several states, EPA is exploring "certainty"
mechanisms that encourage farmers to implement voluntary practices that reduce impacts on
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 19 of 62

-------
water quality. In particular, if farmers' actions result in quantifiable and verifiable improvements
in water quality and resource conservation, EPA and USD A could work with states to develop
programs that can provide assurances that the farmers' actions are, for a reasonable, fixed period
of time, consistent with state plans to improve water quality. EPA and USDA's efforts are
intended to allow states flexibility to increase farmers' and other landowners' interest and
willingness to adopt the most effective land stewardship practices by providing incentives that
increase the pace and extent to which resource conservation and verifiable water quality
improvements are achieved.
Next step: EPA expects that the project will be up and running at the state level with USDA
partners by the end of the calendar year.
2.1.4	** Modern science and technology methods in the chemical
regulation arena: reducing whole-animal testing, reducing
costs and burdens, and improving efficiencies
Reason for inclusion: This review is included in the Plan because EPA intends to seek ways to
more efficiently assess the health and environmental hazards, as well as the exposure potential,
of chemicals while reducing costs and burdens. Reducing the costs associated with whole-
animal testing is consistent with EO 13563's directive to relieve regulatory burden.
Background: The identification, evaluation, and regulation of chemicals to protect human health
and the environment is central to EPA's mandate. Given the challenge of assessing more
chemicals with greater speed and accuracy, and to do so using fewer resources and experimental
animals, new approaches in biological and computational sciences are needed to ensure that
relevant information is available to meet the challenges of prioritization, targeted testing, and
risk assessment.14
Prioritization can focus resources on chemicals that are believed to pose the greatest risk to
human health and/or the environment. There are also many chemicals for which a substantial
amount of information is known about hazard and/or exposure, but more testing is needed. A
more efficient science-based approach to determine testing needs for these chemicals can reduce
the use of experimental animals and testing burdens, as well as facilitate the timely development
of risk assessments and ultimately informed and timely regulatory decisions that are based on
sound science.
EPA is drafting a work plan to develop and move towards adoption of new science-based
approaches like computational toxicology tools to:
14 See also the 2007 report from the National Research Council. Citation: —. National Research Council of the
National Academies. Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Washington: National Academies
Press, 2007. Available from: The National Academies Press website,
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php7record id=l 1970; Access: 08/15/11.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 20 of 62

-------
•	Prioritize chemicals for risk assessment/management purposes. The objective is to
identify chemicals or groups of chemicals with the highest potential for exposure and/or
human health/environmental effects and focus resources on those chemicals.
•	Develop the tools to base chemical risk management decisions about potential human
health and ecological risks on sufficient, credible data and on information that is tailored
around the specific compound as well as the needs of the risk assessment and risk
management decisions.
This work plan is expected to describe the major steps needed to develop and transition to the
decision support tools (i.e., computational toxicology methods) for priority setting and targeted
testing, and is expected to propose three case studies relevant to industrial chemicals, water
contaminants, and pesticides. In addition, EPA intends to identify the steps needed to satisfy the
validation requirements related to regulatory acceptance of these new approaches for use in
screening under the Endocrine Disruptors Screening Program (EDSP) in the near future.
Next step: In 2011, EPA intends to expand its efforts to engage interested stakeholders in this
project.
2.1.5	** Electronic online reporting of health and safety data under
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); and Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA): reducing burden and
improving efficiencies
Reason for inclusion: This review is included in the Plan so that EPA can explore ways to
reduce regulatory burden by transitioning from paper-based reporting to electronic reporting for
industries that report chemical-related health and safety data under TSCA, FIFRA, and FFDCA.
Existing TSCA regulations tied to this review include the 2010 TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture
and Significant New Use Notification Electronic Reporting rule and the 2011 TSCA Inventory
Update Reporting Chemical and Data Reporting rule.
Background: EPA currently collects a variety of chemical-specific health and safety data under
several different regulations issued pursuant to TSCA, FIFRA, and FFDCA. When consulting
with the public as this Plan was developed, industry suggested that electronic online reporting
could help to reduce overall reporting and recordkeeping burdens, although some also expressed
concern that the information continue to be protected as statutorily required. EPA has already
begun efforts to incorporate online electronic reporting of information it collects under the TSCA
regulations. Furthermore, we initiated an electronic reporting pilot project several years ago that
accepted electronic copies of some pesticide information submitted under FIFRA and FFDCA.
As part of our current retrospective review, we intend to consider lessons learned from
stakeholders involved in this pilot project and identify a timeline and process for expanding the
project.
Estimated potential cost or burden reduction: Online electronic reporting can reduce burden
and costs for the regulated entities by eliminating the costs associated with printing and mailing
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 21 of 62

-------
this information to EPA, while at the same time improving EPA's efficiency in reviewing
regulations. The regulated community has indicated that these savings could be substantial.
Next steps: Later this year, the Agency expects to propose revisions to implement electronic
reporting for the submission of health and safety data under TSCA. Additionally, within the next
12 months, EPA intends to develop a workplan to consider electronic reporting options under
FIFRA and FFDCA for pesticide information. For the consideration of electronic reporting
options for pesticide submissions, in 2011 EPA intends to begin developing a workplan for
completing this review effort.
2.1.6	** National Priorities List rules: improving transparency
Reason for inclusion: This review is part of the Plan so that EPA can consider ways to further
ensure meaningful and substantial state involvement in decisions to place sites on the National
Priorities List (NPL), in keeping with EO 13563's directive to provide an "open exchange of
information and perspectives among State, local, and tribal officials."
Background: When consulting with the public as this Plan was developed, the National
Governors Association commented on the need for EPA to share information that we rely upon
to determine whether sites should be placed on the NPL. The NPL is the list of national
priorities among the sites with known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States and its territories. The NPL is intended
primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation. EPA is
working to improve state and other stakeholder involvement to ensure that information is
available to support Superfund listing determinations or other state or federal cleanup options.
Since state environmental agencies conduct roughly half of the Superfund site assessment reports
completed each year, states' environmental staff are generally aware of specific site conditions as
sites move towards the NPL listing phase. For those reports not produced by states, EPA
routinely makes them available to the state partners so that both parties have the information
necessary to hold collaborative discussions on the need for potential NPL listing. EPA intends to
redouble its effort to make sure states, tribes, and other stakeholders are fully informed regarding
EPA's NPL process.
Next step: EPA intends to address this programmatic concern through the ongoing Integrated
Cleanup Initiative from the third quarter of fiscal year 2011 through the first quarter of FY 2012.
2.1.7	Quick changes to some TSCA reporting requirements: reducing
burden
Reason for inclusion: EPA is developing a proposal to make a few quick changes to three
existing reporting requirements under TSCA. The changes are intended to reduce reporting
burdens and to clarify reporting to provide for more efficient review of health and environmental
data and more effective protection of public health and the environment. This is consistent with
EO 13563's directive to reduce regulatory burden.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 22 of 62

-------
Background: The anticipated changes involve 40 CFR 790.5, entitled "Submission of
Information;" 40 CFR 792.185, entitled "Reporting of Study Results;" and 40 CFR 712.28,
entitled "Forms and Instructions." The changes under consideration include:
•	the elimination of the requirement for 6 copies to be submitted, replaced by submission
of a single electronic copy;
•	the addition of a requirement for including "Robust Summaries" of test results with the
submission of test data; and
•	the use of the Inventory Update Reporting Form to format the submission of preliminary
assessment information in response to chemical information rules.
Next step: EPA expects to propose changes to reporting requirements by the end of 2011.
2.1.8	** National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES):
coordinating permit requirements and removing outdated
requirements
Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to review the regulations that apply to the issuance of
NPDES permits, which are the wastewater permits that facility operators must obtain before they
discharge pollutants to any water of the United States. EPA intends to revise or repeal outdated
or ineffective regulatory requirements for wastewater facilities, which is consistent with EO
13563's directive to "determine whether.. .regulations should be modified, streamlined,
expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less
burdensome."
Background: EPA plans to review NPDES permitting regulations in order to find provisions
that are outdated or ineffective. EPA expects the review to most likely focus on:
a)	eliminating inconsistencies between regulations and application forms;
b)	improving the consistency between the application forms;
c)	updating the application forms to address current program practices;
d)	clarifying the existing regulations and modifying or repealing permitting, monitoring, and
reporting requirements that have become obsolete or outdated due to programmatic and
technical changes that have occurred over the past 20 years; and
e)	modifying permit documentation and objection procedures to improve the quality and
transparency of permit development.
As an example of an outdated regulation which could be changed to reduce burden, as well as
improve transparency and public access to information, EPA is considering whether to revise the
public notice requirements to allow a state to post notices and draft NPDES permits under the
Clean Water Act on their state agency websites in lieu of traditional newspaper posting.
Estimated potential cost or burden reduction: EPA estimates that public notice of draft
permits in newspapers for NPDES major facilities, sewage sludge facilities and general permits
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 23 of 62

-------
currently costs approximately $1.6 million per year15 (this excludes the costs of preparing the
content of the NPDES public notice, and the costs of the other methods to provide notice besides
newspaper publication, such as direct mailing). Any savings from EPA's planned rule, however,
are likely to be less than this amount. The new rule would allow, but not require states and the
Federal Government to use electronic public notice instead of newspaper publication. Some
states would continue to publish at least some notifications in newspapers. In addition, there
would be offsetting costs to provide electronic notice, and EPA does not currently have estimates
of those costs.
Next step: EPA expects to propose modifications to NPDES permit regulations by the end of
2011.
2.1.9	**National primary drinking water regulations - Long Term 2
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment: evaluating approaches
that may maintain, or provide greater, public health protection
Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to evaluate effective and practical approaches that may
maintain, or provide greater protection of, the water treated by public water systems and stored
prior to distribution to consumers. EPA plans to conduct this review expeditiously to protect
public health while considering innovations and flexibility as called for in EO 13563.
Background: The purpose of the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment (LT2) rule
is to reduce illness linked with the contaminant Cryptosporidium and other disease-causing
microorganisms in drinking water. The rule supplements existing regulations by targeting
additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements to higher risk systems. This rule also
contains provisions to reduce risks from uncovered finished water reservoirs and to ensure that
systems maintain microbial protection when they take steps to decrease the formation of
disinfection byproducts that result from chemical water treatment.
LT2 requires public water systems that store treated water in open reservoirs to either cover the
reservoir or treat water leaving the reservoir to inactivate viruses, Giardia, and
Cryptosporidium.16 This requirement applies to all public water systems, regardless of what
treatment or filtration methods are used, because the requirements address open reservoirs that
store drinking water that has already been treated and is intended to be distributed directly to
consumers without further treatment. The LT2 uncovered finished water reservoir requirement
is intended to protect against the potential for re-contamination of treated water with disease
causing organisms, specifically Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and viruses.
15	EPA used $1,000 (in 2010$) as the publication cost for a public notice in a newspaper. We assume that there are
1,600 NPDES permit actions that require public notice via newspaper publication each year; thus, we arrive at the
$1.6 million per year estimate.
16	"National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (Final
Rule)." 71 FR 654 (5 January 2006). Available from: FDsys, http://www.gpo. gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-2006-01 -05/pdf/06-
4.pdf: Accessed: 08/15/11.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 24 of 62

-------
The 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) require EPA to review the
existing national primary drinking water regulations at least every six years and revise the
regulations as appropriate. Section 300g-l specifies that any revision must maintain or provide
for greater protection of the health of persons.17 EPA plans to review the LT2 regulation as part
of the upcoming Six Year Review process using the protocol developed for this effort. As part
of the review, EPA would assess and analyze new data/information regarding occurrence,
treatment, analytical methods, health effects, and risk from all relevant waterborne pathogens to
evaluate whether there are new or additional ways to manage risk while assuring equivalent or
improved protection, including with respect to the covering of finished water reservoirs. Also,
EPA intends to explore best practices that meet the SDWA requirements to maintain or improve
public health protection for drinking water, while considering innovative approaches for public
water systems.
Next step: The review process for LT2 is expected to begin in 2011 when EPA begins to update
the 6-year review protocol to address microbial issues. Further, EPA plans to hold stakeholder
meetings on LT2 in 2012, and before the end of 2011 expects to issue a Federal Register notice
with more information about these meetings.
2.1.10 ** Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) and integrated planning
for wet weather infrastructure investments: providing
flexibilities
Reason for inclusion: This review is included in the Plan so that EPA can gather additional
information on how we can better promote Green Infrastructure (GI), ensure practical and
affordable remedies to CSO violations, and identify additional approaches with accountability to
ensure that communities can see noticeable improvements to their water quality and reduced
risks to human health through prioritizing infrastructure investments. When consulting with the
public as this Plan was developed, several commenters requested that EPA address CSOs.
Background: EPA believes that the incorporation of GI and other innovative approaches into
CSO long term control plans can result in improved water quality while potentially saving
taxpayers money when compared to traditional approaches and providing additional benefits to
communities. Many communities are exploring and implementing GI solutions to help address
their storm water and wastewater control needs. For example, New York and Philadelphia have
developed GI plans and are discussing with EPA how these plans can best help to meet their
wastewater management needs now and into the future. Some communities have also expressed
an interest in evaluating CSO investments along with other wastewater and stormwater
investments to determine the most cost effective approach to improving water quality.
17 42 USC sec. 300g-l(b)(9) (2009). Note: Laws such as the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) are codified in the
U.S. Code. Some people may be more familiar with the public law citation for this section, which is SDWA Sec.
1412(b)(9). The text of 42 USC sec. 300g-l(b)(9) is available from: FDsys,
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsYs/pkg/USCODE-2009-title42/pdf/USCODE-20Q9-title42-chap6A-subchapXII-partB-
sec300g-l.pdf: Accessed: 08/15/11.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 25 of 62

-------
Next steps: In fall 2011, EPA intends to initiate a process to conduct additional outreach with
respect to how to improve the implementation of the CSO Policy. In particular, EPA intends to
support and encourage the use of green infrastructure as part of an integrated approach to reduce
stormwater flows in the CSO system and develop an approach for prioritizing wet weather
investments into integrated permitting or other vehicles with accountability. In addition, EPA
intends to consider approaches that allow municipalities to evaluate all of their CWA
requirements and develop comprehensive plans to meet these requirements.
2.1.11 ** Vehicle regulations: harmonizing requirements
Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to review existing vehicle regulations for areas where greater
harmonization with California and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) can be
achieved. This is in keeping with EO 13563's directive to achieve greater coordination across
federal agencies to reduce redundant regulatory requirements.
Background: Activities to achieve greater harmonization among vehicle regulations include:
•	Vehicle greenhouse gas and fuel-economy standards compliance harmonization with
DOT and CARB - EPA and NHTSA are developing a joint rulemaking to propose
greenhouse gas (GHG) and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for
model years 2017-2025 light-duty vehicles. Harmonizing compliance could include
streamlining reporting and credit trading systems and updating testing protocols to meet
the needs of all three agencies. As part of this process, EPA and DOT intend to take
comment on opportunities to further harmonize compliance requirements of the two
agencies. This was recommended by an auto industry representative during the public
comment process for this Plan.
•	Vehicle and fuel standards compliance harmonization with CARB - EPA plans to
assess and take comment on opportunities to harmonize testing and compliance
requirements with CARB's vehicle emission standards. This review is expected to be
done in conjunction with the rulemaking on the next set of vehicle and fuel standards,
known as Tier 3 motor vehicle emission and fuel standards, informed by public
comments received during the public outreach process.
Next steps: EPA intends to propose GHG standards in September 2011. Also, EPA expects to
propose new vehicle and fuel standards in late 2011.
2.1.12 Multiple air pollutants: coordinating emission reduction
regulations and using innovative technologies
Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to explore ways to reduce emissions of multiple air
pollutants through the use of technologies and practices that achieve multiple benefits, such as
controlling hazardous air pollutant emissions while also controlling particulate matter and its
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 26 of 62

-------
precursor pollutants. This is in keeping with EO 13563's directives to harmonize related
regulatory requirements and to promote innovation.
Background: EPA intends to issue a proposed rulemaking for the Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) Risk and Technology Review for Pulp and Paper Industry (Subpart S).
It is important that the Kraft NSPS and other MACT regulations for the pulp and paper industry
be considered together to account for the interactions and collateral benefits or dis-benefits
between the emitted criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Subpart S is
under court ordered deadlines so coordination opportunities are limited. However, the greatest
opportunity to address multiple air pollutants, enhance innovation, and reduce regulatory
compliance efforts would be with a combined rulemaking where Kraft NSPS and Subpart MM
regulations are considered together. Both regulations focus on combustion sources, and EPA
intends for them to immediately follow the Subpart S rulemaking.
This industry-specific "sector approach" is intended to:
•	Avoid "stranded" costs associated with piecemeal investment in control equipment for
individual pollutants from multiple, successive rulemakings.
•	Tailor results based on source-specific fuel inputs (e.g., non-condensable gases,
wastewater treatment residuals) versus general inputs (e.g., coal, wood, oil, gas).
•	Promote industry-specific technology-based solutions (e.g., energy efficiency).
•	Provide flexibility in compliance alternatives.
EPA intends to take a similar approach for the chemical sector. We intend to perform a risk and
technology review for the following MACT standards: miscellaneous organic national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (MON), ethylene, pesticide active ingredients, polyether
polyols, polymers and resins IV, and organic liquid distribution. We also intend to conduct the
periodic technology review for the hazardous organic national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) (HON). Furthermore, we are evaluating emissions from vinyl chloride
facilities (covered by the HON) to see if additional emissions limitations are needed. Finally, we
plan to review the five chemical sector NSPS and consolidate these requirements into a single
sector rule. We currently plan to revise these MACT and NSPS rules to point to a set of
uniform standards for equipment leaks, wastewater, tanks , control devices, and heat exchangers.
Through this coordinated approach, we intend to establish consistent requirements across the
entire chemical industry.
Next step: Proposed rules are anticipated in December 2011 for pulp and paper and November
2011 for the chemical industry rules.
2.1.13 ** New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) reviews and
revisions under the CAA: setting priorities to ensure updates to
outdated technologies
Reason for inclusion: This review is included in the Plan to ensure that EPA prioritizes NSPS
reviews to focus on those that, in keeping with EO 13563, promote innovative technologies
while upholding EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 27 of 62

-------
Background: The CAA requires EPA to review and update NSPS every eight years for over 70
different industrial source types. In conducting such reviews in the past, the usefulness of the
reviews varied greatly across the different source types. For some source types, we have seen
significant improvements in processes and emission control technologies, along with significant
numbers of new sources. For others, we found little change in prevailing technologies and/or
little growth in the industry. Accordingly, we intend to establish priorities for the review and
revision of NSPS based on the opportunities for meaningful improvements in air quality and
public health, giving lesser importance to those categories where little or no opportunity for such
improvements realistically exists. This approach is intended to make the NSPS review process
more efficient, so that both public and private resources can be focused where it makes the most
sense.
Next step: EPA intends to issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking projected for
summer of 2011 that presents an approach that includes a streamlined process to consider
whether an NSPS requires a review. If the standard remains effective in meeting the
requirements of the CAA, then we would not conduct a review and redirect both public and
private resources to the rules that provide the greatest public health protection and are most
likely to warrant revision.
2.1.14 ** CAA Title V Permit programs: simplifying and clarifying
requirements
Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to review the Title V implementation process to determine
whether changes can be made to simplify and clarify the process for industry, the public, and
government resources, which is in keeping with EO 13563's directive to simplify regulatory
requirements.
Background: Operating permits are legally enforceable documents that permitting authorities
issue to air pollution sources after the source has begun to operate. As required under Title V of
the CAA, most large sources and some smaller sources of air pollution are required to obtain an
operating permit. A Title V permit lists all of the air quality-related rules and requirements that
apply to the particular source, and specifies how compliance will be monitored. States are
required to give public notice of the draft permits and some permit revisions, and typically post
permits on their websites. This provides transparency in the permitting process and minimizes
misunderstandings between the source, regulatory agencies, and the public living around the
source.
The Title V program was the focus of many of the public comments received as part of the
outreach EPA conducted as it developed this Plan. EPA continues to draw on the Title V
implementation ideas generated by its Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC), including
18
those developed by a CAAAC task force in 2006. Taking advantage of advice and ideas from
18 —. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Report to the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee: Title V
Implementation Experience. Washington: EPA, April 2006. Available from: the EPA website,
http://www.epa.gov/oar/caaac/tvtaskforce/title5 taskforce finalreport20060405.pdf: Accessed: 08/15/11.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 28 of 62

-------
all of these sources, EPA intends to review the Title V implementation process to determine
whether changes can be made to help all permitting participants understand the program better.
EPA also intends to streamline the process to be more efficient in terms of industry, public, and
government resources. Among other things, EPA may consider electronic filing of applications,
including supporting material such as reports.
Estimated potential cost or burden reduction: Although potential cost reductions associated
with this action cannot be predicted until the areas for improvement are identified, EPA believes
the improvements will reduce burden on the public, the permitting agencies and the permittees.
The changes are intended to also increase transparency in the process as well as give greater
certainty to the permittees. EPA recently completed a rulemaking to help streamline the
implementation of the Title V program which resulted in an estimated total annual cost savings
of approximately $32,000,000 (2010$).19 This action should realize a benefit of $200 to $300
per permit revision when fully implemented, or approximately $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 (2010$)
for each cycle of permit renewal nationally.
Next step: EPA intends to begin the review process to implement this recommendation during
the fall/winter of 2011.
2.1.15 Innovative technology: seeking to spur new markets and utilize
technological innovations
Reason for inclusion: This review is part of the Plan to evaluate how best EPA can "seek to
identify, as appropriate, means to achieve regulatory goals that are designed to promote
innovation" perEO 13563.
Background: Available and affordable technology choices define the potential range of
environmental solutions for many environmental problems. Moreover, technology innovation
can lead not only to better environmental outcomes, but better economic opportunities and
outcomes, too. EPA efforts in the past 40 years have spurred technology developments
responsible for profound improvements in environmental protection through preventing,
reducing, and sequestering pollutants, and monitoring environmental conditions. EPA has a
number of efforts underway to promote innovative technology including the following:
• During retrospective reviews and new rulemakings, EPA intends to assess innovative
technology to help encourage continued development of new sustainable technologies to
achieve improved environmental results at lower costs. Such innovative technologies
19 As an example of potential cost savings associated with this review, EPA considered an existing rule that was
implemented as a result of recommendations made by the 2006 Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) Task
Force. The Flexible Air Permitting rule (FAP), implemented in October 2009 (74 FR 51418 (October 06, 2009),
available from: FDsys, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-2009-10-06/pdf/E9-23794.pdf). revises the air permitting
program under Title V. This final rule is illustrative of the policy improvements that the retrospective review aims to
achieve, as it clarifies existing requirements and allows regulated entities to seek additional flexibility for their Clean
Air Act permits.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 29 of 62

-------
will foster new market opportunities for green technology and infrastructure and will also
provide new opportunities for the creation of more flexible and cost-effective means of
compliance. The first step in this process is to conduct a technology opportunity and
market assessment of two pending regulations in order to begin developing a framework
20
for considering such information during the regulatory process.
•	Monitoring and testing certification procedures and regulations are often codified and
then, over time, can become outdated. Where feasible, EPA plans to continue to make
changes to update monitoring and testing protocols through flexible approaches such as
alternative method approval procedures, which can allow more immediate use of new
methods based on new scientifically sound technology that meet legally supported
criteria. In future rulemakings, EPA intends to continue to augment codified protocols by
utilizing established requirements, such as the National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act, to add by reference, methods developed by voluntary consensus
organizations, where appropriate.
•	EPA has taken steps already to support technological innovation in the water sector
through cooperation with a newly formed regional water technology cluster. The water
technology innovation cluster intends to develop and commercialize innovative
technologies to solve environmental challenges and spur sustainable economic
development and job growth through the expansion, creation, and attraction of water
technology companies and investment. EPA co-hosted a workshop with the regional
Water Technology Innovation Cluster (WTIC) on May 23, 2011, where the Agency
worked to identify major challenges and technology needs faced by the different water
sectors.
Next steps: EPA intends to begin a technology opportunity and market assessment of two
regulations by the end of fiscal year 2011.
2.1.16 ** The costs of regulations: improving cost estimates
Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to evaluate why and to what degree compliance cost
estimates developed prior to the issuance of a regulation (ex-ante compliance costs) differ from
actual compliance costs realized after a regulation takes effect (ex-post compliance costs). EO
13563 requires each agency to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated, present,
and future costs of its regulations as accurately as possible. The overall goal of this project is to
improve EPA's ability to estimate ex-ante compliance costs to increase regulatory efficiency.
20 For more information, see EPA's FY 2011 Strategic Action Plan for Advancing Science, Research and
Technological Innovation. Citation: —. Environmental Protection Agency. "Advancing Science. Research, and
Technological Innovation." in FY2011 - 2015 EPA Strategic Plan, pp. 32 - 33. (Publication No. EPA-190-B-10-
002). Washington, EPA: September 2010. Available from: the EPA website,
http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan.html: Accessed: 08/15/11.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 30 of 62

-------
Background: EPA intends to explore, through an analysis initially focusing on 5 rules, possible
sources of uncertainty and reasons why ex-ante cost estimates and estimates of ex-post costs
diverge. One of the goals of the project is to determine if any systematic biases exist in EPA's
ex-ante cost estimates, and if so, why. One potentially important reason for the difference
between ex-ante and ex-post costs is unanticipated technological innovation that occurs between
the time a rule is promulgated and when the regulated community must begin complying with
the regulation. While we recognize that benefits estimates may also change as a result of
technological innovation, we will focus our analysis here on costs with the overall goal of
identifying ways EPA can improve estimates of compliance costs to better inform regulation.
The five rules included in this study are:
•	National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance and
New Source Contaminants Monitoring;21
•	National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Pulp and
Paper Production; Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source
22
Performance Standards: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category;
•	Revision of Standards of Performance for Nitrogen Oxide Emissions From New Fossil-Fuel
Fired Steam Generating Units; Revisions to Reporting Requirements for Standards of
23
Performance for New Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generating Units;
24
•	Emission Standards for Locomotives and Locomotive Engines; and
•	Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for Strawberry Fruit Grown
in Open Fields (Submitted in 2003 for the 2006 Use Season).25
Next step: The Agency plans to complete a draft report on the first five rules by fall 2011.
jer term actions
The 19 regulatory reviews listed here are part of EPA's initial list of 35 priority regulatory
reviews. These actions are on a longer term schedule relative to the early actions listed in the
previous section. Descriptions for each follow. Asterisks (**) preceding the heading of a review
21	"National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source
Contaminants Monitoring (Final Rule)." 66 FR 6976 (January 22, 2001). Available from: FDsys,
htto://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-2001-0l-22/pdf/0l-1668.pdf Accessed: 08/15/11.
22	"National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production;
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards: Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Category: Final Rules." 63 FR 18504 (April 15, 998). Available from: FDsys,
http://www.gpo. gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-1998-04-15/pdf/98-9613 .pdf: Accessed; 08/15/2011.
23	"Revision of Standards of Performance for Nitrogen Oxide Emissions From New Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam
Generating Units; Revisions to Reporting Requirements for Standards of Performance for New Fossil-Fuel Fired
Steam Generating Units: Final Rule." 63 FR 49442 (September 16, 1998). Available from: FDsys,
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-1998-09-16/pdf/98-24733.pdf: Accessed: 08/15/2011.
24	"Emission Standards for Locomotives and Locomotive Engines: Final Rule." 63 FR 18978 (April 16, 1998).
Available from: FDsys, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-1998-04-16/pdf/98-7769.pdf: Accessed: 08/15/2011.
25	"Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Process for Exempting Critical Uses From the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide."
69 FR 76982 (December 23, 2004). Available from FDsys, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-2004-12-23/pdf/Q4-
27905.pdf: Accessed: 08/15/2011.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 31 of 62

-------
indicate those reviews which were suggested during the public comment periods held for this
Plan.
1.	Vehicle fuel vapor recovery systems: eliminating redundancy
2.	** New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) under the CAA for grain elevators,
amendments: updating outmoded requirements and relieving burden
3.	** Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) and peak flow wet weather discharges: clarifying
permitting requirements
4.	** E-Manifest: reducing burden
5.	Electronic hazardous waste Site ID form: reducing burden
6.	** Consumer confidence reports for primary drinking water regulations: providing for the
open exchange of information
7.	** Reporting requirements under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA):
reducing burden
8.	** Export notification for chemicals and pesticides: reducing burden and improving
efficiencies
9.	** Water quality trading: improving approaches
10.	** Water quality standard regulations: simplifying and clarifying requirements
11.**	State Implementation Plan (SIP) process: reducing burden
12.	** National primary drinking water regulations for lead and copper: simplifying and
clarifying requirements
13.	Adjusting threshold planning quantities (TPQs) for solids in solution: reducing burden
and relying on scientific objectivity
14.	Integrated pesticide registration reviews: reducing burden and improving efficiencies
15.	** Certification of pesticide applicators: eliminating uncertainties and improving
efficiencies
16.	** Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) reforms: improving efficiencies and effectiveness
17.	** Hazardous waste requirements for retail products: clarifying and making the program
more effective
18.	Contaminants under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): coordinating regulatory
requirements
19.	**Section 610 reviews: coordinating requirements
2.2.1	Vehicle fuel vapor recovery systems: eliminating redundancy
Reason for inclusion: This ongoing retrospective review is included in the Plan because EPA
intends to seek burden reductions for gas stations by eliminating regulatory requirements that
call for the use of redundant technology. This review is in keeping with EO 13563's directive to
eliminate redundant requirements.
Background: Onboard refueling vapor recovery technology on today's gasoline-powered
vehicles effectively controls harmful air emissions as cars and trucks refuel, thereby eliminating
the need for controls at the gas pump. This ongoing review is intended to eliminate the gas
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 32 of 62

-------
dispenser-based vapor control requirements that have become redundant due to this onboard
technology, and thereby relieve states of the obligation to require pump-based Stage II vapor
recovery systems at gasoline stations. EPA issued a proposed rule on July 15, 2011.26
Estimated potential cost or burden reduction: Taking into consideration the costs associated
with the removal of vapor recovery equipment and the use of less expensive conventional
equipment on the gasoline dispensers, as well as the reductions in record-keeping requirements
and other operating costs, EPA estimates the long-term cost savings associated with this rule to
be approximately $87 million per year (2010$).
Next step: EPA intends to issue a final rule in summer 2012.
2.2.2	**27 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) under the
CAA for grain elevators, amendments: updating outmoded
requirements and relieving burden
Reason for inclusion: This review is part of the Plan because EPA intends to evaluate the
technology that is used to determine the regulation's stringency, in keeping with EO 13563's
directive to revise or repeal outmoded or burdensome regulatory requirements.
Background: EPA is undertaking this review in response to comments from the NSPS Subpart
DD Coalition, which is made up of six organizations: the Corn Refiners Association, the North
American Millers' Association, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the National Grain
and Feed Association, the National Oilseed Processors Association, the USA Rice Federation,
and the National Oilseed Processors Association. The comments call on EPA to review the
NSPS for grain elevators which was promulgated in 1978 and last reviewed in 1984. The
Coalition comments that the basis EPA used to determine applicability and rule stringency have
changed fundamentally, and that a review is needed.
EPA agrees that since promulgation there have been a number of changes in the technology used
for storing and loading/unloading grain at elevators. Moreover, the rule has seen increased
activity of late, due to the increase in ethanol production that has led to increased corn
production and grain storage. For these reasons, EPA intends to review the existing NSPS for
grain elevators to ensure the appropriate standards are being applied consistently throughout the
industry.
Next step: We expect to propose amendments by December 2012.
26	"Air Quality: Widespread Use for Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery and Stage II Waiver (Proposed Rule)." 76
FR 41731 (July 15, 2011). Available from: FDsys, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-201 l-07-15/pdf/2011-
17888.pdf: Accessed: 08/15/11.
27	Asterisks (**) preceding the heading of a review indicate those reviews which were suggested during the public
comment period helds for this Plan.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 33 of 62

-------
2.2.3	** Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) and peak flow wet weather
discharges: clarifying permitting requirements
Reason for inclusion: This review is included in the plan so that EPA can gather additional
information about the most effective way to manage wastewater that flows through municipal
sewage treatment plants during heavy rains or other wet weather periods that cause an increase in
the flow of water (these are collectively known as "peak flows"). EPA intends to evaluate
options that are appropriate for addressing Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) and peak flow wet
weather discharges and determine if a regulatory approach, voluntary approach, or other
approach is the best path forward. This is consistent with EO 13563's directive to clarify
regulatory requirements.
Background: During periods of wet weather, wastewater flows received by municipal sewage
treatment plants can significantly increase, which can create operational challenges for sewage
treatment facilities. Where peak flows approach or exceed the design capacity of a treatment
plant they can seriously reduce treatment efficiency or damage treatment units.
One engineering practice that some facilities use to protect biological treatment units from
damage and to prevent overflows and backups elsewhere in the system is referred to as "wet
weather blending." Wet weather blending occurs during peak wet weather flow events when
flows that exceed the capacity of the biological units are routed around the biological units and
blended with effluent from the biological units prior to discharge. Regulatory agencies, sewage
treatment plant operators, and representatives of environmental advocacy groups have expressed
uncertainty about National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements
concerning peak flows.
In June and July 2010, EPA held listening sessions to gather information on issues associated
28
with SSOs and peak flow wet weather discharges. EPA received extensive verbal and written
29
comments. Subsequently, EPA held a stakeholder workshop on July 14 and 15, 2011, in which
designated representatives from the following stakeholder organizations participated in a
facilitated discussion on the issues most important to them in regulating SSOs and peak flow
discharges:
•	Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators,
•	National Association of Clean Water Agencies,
•	American Rivers,
•	Natural Resources Defense Council,
•	Cahaba River Society, and
28	"Stakeholder Input; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Requirements for
Municipal Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems, Municipal Satellite Collection Systems, Sanitary Sewer Overflows,
and Peak Wet Weather Discharges From Publicly Owned Treatment Works Treatment Plants Serving Separate
Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems (Notice)." 75 FR 30395 (June 01, 2010). Available from: FDsys,
htto://www.gpo. gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-2010-06-0l/pdf/2010-13098.pdf: Accessed: 08/15/11.
29	"Notice of EPA Workshop on Sanitary Sewer Overflows and Peak Wet Weather Discharges; Notice," 76 FR
35215 (June 16, 2011). Available from: FDsys, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-201 l-06-16/pdf/201 l-15003.pdf:
Accessed: 08/15/11.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 34 of 62

-------
• W ater Environment F ederation.
In addition to the designated representatives, over 70 members of the public attended the
workshop.
The workshop provided representatives of key stakeholder groups an opportunity to provide their
view on potential NPDES requirements for SSOs and peak flows at publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) served by sanitary sewers. All of the representatives at the workshop supported
an EPA rulemaking to clarify NPDES permit requirements for SSOs that addressed reporting;
recordkeeping; public notice; capacity, management, operation and maintenance (CMOM)
programs; and requirements for municipal satellite collection systems. While there was
agreement on core provisions that should be included in NPDES permits and the need to regulate
municipal satellite collection systems, stakeholders had differing views on a number of issues,
including which if any basement backups should be reported, whether to excuse or allow SSOs
caused by extreme events, and the appropriate role of peak excess flow treatment facilities
located in the collection system. Stakeholders also discussed the use of high-efficiency side-
treatment of wet weather diversions around secondary treatment units.
Next Step: By summer 2012, EPA intends to consider the comments received from our
workshop participants in determining next steps.
2.2.4	** E-Manifest: reducing burden
Reason for inclusion: EPA is exploring ways to reduce burden for hazardous waste generators,
transporters, and permitted waste management facilities by transitioning from a paper-based
reporting system to electronic reporting. This is consistent with EO 13563's directive to reduce
regulatory burden.
Background: Currently, hazardous waste generators, transporters, and permitted waste
management facilities must complete and carry a 6-ply paper manifest form as the means to
comply with the "cradle-to-grave" tracking requirements required for off-site hazardous waste
shipments under Section 6922(a)(5) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
30
statute. EPA and our stakeholders advocate developing electronic hazardous waste manifesting
services that EPA would host as a national system. This electronic system would allow
stakeholders the option of using electronic manifests in lieu of the current 6-ply paper forms.
Stakeholders recommended in 2004 that EPA develop a national electronic manifest system
hosted by the Agency as a means to implement a consistent and secure approach to completing,
submitting, and keeping records of hazardous waste manifests electronically.
30 42 USC sec. 6299(a)(5) (2009). Note: Laws such as RCRA are codified in the U.S. Code. Some people may be
more familiar with the public law citation for this section, which is RCRA Sec. 3002(a)(5). The text of 42 USC sec.
6299(a)(5) is available from: FDsys, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/USCODE-2009-title42/pdf/USCQDE-2009-
title42-chap82-subchapIII-sec6922.pdf Accessed: 08/15/11.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 35 of 62

-------
Electronic manifests could be downloaded to mobile devices, and tracking data distribution
could be carried out electronically. Waste handlers could accomplish nearly real-time tracking
of waste shipments, EPA and states could maintain more effective oversight of hazardous waste
shipments, data quality and availability would be greatly improved, and the Agency could collect
and manage manifest data and Biennial Reporting data much more efficiently. The hazardous
waste industry is on record supporting a user fee funded approach to developing and operating
the e-Manifest system, and the Administration supports establishing an e-Manifest system.
Estimated potential cost or burden reduction: The development of a national e-Manifest
system would entail total intramural and extramural system development costs ranging from
$11.5 million to $20.7 million, depending on the chosen system design. For EPA's preferred
system design option, involving mobile PC devices that link to and exchange manifest data with
a national system, system development costs would total about $11.3 million (2010$) and
average annual operation and maintenance costs would total about $3.6 million (2010$). EPA
believes that such a system would produce annual savings to waste handlers and regulators
ranging between $76 million and $124 million (2010$).
Next steps: In the FY 2012 President's Budget EPA requested $2 million to begin the
development of an electronic hazardous waste manifest system. The Administration also
submitted to Congress a legislative proposal to collect user fees to support the development and
operation of this system. As part of the regulatory review plan, EPA proposes including the
efforts to finalize the rule that will allow tracking of hazardous waste using the electronic
manifest system.
2.2.5	Electronic hazardous waste Site ID form: reducing burden
Reason for inclusion: EPA is exploring ways to reduce burden for hazardous waste generators,
transporters, and permitted waste management facilities by transitioning from a paper-based site
ID application system to an electronic application system. This is consistent with EO 13563's
directive to reduce regulatory burden.
Background: RCRA requires individuals who (1) generate or transport hazardous waste or (2)
operate a facility for recycling, treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous waste, to notify EPA
or their authorized state waste management agency of their regulated waste activities and obtain
a RCRA Identification (ID) Number. The RCRA ID Number is a unique identification number,
assigned by EPA or the authorized state waste management agency, to hazardous waste handlers
(see categories described above) to enable tracking of basic site information and regulatory
status.
Currently, the Hazardous Waste Site ID form is an electronically-fillable PDF form. However,
after a facility types in their information, the facility must print the form, sign it, and then mail it
to the state or EPA Region. This is because the Site ID form requires a facility operator's wet
signature. Similar to submitting tax forms online, this process can be streamlined if EPA can
enable Site ID forms to be signed and submitted electronically. Electronically submitting Site ID
forms would: 1) save in mailing costs; 2) enable better data quality as the data would be entered
by the facility itself; 3) increase efficiency of the notification process as the facility could easily
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 36 of 62

-------
review its past submissions and submit updates to the Site ID form (rather than repeatedly filling
out the form again and again); and 4) enable states and EPA to receive the updated data faster.
As every Small Quantity Generator facility; Large Quantity Generator (LQG) facility; and
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) facility is required to use the Site ID form to obtain an
EPA ID number and to submit changes to facility information, electronically submitting Site ID
forms could potentially impact 50,000-100,000 facilities nationwide. In 2010, there were 97,610
submissions. As part of the Biennial Report, LQG and TSD facilities have to re-notify every two
years. State renewals are state-specific, but it is noted that several states require annual re-
notifications.
Next step: EPA estimates an electronic Site ID form could be implemented within a year after
the decision is made to move forward.
2.2.6	** Consumer confidence reports for primary drinking water
regulations: providing for the open exchange of information
Reason for inclusion: This action is included in the Plan so that EPA can explore ways to
promote greater transparency and public participation in protecting the Nation's drinking water,
in keeping with EO 13563's directive to promote participation and the open exchange of
information.
Background: Consumer Confidence Reports are a key part of public right-to-know in the
SDWA. The Consumer Confidence Report, or CCR, is an annual water quality report that a
community water system is required to provide to its customers. Community Water Systems
(CWSs) serving more than 10,000 persons are required to mail or otherwise directly deliver these
reports. States may allow CWSs serving fewer than 10,000 persons to provide these reports by
other means. The report lists the regulated contaminants found in the drinking water, as well as
health effects information related to violations of the drinking water standards. This helps
consumers make informed decisions.
As stakeholders discussed during the development of this Plan, there has been a major increase
and diversity in communication tools since 1998. EPA will consider reviewing the Consumer
Confidence Report Rule to look for opportunities to improve the effectiveness of communicating
drinking water information to the public, while lowering the burden of water systems and states.
One example suggested by water systems is to allow electronic delivery through e-mail, thereby
reducing mailing charges. This may also improve the readership of CCRs.
Estimated potential cost or burden reduction: EPA estimates a cost savings of approximately
$1,000,000 (2010$) per year, based on the anticipated reduction in postage and paper costs for
systems serving >10,000 customers.31
31 "Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Public Water
System Supervision Program (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 0270.43, OMB Control No. 2040-0090," 73 FR 32325 (June
6, 2008). Available fromFDsys, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-2008-06-06/pdf/E8-12709.pdf: Accessed:
[cont'd, on next page]
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 37 of 62

-------
Next step: EPA estimates that a retrospective review of the CCR could be completed within 12-
16 months after the review cycle begins in fiscal year 2012.
2.2.7	** Reporting requirements under Section 303(d) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA): reducing burden
Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to explore ways to reduce the burden on state governments
when reporting on the quality of the Nation's water bodies, per EO 13563 's directive to reduce
regulatory burden.
Background: On April 1 of every even numbered year, states report to EPA on the status of the
nation's waters to fulfill reporting requirements under CWA sections 303(d) and 305(b). The
requirement for states to report on the condition of their waters every two years under Section
305(b) is statutory. However, the requirement for states to identify impaired waters that need a
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) every two years under Section 303(d) is regulatory. States
have raised concerns that reporting this information every two years is a significant
administrative burden.
Next step: EPA intends to work with the public and states to identify alternative approaches for
reducing the burden associated with water quality reporting requirements and to evaluate the
impact of changing this reporting cycle under either or both CWA Sections 303(d) and 305(b).
EPA plans to review this activity by June 2012.
2.2.8	** Export notification for chemicals and pesticides: reducing
burden and improving efficiencies
Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to explore ways to reduce regulatory burden on pesticide
exporters and the foreign countries monitoring the exports, in keeping with EO 13563's directive
to reduce regulatory burden.
Background: The regulations issued pursuant to Section 12(b) of TSCA specify export
notification requirements for certain chemicals subject to regulation under TSCA Sections 4, 5,
6, and 7. The purpose of the export notification requirements of Section 12(b) of TSCA is to
ensure that foreign governments are alerted when EPA takes certain regulatory actions on
chemical substances being exported from the United States to those foreign countries, and to
communicate relevant information concerning the regulated chemicals. In addition, Section
17(a) of FIFRA requires that the foreign purchaser of a pesticide that is not registered by EPA
sign a statement, prior to export, acknowledging that the purchaser understands that the pesticide
08/15/11. The total annual cost estimate of delivering CCRs as bill inserts for systems serving > 10,000 customers
was reported in 2007$ and adjusted for inflation with the GDP deflator, providing a total annual cost estimate of $1
million (2010$). This figure is considered potential cost savings, because water systems could avoid these paper
delivery expenses as a result of electronic CCR reporting.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 38 of 62

-------
is not registered for use in the United States and cannot be sold in the United States. The
purpose of the export notification requirements of Section 17(a) is to ensure that foreign
purchasers and the regulatory authorities in the importing country know these pesticides do not
have an EPA registration; EPA registration carries a high degree of significance in other
countries. Under both the TSCA and FIFRA regulations, the export notifications must be
transmitted to an appropriate official of the government of the importing country, and is intended
to provide them with notice of the chemical's export and other relevant information, e.g. the
chemical's regulatory status in the U.S. and whether other information is available about the
chemical.
During the public involvement process for this Plan, industry reported that these export
notification requirements have resulted in a significant, and growing, number of export
notifications, which is burdensome both for them, and also for EPA and the receiving foreign
countries. Yet industry suggested that these requirements do not appear to provide comparable
benefits to public health or the environment.
EPA intends to review the implementing regulations to determine whether there are any
opportunities to reduce overall burden on exporters, the Agency, and receiving countries, while
still ensuring that the statutory mandates are followed. For example, EPA is considering whether
some or all of the transaction could be accomplished through electronic media and whether other
changes to the process could provide efficiencies that would benefit all parties.
Next step: EPA is currently developing a workplan for completing this review effort within the
next 12 months. The Agency intends to identify a timeline and process for engaging
stakeholders in this review.
2.2.9	** Water quality trading: improving approaches
Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to review the 2003 Water Quality Trading Policy to
determine whether revisions could help increase adoption of market-based approaches, in which
trading is a leading example, to increase the implementation of cost-effective pollutant
reductions. This is in keeping with EO 13563's directive to reduce burden and the principle of
maximizing net benefits.
32
Background: In 2003, EPA issued its final Water Quality Trading Policy, which provides a
framework for trading pollution reduction credits to promote cost-effective improvements in
water quality, consistent with the goals and requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA). This
policy has been a success in encouraging states and stakeholders to give greater attention to
market-based approaches for achieving water quality-based pollutant reductions beyond the
technology-based requirements of the Act, as well as ancillary environmental benefits including
carbon sequestration, habitat protection, and open space preservation. Based upon public input
32 See EPA's 2003 Water Quality Trading Policy. Citation: —. Environmental Protection Agency. "Water Quality
Trading Policy." Washington: EPA, January 13, 2003. Available from: the EPA website,
http://water.epa.gov/tvpe/watersheds/trading/tradingpolicv.cfm: Accessed: 08/15/11.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 39 of 62

-------
and EPA's support and review of water quality trading programs over the past eight years, EPA
believes that significant, cost-effective pollutant reductions, particularly from non-point sources,
remain untapped, and will explore ways to revise the policy to reflect new understanding and
innovation. One area of innovation being considered by many stakeholders is stormwater
trading.
EPA intends to begin this process with a workshop or other forum to solicit ideas from the public
on barriers to trading and other market-based approaches under the current policy, and ways to
reduce these barriers.
Next step: EPA intends to begin this process with a workshop or other forum to be held in 2012.
2.2.10 ** Water quality standard regulations: simplifying and
clarifying requirements
Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to review water quality standard (WQS) regulations to
identify ways to improve the Agency's effectiveness in helping restore and maintain the Nation's
waters and to simplify standards. This is consistent with EO 13563's directive to simplify
regulatory requirements.
Background: Water Quality Standards are the foundation of the water quality-based pollution
control program mandated by the Clean Water Act. The WQS define the goals for a waterbody
by designating its uses, setting criteria to protect those uses, and establishing provisions such as
antidegradation policies to protect waterbodies from pollutants. Since the current WQS
regulation was last revised in 1983, a number of issues have been raised by stakeholders or
identified by EPA in the implementation process that could benefit from clarification and greater
specificity. The proposed rule is expected to provide clarity in six key program areas
(summarized in greater detail below), and EPA intends to better achieve program goals by
providing enhanced water resource protection and clearer and simplified requirements.
Key policy issues associated with the action:
1.	Administrator's determination that new or revised WQS are necessary: Establish a
more transparent process for the Administrator to announce a determination that new or
revised WQS are necessary under Section 303(c)(4)(B) of the Act.
2.	Designated uses: Ensure states and tribes are striving to meet water quality goals even
where full attainment of Clean Water Act standards is unattainable.
3.	Triennial review requirements: Ensure states' and tribes' WQS are continuously
updated and reflect EPA's latest criteria recommendations.
4.	Antidegradation: Enhance state and tribal implementation of antidegradation and help
better maintain and protect high quality waters.
5.	Variances to WQS: Provide regulatory flexibility and boundaries to allow states and
tribes to achieve water quality improvements before resorting to a use change.
6.	Authorizing compliance schedules: Clarify that, in order to issue compliance
schedules, states and tribes must first authorize compliance schedules in their WQS.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 40 of 62

-------
Next step: EPA intends to propose a targeted set of revisions to the WQS regulation in early
winter 2011/2012, and a final rulemaking in early summer 2012.
2.2.11 ** State Implementation Plan (SIP) process: reducing burden
Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to reduce hard copies, ensure that certain hearings are held
only when needed, minimize the number of expensive newspaper advertisements providing
public notice, and explore the potential for certain regulatory changes to be made with less
process. This is in keeping with EO 13563's directive to reduce regulatory burden. The
improvements to the SIP development process that are under consideration as a result of these
actions are expected to reduce cost and burden to states and EPA Regional Offices. These
actions should help to simplify the process, and are expected to conserve state and federal
resources. Improvements such as reduced newspaper publication and hard copy submittals,
elimination of unnecessary public hearings, and increased use of letter notices are expected to
result in an ongoing cost savings. To the extent that final decisions on SIPs are made more
quickly as a result of the process improvements, they are expected to provide greater certainty to
stakeholders and to the general public.
Background: EPA and states are working together to review the administrative steps that states
must follow when they adopt and submit plans to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
These plans describe how areas with air quality problems will attain and maintain the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards.
33
EPA recently shared a number of simplifying changes to SIPs with the states via guidance.
These changes will minimize or eliminate (1) formal hearings on matters of no public interest,
(2) expensive advertisements in newspapers with low readership, and (3) shipment of multiple
hard copies of documents. Additionally, a state-EPA working group is considering (1) training
tools that would assist states developing nonattainment SIPs for the first time, and (2) ways to
provide states with information that will better equip them to deal with SIPs (e.g. SIP
status/approval information, information on innovative measures).
We are also considering additional changes:
•	Exploring options for reducing the paper submittals of SIP revisions in favor of electronic
submittals.
•	Determining whether and how the process for making minor plan revisions might be
simplified.
Next step: The timeframes for these milestones will be determined at a later date.
33 "Regional Consistency for the Administrative Requirements of State Implementation Plan Submittals and the Use
of "Letter Notices," April 6, 2011 (Memorandum from Office of Air and Radiation Deputy Assistant Administrator
Janet McCabe to EPA Regional Administrators)." Available from: the EPA website.
http://www.epa.gov/glo/pdfs/20110406mccabetoRAs.pdf: Accessed 08/15/11.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 41 of 62

-------
2.2.12 ** National primary drinking water regulations for lead and
copper: simplifying and clarifying requirements
Reason for inclusion: Efforts to revise the Lead and Copper Rule (also referred to as the LCR)
have been ongoing but this review is part of the Plan because EPA intends to seek ways to
simplify and clarify requirements imposed on drinking water systems to maintain safe levels of
lead and copper in drinking water. This is in keeping with EO 13563's directive to simplify
regulatory requirements.
Background: On June 7, 1991, EPA published LCR to control lead and copper in drinking
water. The treatment technique for the rule requires community water systems and non-
transient non-community water systems to monitor drinking water at customer taps. If lead and
copper concentrations exceed action levels in more than 10% of customer taps sampled, the
system must undertake a number of additional actions to reduce lead levels. If the action level
for lead is exceeded, the system must also inform the public about steps they should take to
protect their health.
While LCR is an important means for reducing children's exposure to lead, stakeholders have
commented that the rule is hard to understand and implement. Under the LCR review, EPA has
been evaluating ways to improve public health protections provided by the rule as well as
streamline rule requirements by making substantive changes based on topics that were identified
in the 2004 National Review of the LCR.
Next step: EPA currently expects to issue a proposed rulemaking in 2012.
2.2.13 Adjusting threshold planning quantities (TPQs) for solids in
solution: reducing burden and relying on scientific objectivity
Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to revise TPQs for chemicals that are handled as non-
reactive solids in solution. EPA is undertaking this review in order to align regulatory
requirements with best available science and reduce regulatory burden, as called for in EO
13563.
Background: The extremely hazardous substances (EHSs) list and its TPQs, developed pursuant
to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), are intended to help
communities focus on the substances and facilities of most immediate concern for emergency
planning and response.35 EPA is considering an alternative approach for the TPQs for chemicals
on the EHSs list that are handled as non-reactive solids in solution. EPA is pursuing this
approach in part based on industry's request to revisit the TPQ rationale for the chemical
34	—. Environmental Protection Agency. "Lead and Copper Rule: A Quick Reference Guide." (Publication No.
EPA-816-F-08-018). Washington: EPA, June 2008. Available from: the EPA website,
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/lcr/upload/LeadandCopperOuickReferenceGuide 2008.pdf: Accessed:
08/15/11.
35	More information about TPQs for EHSs: http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/epcra/epcra ammend.htm.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 42 of 62

-------
paraquat dichloride (handled as a solid in aqueous solution). These regulatory revisions reflect
EPA's use of best current science, and offer streamlining for facilities while maintaining
environmental safeguards since solids in solutions are less likely to be dispersed into the air in
event of an accidental release and have less impact on the off-site community.
Next step: EPA intends to complete a final rule by fall 2012.
2.2.14 Integrated pesticide registration reviews: reducing burden and
improving efficiencies
Reason for inclusion: EPA is reviewing the pesticide registration process, outlined in Section 3
of FIFRA, as well as other FIFRA requirements, in order to achieve efficiencies for pesticide
producers and other registrants, the public, and the Agency, in keeping with EO 13563's
directive to relieve regulatory burden.
Background: Under the FIFRA, EPA reviews all current pesticide registrations every 15 years
to ensure they continue to meet the protective FIFRA standard in light of new information and
evolving science. To efficiently manage this very large effort, we are bundling chemicals by
classes of pesticides with similar modes of operation or uses (e.g., neonicitinoids, pyrethroids).
This has significant efficiency benefits for registrants, the public, and EPA, such as:
•	Cost savings resulting from evaluating similar chemicals at the same time - Instead
of EPA reviewing data and developing multiple independent risk assessments for
individual chemicals, a number of similar chemicals can be cost-effectively evaluated at
the same time. Registrants have greater certainty of a "level playing field" as the policies
and state-of-the-science are the same at the time all of the pesticides in a class are
evaluated. Registrants can form task forces to share the cost of producing data and to
negotiate the design of any special studies required for a family of pesticides.
•	Higher quality and more comprehensive assessment of cumulative impacts -
Grouping classes of pesticides for consideration enhances our ability to meet our
responsibilities in areas such as considering the impacts on endangered species and
consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in the Department of the Interior
and the National Marine Fisheries Service in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) in the Department of Commerce. Because FWS and NOAA
could also consider a class of pesticides on a common timeframe, there is a greater
likelihood that they would recommend consistent Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives in
their Biological Opinions should consultation be required, which would provide benefits
to pesticide registrants and users.
•	Reduced burden for registrants by minimizing redundant data submissions and
allowing comprehensive discussion of issues and risk management approaches - For
instance, a registrant task force could coordinate production of data for common
degradates, and possibly demonstrate to the Agency how data for a subset of pesticides in
a class could be bridged to provide sufficient information for the entire class of
pesticides.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 43 of 62

-------
•	Enhanced public participation - Bundling chemicals can also benefit public
participation in the registration review process. Rather than tracking actions, providing
data and providing input on individual chemicals, the public can more effectively engage
on entire groups of chemicals.
•	More flexible prioritization - Bundling chemicals for review makes it easier to adjust
priorities if circumstances demand. If new information or risk concerns demonstrate the
need for accelerated review, it is easier to adjust resources and schedules when similar
chemicals are already grouped together for action. For instance, when California
accelerated their re-evaluation of pyrethroid registrations after the publication of new
stream sediment monitoring data, the Agency was in a position to coordinate data
requirements and study designs with California because it had already scheduled the
registration review of pyrethroids as a class for the near future.
Next step: Some near-term examples of this chemical bundling include initiating registration
reviews for the neonicotinoid insecticides and sulfonylurea herbicides in the next 12-18 months.
2.2.15 ** Certification of pesticide applicators: eliminating
uncertainties and improving efficiencies
Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to review regulations for certification and training of
pesticide applicators (40 CFR 171) to help clarify requirements and modify potentially redundant
or restrictive requirements, in keeping with EO 13563's directive to reduce regulatory burden.
Background: By law, certain pesticides may be applied only by or under the direct supervision
of specially trained and certified applicators. Certification and training programs are conducted
by states, territories, and tribes in accordance with national standards. EPA has been in extensive
discussions with stakeholders since 1997, when the Certification and Training Assessment Group
(CTAG) was established. CTAG is a forum used by regulatory and academic stakeholders to
discuss the current state of, and the need for improvements in, the national certified pesticide
applicator program. In July of 2004, well over a million private, state, federal, and tribal
commercial certified applicators had active pesticide applicator certificates in the U.S.
Based on extensive interactions with stakeholders, EPA has identified the potential for
streamlining activities which could reduce the burden on the regulated community by promoting
better coordination among the state, federal, and tribal partnerships; clarifying requirements; and
modifying potentially redundant or restrictive regulation. This review would also consider
strengthening the regulations to better protect pesticide applicators, the public, and the
environment from harm due to pesticide exposure. In addition, resources and time permitting,
EPA intends to consider the use of innovative technology tools (e.g., investigation of the use of
educational tools such as web based tools), including consideration of the need to ensure
communication and training is available to non-English speakers.
Next step: EPA intends to propose improvements to these regulations in 2012.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 44 of 62

-------
2.2.16 ** Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) reforms: improving
efficiencies and effectiveness
Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to examine existing PCB guidance and regulations to
harmonize regulatory requirements related to harmful PCB uses and to PCB cleanup. This is in
keeping with EO 13563's directive to simplify and harmonize rules.
Background: EPA regulations governing the use of PCBs in electrical equipment and other
applications were first issued in the late 1970s and have not been updated since 1998. EPA has
initiated a rulemaking to reexamine these ongoing PCB uses with an eye to ending or phasing out
uses that can no longer be justified under Section 6(e) of the Toxics Substances and Control Act
(TSCA), which requires that EPA determine certain authorized uses will not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment. In addition, EPA recognizes that its
cleanup program for PCBs may create barriers to the timely cleanup of sites that are
contaminated with PCBs and other toxic constituents under EPA's other cleanup programs.
Thus, EPA intends to look for opportunities to improve PCB regulations and related guidance to
facilitate quicker and more effective PCB cleanups, for example with respect to PCB-
contaminated caulk. EPA has already started looking for opportunities to improve PCB cleanup
guidance and intends to work with states to identify areas for focus and plans to describe those
results in future updates of our retrospective reviews.
Next step: EPA intends to look in the future (not earlier than 2013), after guidance revision
opportunities are completed, at whether there are remaining issues that need regulatory revisions
to facilitate quicker and more effective PCB cleanups.
2.2.17 ** Hazardous waste requirements for retail products: clarifying
and making the program more effective
Reason for inclusion: A national retailer submitted comments on the regulatory review plan and
outlined during the public listening sessions a number of issues that retailers face in complying
with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste regulations. EPA
intends to gather data that could, in the future, inform a potential review of RCRA hazardous
waste requirements to determine how they might be clarified or modified for retail products,
consistent with EO 13563's directive to make regulatory programs more effective or less
burdensome.
Background: Retailers face uncertainty in managing the wide range of retail products that may
become wastes if unsold, returned, or removed from shelves for inventory changes. The issues
raised include how to determine when unsold materials and materials returned by consumers
become waste, how to make hazardous waste determinations for the many different kinds of
materials that may become waste, and how the regulations apply to pharmaceuticals from retail
pharmacies.
Next steps: The Agency is taking several steps to address these issues. First, EPA intends to
review its regulations to determine whether to issue guidance in the short term concerning certain
pharmaceutical containers.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 45 of 62

-------
Second, EPA intends to review the data and information in our possession about pharmaceutical
products that may become wastes to address these issues as part of a rulemaking on
pharmaceutical waste management.
Third, EPA intends to analyze relevant information to identify what the issues of concern are,
what materials may be affected, what the scope of the problem is, and what options may exist for
addressing the issues. EPA would then determine what future actions, if any, may be appropriate
based on EPA's evaluation of the data gathered.
2.2.18 Contaminants under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA):
coordinating regulatory requirements
Reason for inclusion: EPA intends to coordinate drinking water regulatory requirements and
regulate more cost-effectively by addressing contaminants as groups.
Background: On March 22, 2010, EPA announced a new Drinking Water Strategy, which was
aimed at finding ways to strengthen public health protection from contaminants in drinking
water.36 This collaborative effort across EPA program offices is intended to streamline decision-
making and expand protection under existing laws, and to enable EPA to provide more robust
public health protection in an open and transparent manner, assist small communities to identify
cost and energy efficient treatment technologies, and build consumer confidence by providing
more efficient sustainable treatment technologies to deliver safe water at a reasonable cost. To
obtain input on the strategy, EPA held four public listening sessions around the country, hosted a
web-based discussion forum, and met with the National Drinking Water Advisory Council. In
addition, EPA held a web dialogue and stakeholder meeting focused on the first goal of the
strategy. The first goal of the strategy is to address contaminants as groups rather than one at a
time, so that enhancement of drinking water protection can be achieved cost-effectively.
The Agency announced in February 2011 that it plans to develop one national drinking water
regulation (NDWR) covering up to sixteen carcinogenic Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).
EPA intends to propose a regulation to address carcinogenic contaminants as groups rather than
individually in order to provide public health protections more quickly and also allow utilities to
more effectively and efficiently plan for improvements. This action is part of the Agency's
Drinking Water Strategy to help streamline implementation of drinking water rules for the
regulated community.
Next step: EPA expects to issue a proposed rulemaking in the fall of 2013.
36 See http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/dwstrategy/index.cfm
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 46 of 62

-------
2.2.19 **Section 610 reviews: coordinating requirements
Reason for inclusion: This review is included in the Plan because EPA intends to coordinate
retrospective reviews that arise from a variety of statutory and Presidential mandates. Where
appropriate, EPA intends to coordinate our small business retrospective reviews, required by
Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, with other required reviews (e.g., under the Clean
Air Act). This will aid in meeting EO 13563 's directive to reduce or eliminate redundant,
inconsistent, or overlapping requirements.
Background: Under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA is required to review
regulations that have or will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities (SISNOSE) within ten years of promulgation. Section 610 specifically requires review
of such regulations to determine the continued need for the rule; the nature of complaints or
comments received concerning the regulation from the public since promulgation; the
complexity of the regulation; the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with
other federal regulations, and, to the extent feasible, with state and local government regulations;
and the length of time since the regulation has been evaluated or the degree to which technology,
economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the regulation. These
areas effectively promote many of the same principles of transparency, streamlining, and
flexibility outlined in EO 13563. To the extent practicable, EPA plans to use the opportunity
under this Plan to combine our Section 610 reviews with other reviews.
Next steps: EPA's upcoming 610 reviews include:
•	National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent
Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations due by February
2013;
•	NESHAP: Reinforced Plastic Composites Production due by April 2013; and
•	Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel due by
June 2014.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 47 of 62

-------
3 Public Involvement and Agency Input for litis Pkm
EPA developed this Plan by gathering input from the public during two public comment periods,
one of which was held before the preliminary Plan was released and one held afterwards. We
also sought input from the Agency's subject matter experts who, outside of this retrospective
review effort, often interact with businesses, states, and other regulated entities, as well as other
stakeholders interested in EPA regulations. In parallel efforts, we sought to learn how public
stakeholders and Agency experts would recommend designing EP A's Preliminary Plan for
Periodic Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations. The regulatory reviews described in
section 2 respond to a number of the comments submitted by the public both in this forum and in
public outreach efforts conducted by EPA.
J ibl : -'-^olvemei •< • vveloping ^ an
Through EPA's public involvement process, the Agency gathered verbal and written public
comments on the design of the Plan and on regulations that should be candidates for
retrospective review. EPA opened two public comment periods during the development of this
Plan. The first was held from February 18, 2011, to April 4, 2011 and gathered the public's
written comments on how the Plan should be designed. During the first comment period, EPA
also held a series of meetings to gather additional input. The second comment period was held
from May 26, 2011, to June 27, 2011. It was held after the release of EPA's preliminary Plan
and invited additional public comments on the Plan.
3.1.1	Public Comment Period #1
EPA posted the "Improving Our Regulations" website
(http://www.epa.gov/improvingregulations) on February 18, 2011. The site provided direct links
to a total of fifteen dockets established in Regulations.gov where members of the public could
submit written comments about how EPA should design the Plan during the first comment
period. Many commenters also suggested regulations as candidates for retrospective review.
Fourteen of the dockets allowed the public to submit ideas by:
•	Issue or impact:
o Benefits and costs (Docket # EPA-HQ-0A-2011-0158)
o Compliance (EPA-HQ-0A-2011-0166)
o Economic conditions / market (EP A-HQ-0 A-2011-0167)
o Environmental justice / children's health / elderly (EP A-HQ-0 A-2011-0168)
o Integration and innovation (EP A-HQ-0 A-2011-0161)
o Least burdensome / flexible approaches (EP A-HQ-0 A-2011-0165)
o Science / obsolete / technology outdated (EP A-HQ-0 A-2011-0162)
o Small business (EP A-HQ-0 A-2011-0164)
o State, local and tribal governments (EP A-HQ-0 A-2011-0163)
•	Program area:
o Air (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0155)
o Pesticides (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0157)
o Toxic substances (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0159)
o Waste (EP A-HQ-0 A-2011-0160)
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 48 of 62

-------
o Water (EPA-HQ-0A-2011-0154)
A fifteenth docket collected general comments (EPA-HQ-0A-2011-0156) that spanned more
than one issue/impact or program area. Also, we established an email account where members
of the public could submit their ideas: ImprovingRegulations. SuggestionBox@epa. gov. And
finally, EPA issued a Federal Register (FR) notice3 to ensure that people who lacked Internet
access could read EPA's call for public comment.
The website, dockets, and FR notice included guiding questions based on the principles of EO
13563 and EPA's priorities. The Agency provided these questions to guide the public in
formulating their ideas, not to restrict their comments. (See the questions in the appendix.)
Written comments were initially solicited from February 18 - March 20, 2011. After hearing
many requests from the public to extend the comment period, EPA extended the due date to
April 4, 2011. Hundreds of submissions were made to the public dockets. To advertise the
public comment process and the public meetings, we issued a press release, publicized on our
Open Government website and other key websites, and posted on the Agency's Facebook and
Twitter pages.
3.1.2	Public Meetings
Verbal comments were solicited at a series of twenty public meetings. On March 14, EPA held a
day-long public meeting in Arlington, Virginia, focused on all aspects of the Plan. The first half
of the day focused on how to design the Plan. The second half was divided into targeted,
concurrent sessions that focused on five areas: air, pesticides, toxic substances, waste, and water.
Additionally, EPA held nineteen more town halls and listening sessions targeting specific
programs areas (e.g. solid waste and emergency response) and EPA Regions. In total,
approximately 600 members of the public attended.
3.1.3	Public Comment Period #2
The preliminary version of this Plan was released on May 26, 2011. That same day, in keeping
38
with OMB guidance, EPA opened a second public comment period that ended on June 27,
37	EPA issued a Federal Register (FR) notice on February 23, 2011, to announce the first public comment period
and public meeting. EPA subsequently issued a second FR notice on March 18th to extend the first comment period.
The respective citations are:
•	"Improving EPA Regulations; Request for Comment; Notice of Public Meeting (Request for comment;
notice of public meeting)." 76 FR 9988 (February 23, 2011). Available from: FDsys,
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-201 l-02-23/pdf/201 l-4152.pdf: Accessed: 08/15/11.
•	"Extension of Comment Period: EPA's Plan for Retrospective Review Under Executive Order 13563
(Extension of comment period.)" 76 FR 14840 (March 18, 2011). Available from: FDsys,
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-201 l-03-18/pdf/201 l-6413.pdf: Accessed: 08/15/11.
38	"Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations, April 25, 2011 (Memorandum from Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs Administrator Cass R. Sunstein)." Available from: the Office of Management and Budget,
website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2011/mll-19.pdf: Accessed 08/15/2011.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 49 of 62

-------
2011. The second comment period gave the public the opportunity to provide written comments
after reading the preliminary document. During this second comment period, the public could
submit comments via our general comments docket (EPA-HQ-0A-2011-0156). In total,
39
between this comment period and the first one, EPA received over 800 comments.
Although EPA is unable to conduct - all at one time - the many reviews that were suggested
during our two public comment periods and in the public meetings, the comments will be
retained in our publicly accessible Regulations.gov dockets and EPA intends to once again
review the comments in the future five-year review periods described in section 4.
' " jeriey inpu • ^ an
While EPA's public involvement process was underway, the Agency also engaged in an
extensive process to tap the expertise of regulatory professionals throughout EPA and
complement ideas gathered from the public. A cross-Agency workgroup helped craft the Plan
and collected nominations for retrospective reviews from EPA's rule-writing experts, as well as
those who work on regulatory enforcement and compliance. Staff and managers in EPA's ten
Regional offices hold responsibilities for executing EPA's programs within the Nation's states,
territories, and tribal nations. The Regions also assisted with the design of the Plan and
indentified regulations that should be candidates for retrospective review.
Moreover, EPA combined efforts in the development of this Plan during preparation of the
Spring 2011 Semiannual Regulatory Agenda. The Agenda describes a broad universe of
regulatory activities under development or review, as well as recently completed regulations.
This comprehensive report of regulations currently under development includes a number of
activities that EPA identified as responsive to EO 13563. EPA has a long history of reviewing
regulations and related activities in an effort to continually improve its protection of human
health and the environment. It is the Agency's ongoing responsibility to listen to regulated
groups and other stakeholders, rely on EPA expertise and quality scientific and economic
analyses, address petitions for regulatory revisions, and otherwise respond to public and internal
cues that indicate when reviews are necessary.
EPA determined which ongoing activities listed in our upcoming Spring 2011 Semiannual
Regulatory Agenda are themselves a retrospective review. While some of these regulatory
reviews are required by statute, many others are being examined by EPA as a discretionary
measure. EPA intends to apply the principles and directives of EO 13563 to these ongoing
reviews.
39 The preliminary version of this plan stated that EPA received over 1,400 public submissions during the first round
of public comments. Between the development of the preliminary plan and this final version, the
www.Regulations.gov system changed how submissions are counted; therefore, the total number decreased.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 50 of 62

-------
4 EPA's Plan for Future Periodic Regulatory Reviews
EPA has selected an initial list of regulations that are expected to be reviewed during our first
review period. However, EO 13563 also calls for "a.. .plan, consistent with law and its resources
and regulatory priorities, under which the agency will periodically review its existing significant
regulations..(emphasis added).40 Consistent with the commitment to periodic review and to
public participation, the EPA intends to continue to assess its existing significant regulations in
accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13563. We welcome public suggestions
about appropriate reforms. If, at any time, members of the public identify possible reforms to
modify, streamline, expand or repeal existing regulations, we will give those suggestions careful
consideration. This section of the Plan therefore defines a process that EPA intends to use for
predictable, transparent future reviews, to be conducted every five years.
-	-'agr .v. •< --^ersight of the F v
EPA's Regulatory Policy Officer (RPO) was responsible for developing this Plan for the EPA
Administrator. Going forward, the RPO intends to manage and oversee the execution of future
retrospective reviews; report on EPA's progress; and evaluate the Plan. EPA's RPO is the
Associate Administrator for the Office of Policy. Organizationally, the Office of Policy (OP) is
situated in the EPA Administrator's office and is independent from those parts of EPA that
routinely write and implement regulations (such as the Office of Air and Radiation and the
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention). OP is not a regulatory development office,
but it is responsible for a number of regulatory coordination, management, policy, and review
functions. Among other tasks, OP reviews the economic and scientific underpinnings of
regulations to help ensure consistency and sound decision-making, serves as the Administrator's
regulatory policy advisor, and liaises with the Office of Management and Budget and the Office
of Federal Register to ensure interagency review and publication of regulatory documents.
Given OP's role providing regulatory analysis, advice, and management - independent of other
offices' responsibility to promulgate and implement regulations - it is fitting that the RPO
oversees the implementation of this plan and the execution of future retrospective reviews.
-	V- ess for conducting retrospective -ev-iews
EPA plans to ask the public about our full range of regulations - soliciting comments on what
the public recommends for review - on a five-year cycle. The RPO also intends to ask for input
from EPA's subject matter experts who, outside of this retrospective review effort, often interact
with businesses, states, and other regulated entities, as well as other stakeholders interested in
EPA regulations. Every five years, the Agency intends to follow a four-step process for
retrospective reviews:
40 "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (Executive Order 13563)." 76 FR 3821 (January 21, 2011).
Available from: the Government Printing Office's Federal Digital System (FDsys):
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-201 l-01-21/pdf/201 l-1385.pdf: Accessed: 08/15/11.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 51 of 62

-------
/step
1: Solicit Nominations
At the start of each new review period, EPA plans to ask the public, other federal agencies,
and EPA experts to nominate regulations that are in need of review.
EPA pians to announce the new nomination period via the Semiannual Regulatory
Agenda, a press release, and related outreach tools.
EPA intends to collect public input via a Requlations.gov docket.
EPA plans to collect input from EPA experts via a staff-level "Regulatory Review
Workgroup," as well as senior management meetings.
Step 2: Select Regulations for Review
• From the nominees, EPA intends to select a discrete number of regulations for review. To
the extent permitted by law, selections are intended to be based on:
o Comments gathered in Step 1;
o The expertise of the EPA offices writing the regulations;
o Priorities of the day, such as judicial rulings, emergencies, etc.;
o Criteria described in subsection 4.3, and
o Agency resources.
Step 3: Conduct Retrospective Reviews
•	Rule-writing offices plan to review the selected regulations using the criteria described in
subsection 4.3.
•	The Agency intends to establish a docket for each regulation under review in order to
collect public comments on whether to revise the regulation, and if so, how.
•	EPA intends to announce which regulations are under review in the Semiannual
Regulatory Agenda and on the EPA website.
Step 4: Make Necessary Modifications
•	After collecting comments from the public and conducting our own analyses, EPA
intends to make modifications to any regulation that warrants it, as determined during
Step 3.
•	The Agency plans to announce such modifications in the Federal Register, the EPA
website, and the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda,
In each review period, the first three steps are expected to take approximately one year to
complete, giving the Agency the remaining four years, or more if needed, to complete
modifications as warranted.
4.3 Criteria for regulatory reviews
In each review period, EPA intends to use the principles and directives of EO 13563 both to help
determine which of the suggested regulations should be reviewed (Step 2 in subsection 4.2) and
to evaluate regulations under review (Step 3 in subsection 4.2) Consistent with applicable
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 52 of 62

-------
statutory requirements, during Step 2, the Agency intends to assess in a general way whether the
principle or directive is likely to have a bearing on the regulation's review; while during Step 3,
the Agency intends to analyze each regulation more fully and answer the questions that appear
under each heading below.
For example, the first principle listed in EO 13563 is: "[T]o the extent permitted by law, each
agency must, among other things propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are
difficult to quantify)."41 This principle corresponds to the "Benefits justify costs" heading below.
To the extent permitted by law, during Step 2, EPA intends to answer a general question such as
"Are there benefit and cost estimates related to this regulation that warrant review at this time?"
If yes, then during Step 3, the Agency intends to conduct a benefit-cost analysis to understand if
the benefits of continuing the regulation still justify its costs.
•	Benefits justify costs
o Now that the regulation has been in effect for some time, do the benefits of the
regulation still justify its costs?
•	Least burden
o Does the regulation impose requirements on entities that are also subject to
requirements under another EPA regulation? If so, what is the cumulative burden
and cost of the requirements imposed on the regulated entities?
o Does the regulation impose paperwork activities (reporting, recordkeeping, or
third party notifications) that could benefit from online reporting or electronic
recordkeeping?
o If this regulation has a large impact on small businesses, could it feasibly be
changed to reduce the impact while maintaining environmental protection?
o Do feasible alternatives to this regulation exist that could reduce this regulation's
burden on state, local, and/or tribal governments without compromising
environmental protection?
•	Net benefits
o Is it feasible to alter the regulation in such a way as to achieve greater cost
effectiveness while still achieving the intended environmental results?
•	Performance objectives
o Does the regulation have complicated or time-consuming requirements, and are
there feasible alternative compliance tools that could relieve burden while
maintaining environmental protection?
o Could this regulation be feasibly modified to better partner with other federal
agencies, state, local, and/or tribal governments?
41 Ibid.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 53 of 62

-------
• Alternatives to direct regulation
o Could this regulation feasibly be modified so as to invite public/private
partnerships while ensuring that environmental objectives are still met?
o Does a feasible non-regulatory alternative exist to replace some or all of this
regulation's requirements while ensuring that environmental objectives are still
met?
• Quantified benefits and costs / qualitative values
o Since being finalized, has this regulation lessened or exacerbated existing impacts
or created new impacts on vulnerable populations such as low-income or minority
populations, children, or the elderly?
o Are there feasible changes that could be made to this regulation to better protect
vulnerable populations?
• Open exchange of information
o Could this regulation feasibly be modified to make data that is collected more
accessible?
o Did the regulatory review consider the perspectives of all stakeholders?
• Coordination, simplification, and harmonization across agencies
o If this regulation requires coordination with other EPA regulations, could it be
better harmonized than it is now?
o If this regulation requires coordination with the regulations of other federal or
state agencies, could it be better harmonized with those regulations than it is now?
• Innovation
o Are there feasible changes that could be made to the regulation to promote
economic or job growth without compromising environmental protection?
o Could a feasible alteration be made to the regulation to spur new markets,
technologies, or jobs?
o Have new or less costly methods, technologies, and/or innovative techniques
emerged since this regulation was finalized that would allow regulated entities to
achieve the intended environmental results more effectively and/or efficiently?
• Flexibility
o Could this regulation include greater flexibilities for the regulated community to
encourage innovative thinking and identify the least costly methods for
compliance?
• Scientific and technological objectivity
o Has the science of risk assessment advanced such that updated assessments of the
regulation's impacts on affected populations such as environmental justice
communities, children or the elderly could be improved?
o Has the underlying scientific data changed since this regulation was finalized such
that the change supports revision to the regulation?
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 54 of 62

-------
o Has the regulation or a portion(s) of the regulation achieved its original objective
and become obsolete?
o Does the regulation require the use of or otherwise impose a scientific or technical
standard? If so, is that standard obsolete or does it otherwise limit the use of
updated or improved standards?
' ibl .-.--olvemer .ew periods
Just as the public has been involved in the development of this Plan, EPA plans to routinely
involve the public in our periodic retrospective review process. The Agency intends to ensure
regular public involvement by:
•	Starting each review period by soliciting input from the public - As we did for this
initial review period, EPA intends to collect public comments at the start of each five-
year review period to begin identifying nominees for regulatory review. This public
involvement process is described in section 4.2.
•	Using the existing tools to aid the public in tracking our review activities. EPA plans
to publicize our regulatory review schedule in the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda. In
this twice yearly publication, we plan to announce upcoming review periods and provide
status updates of the reviews underway. At this time, EPA expects to begin its next
review period in spring 2016.
Between the twice yearly publications of the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, EPA will
provide updates to Agency reviews on relevant portions of the EPA website. For
example, EPA intends to link the tracking tools for this Plan to EPA's Open Government
website for seamless integration of the Agency's retrospective review efforts and broader
transparency efforts. Also, EPA will share information about the plan on
42
http://www.epa.gov/improvingregulations/.
•	Making data and analyses available, whenever possible. Data.gov catalogs federal
government datasets and increases the ability of the public to easily find, download, and
use datasets that are generated and held by the federal government. EPA will strive to
make available, to the extent possible, the raw data used to conduct retrospective analyses
on www.data.gov. The Agency also intends to continue to provide access to underlying
analyses in the Regulations.gov docket established for a regulation.
•	Providing notice-and-comment opportunities as the Agency makes modifications to
regulations. As is typically the case for new rulemakings, EPA intends to issue a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for each modification resulting from a retrospective
42 This is the web address for the "Improving Regulations" website referenced in section 3 of this plan. The website
will be redesigned over time to incorporate ongoing updates to EPA's efforts.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 55 of 62

-------
review, during which the Agency would invite public comment on the proposed
modifications.
• Providing ways to contact EPA's RPO staff. At any time, the public may submit a
comment to RPO staff members about the Agency's Plan via the general comments
docket (EPA-HQ-0A-2011-0156). The Agency intends to make the docket easily
accessible on its website and in all materials and media related to the Plan.
sporting on each review period
As touched on in subsection 4.4, EPA intends to regularly report on its progress. EPA plans to
report on the regulations under review, as well as modifications resulting from the reviews, by
using EPA's Semiannual Regulatory Agenda. Also, the Agency intends to provide more
frequent updates on relevant portions of the EPA website and link online information to EPA's
Open Government website for seamless integration of the Agency's retrospective review efforts
and broader transparency efforts.
•*" ^ ฆฆฆ' r'lftef of review periods
EPA plans to begin a new retrospective review period every five years. The first review period
is expected to last from spring 2011 to spring 2016, the next period would then span spring 2016
to spring 2021, and subsequent periods would continue on five-year cycles. EPA intends to
begin each review period with a public solicitation, during which time EPA would ask the public
to nominate any of the Agency's existing regulations for retrospective review. The public
nomination process would be coupled with an internal effort to capture the nominations of EPA
experts.
At any time, EPA maintains the discretion to add to the list of nominated rules gathered from the
public, and EPA intends to select regulations for review using considerations that go beyond
those identified by the public. (See the considerations described in step 2, subsection 4.3.) The
Agency may choose to make changes to respond to public suggestions, judicial rulings,
emergencies, or other unexpected issues.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 56 of 62

-------
5 Evaluation of the First Review Period
In late 2016, as directed by OMB, EPA plans to lead an evaluation of the first review period to
identify the best practices and areas of improvement for the Plan. Among other things, EPA
plans to evaluate:
•	Whether the criteria used for retrospective reviews (listed in subsection 4.3) should be
expanded or otherwise modified.
•	The resources required to conduct the first review period, and the feasibility /
consequences of expending the same level of resources on an ongoing basis.
•	The results of the review (e.g., how many regulations were revised? in what ways?).
The results of this evaluation will be made available to the public via an announcement in EPA's
Regulatory Agenda, as well as the other, regular reporting mechanisms described in subsection
4.5.
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 57 of 62

-------
ง Contact Information
For more information about EPA's Plan and retrospective reviews, contact RPO staff at:
Email: ImprovingRegulations.SuggestionBox@epa.gov
Mail:
Regulatory Policy Officer
Re: Retrospective Review of Regulations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest (Mail Code 1803 A)
Washington, DC 20460
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 58 of 62

-------
istions offered during the public comment
period to help the public formulate their comments
The following questions - both general questions and questions categorized by issue or impact -
were published on EPA's Improving Our Regulations website and added to the fifteen dockets
that collected public comments during EPA's first public comment period that ran from
02/18/2011 to 04/04/2011. EPA provided this non-exhaustive list of questions to help the public
formulate their ideas; these questions were not intended to restrict the issues that the public may
wish to address.
General Questions
•	How should we identify candidate regulations for periodic retrospective review?
•	What criteria should we use to prioritize regulations for review?
•	How should our review plan be integrated with our existing requirements to conduct
retrospective reviews?
•	How often should we solicit input from the public?
•	What should be the timing of any given regulatory review (e.g., should a regulation be in
effect for a certain amount of time before it is reviewed)?
Questions Specif ^ •• „NSue or Impact
Benefits and Costs
(Regulations.gov Docket #EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0158)
•	Which regulations have high costs and low benefits? What data support this?
•	Which regulations could better maximize net benefits (including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and
equity)? What data support this? What quantitative and qualitative benefits and costs justify
your suggestion (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify)?
Compliance
(EP A-HQ-0 A-2011-0166)
•	Which regulations have complicated or time consuming requirements? To what extent are
alternative compliance tools available? Could the regulations be modified to improve
compliance? What data support this?
•	Which regulations or regulated sectors have particularly high compliance? How could the
factors or approaches that lead to high compliance be utilized in other regulations and
sectors? What data is available to support this?
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 59 of 62

-------
Economic Conditions/ Market
(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0167)
•	Which regulations have impacted an industry sector(s) that was hard hit by high
unemployment in the past three years? What changes to the regulation would promote
economic growth or job creation without compromising environmental protection? What
data support this?
•	How can regulations spur new markets, technologies, and new jobs? What suggestions do
you have to support this idea?
•	Which regulations have impeded economic growth in an affected industry sector? What
information is available to support this? How could the regulations be modified to improve
both economic growth and environmental protection? What data support this?
•	Where can EPA examine market-based incentives as an option to regulation? What program
would you design that utilizes market-based incentives and ensures environmental objectives
are still met?
•	How can a regulation be improved so as to create, expand or transform a market?
•	Which regulations could be modified so as to invite public/private partnerships, and how?
Environmental Justice / Children's Health / Elderly
(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0168)
•	Which regulations have exacerbated existing impacts or created new impacts on vulnerable
populations such as low-income or minority populations, children, or the elderly? Which
ones and how? What suggestions do you have for how the Agency could change the
regulations? What data support this?
•	Which regulations have failed to protect vulnerable populations (minority or low-income,
children or elderly) and why?
•	Which regulations could be streamlined, modified, tightened, or expanded to mitigate or
prevent impacts to vulnerable populations (minority or low-income, children or elderly)?
What suggestions do you have for changing the regulations? What data support this?
Integration and Innovation
(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0161)
•	Which regulations could achieve the intended environmental results using less costly
methods, technology, or innovative techniques? How could the regulations be changed?
What data support this?
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 60 of 62

-------
•	Which regulations could be improved by harmonizing requirements across programs or
agencies to better meet the regulatory objectives? What suggestions do you have for how the
Agency can better harmonize these requirements?
•	Which regulations have requirements that are overlapping and could be streamlined or
eliminated? What suggestions do you have for how the Agency could modify the
regulations? Be specific about how burden can be reduced from gained efficiencies related to
streamlining the requirements.
•	What opportunities exist for the Agency to explore alternatives to existing regulations? How
can these alternatives be designed to ensure that environmental objectives are still met?
Least Burdensome / Flexible Approaches
(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0165)
•	Which regulations have proven to be excessively burdensome? What data support this? How
many facilities are affected? What suggestions do you have for reducing the burden and
maintaining environmental protection?
•	Which regulations impose paperwork activities (reporting, recordkeeping, or 3rd party
notifications) that would benefit from online reporting or electronic recordkeeping? Tell us
whether regulated entities have flexibility in providing the required 3rd party disclosure or
notification. What data support this? What suggestions do you have for how the Agency
could change the regulation?
•	Which regulations could be made more flexible within the existing legal framework? What
data support this? What suggestions do you have for how the Agency could change the
regulations to be more flexible?
Science / Obsolete / Technology Outdated
(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0162)
•	Which regulations could be modified because the underlying scientific data has changed
since the regulation was issued, and the change supports revision to the original regulation?
What data support this? What suggestions do you have for changing the regulations?
•	Which regulations have achieved their original objective and have now become unnecessary
or obsolete? What data support this? What suggestions do you have for how the Agency
could modify, streamline, expand, or repeal the regulation?
•	Have circumstances surrounding any regulations changed significantly such that the
regulation's requirements should be reconsidered? Which regulations? What data support
this? What suggestions can you provide the Agency about how these regulations could be
changed?
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 61 of 62

-------
•	Which regulations or reporting requirements have become outdated? How can they be
modernized to accomplish their regulatory objectives better? What data support this? What
suggestions do you have for how the Agency could change the regulations?
•	Which regulations have new technologies that can be leveraged to modify, streamline,
expand, or repeal existing requirements? What data support this? What suggestions do you
have for how the Agency could change these regulations?
Small Business
(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0164)
•	Which regulations have large impacts on small businesses? How could these regulations be
changed to reduce the impact while maintaining environmental protection? Are there
flexible approaches that might help reduce these impacts? Which of these regulations have
high costs and low benefits? What data support this?
•	Are there any regulations where flexible approaches for small businesses have proven
successful and could serve as a model? Where else and how could these approaches be
utilized?
State, Local and Tribal Governments
(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0163)
•	Which regulations impose burden on state, local or tribal governments? How could these
regulations be changed to reduce the burden without compromising environmental
protection?
•	What opportunities are there within existing regulations to better partner with state, local
and/or tribal governments? If so, do you have suggestions for how to better utilize those
opportunities?
EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews
Page 62 of 62

-------