[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 195 (Friday, October 6, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59791-59796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25750]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 403
[FRL-6883-1]
RIN 2090-AA16
Pretreatment Program Reinvention Pilot Projects Under Project XL
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today EPA is proposing changes to the National Pretreatment
Program regulations to allow Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)
that have completed the Project eXcellence and Leadership (Project XL)
selection process, including Final Project Agreement (FPA) development,
to modify their approved local Pretreatment Programs. These POTWs would
be allowed to modify their programs following the procedures in 40 CFR
403.18, and implement the new local programs as described in their
FPAs.
In today's proposed rule, EPA recognizes that many POTWs with
approved Pretreatment Programs have mastered the administrative and
procedural requirements of the National Pretreatment regulations (40
CFR Part 403). Several of these POTWs want the opportunity to implement
local pretreatment programs with effectiveness measured against
environmental results rather than strict adherence to programmatic and
administrative measures. These POTWs have expressed an interest in
Project XL to test new pilot ideas that focus resources on activities
that they believe would provide greater environmental benefits than are
achieved by complying with current regulatory requirements. This rule
is intended to provide the regulatory flexibility that will enable
these test programs to move forward. Currently, five POTWs are actively
involved in this Project XL process.
DATES: Public Comments: All public comments on the proposed rule must
be received on or before November 6, 2000. Comments provided
electronically will be considered timely if they are submitted
electronically by 11:59 p.m. (Eastern time) November 6, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to ``Project XL/CWA
Pretreatment,'' Water Docket MC-4101; United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Commenters are also requested to submit an original and 3 copies of
their written comments as well as an original and 3 copies of any
attachments, enclosures, or other documents referenced in the comments.
Commenters who would like EPA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
should include a self-addressed, stamped envelope. No facsimiles
(faxes) will be accepted.
EPA will also accept comments electronically. Comments should be
addressed to the following Internet address: [email protected].
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII, WordPerfect 5.1/6.1/
8 format file and avoid the use of special characters or any form of
encryption. Electronic comments will be transferred into a paper
version for the official record. EPA will attempt to clarify electronic
comments if there is an apparent error in transmission.
Supporting materials are also available for inspection and copying
at U.S. EPA, Headquarters, 401 M Street, SW., Room 445 West Tower,
Washington, DC 20460 during normal business hours. Persons wishing to
view the materials at the Washington, DC location are encouraged to
contact Mr. Chad Carbone in advance by telephoning (202) 260-4296.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Brian Frazer, (202) 260-0101, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania
[[Page 59792]]
Avenue, NW., (MC 4203), Washington, DC 20460.
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Authority
II. Background
A. What is Project XL?
A. What is EPA Proposing?
C. Stakeholder Involvement in the XL Process
D. What is the National Pretreatment Program?
E. What are the Current Pretreatment Program Requirements?
F. How Do the Current Requirements Relate to Environmental
Objectives?
G. Why is EPA Considering Allowing POTW Local Pilot Pretreatment
Programs at this Time?
H. Are There Any POTWs Currently Going Through Project XL
Approval Process?
I. What Are the Environmental Benefits anticipated through
Project XL?
J. What is the Project Duration and Completion Date?
K. How Could the Project be Terminated?
III. Rule Description
IV. Request for Public Comments
V. Additional Information
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Authority
This regulation is being proposed under the authority of sections
307, 402 and 501 of the CWA.
II. Background
A. What Is Project XL?
Project XL, which stands for ``eXcellence and Leadership,'' is a
national pilot program that tests innovative ways of achieving better
and more cost-effective public health and environmental protection
through site-specific agreements with project sponsors. Project XL was
announced on March 16, 1995, as a central part of the National
Performance Review and EPA's effort to reinvent environmental
protection. See 60 FR 27282 (May 23, 1995) and 60 FR 55569 (November 1,
1995). The intent of Project XL is to allow EPA and regulated entities
to experiment with pragmatic, potentially promising regulatory
approaches, both to assess whether they provide superior environmental
performance and other benefits at the specific facility affected, and
whether they should be considered for wider application. Such pilot
projects are intended to allow EPA to collect more data on a more
focused basis prior to national rulemaking. Today's proposed regulation
would enable implementation of specific XL projects. These efforts are
crucial to EPA's ability to test new strategies that reduce the
regulatory burden and promote economic growth while achieving better
environmental and public health protection. EPA intends to evaluate the
results of this and other XL projects to determine which specific
elements of the project(s), if any, should be more broadly applied to
other regulated entities for the benefit of both the economy and the
environment.
B. What Is EPA Proposing?
In the June 23, 1998, Federal Register (63 FR 6113-6), EPA
requested proposals for XL projects from POTWs based on environmental
performance measures for the pretreatment program. The process for
reviewing and choosing acceptable pilot program candidates included
input from POTWs, State and EPA Regional Pretreatment Coordinators, as
well as opportunity for public participation. As discussed in more
detail below, five POTWs have advanced to the final steps of the
Project XL process. In today's proposal, EPA announces proposed
revisions to the national pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR part 403
that would allow the selected Local Pilot Pretreatment Programs to be
implemented. These POTWs will then need to submit revised pretreatment
programs for approval and obtain modified permits to authorize the POTW
to implement its pilot program instead of its current Approved POTW
Pretreatment Program. In addition, the affected states may first need
to revise their own regulations or statutes to authorize the pilot
programs for pretreatment XL project sponsors before this rule can be
implemented in their jurisdictions.
C. Stakeholder Involvement in the XL Process
EPA believes stakeholder involvement in developing Local Pilot
Pretreatment Programs is crucial to the success of the programs,
therefore, as part of the Project XL proposal, a POTW must clearly
explain its process for involving stakeholders in the design of the
pilot program. This process should be based upon the guidance set out
in the April 23, 1997, Federal Register notice. The support of parties
that have a stake in the program is very important. Once EPA has
accepted a candidate based on its detailed proposal, the POTW, EPA, the
State and local stakeholders typically finalize a Final Project
Agreement (FPA). The FPA is a non-binding agreement that describes the
intentions and commitments of the implementing parties. Stakeholders
may include communities near the project, local or state governments,
businesses, environmental and other public interest groups, or other
similar entities. Stakeholders will also have formal opportunities to
comment on provisions of the FPA that are incorporated in the POTW's
revised pretreatment program under the procedures established at 40 CFR
403.18 and this proposal.
D. What Is the National Pretreatment Program?
The National Pretreatment Program is part of the Clean Water Act's
(CWA's) water pollution control program. The program is a joint
regulatory effort by local, State, and federal authorities that
requires the control of industrial and commercial sources of pollutants
discharged to municipal wastewater plants (called ``publicly owned
treatment works'' or ``POTWs''). Control of pollutants prior to
discharge of wastewater to the municipal sewer system minimizes the
possibility of pollutants interfering with the operation of the POTW
and reduces the levels of toxic pollutants in wastewater discharges
from the POTW and in the sludge resulting from municipal wastewater
treatment.
E. What Are the Current Pretreatment Program Requirements?
The minimum requirements for an Approved POTW Pretreatment Program
currently are published at 40 CFR 403.8(f). POTWs with Approved
Pretreatment Programs must maintain adequate legal authority, identify
industrial users, designate which industrial users (IUs) are
``Significant Industrial Users'' (SIUs) (under 40 CFR 403.3(t)) and
perform required monitoring, permitting and enforcement. Other sections
of part 403 require POTWs with Approved Pretreatment Programs to sample
and apply nationally applicable pretreatment standards to the
industrial users discharging pollutants to the POTW collection system.
POTWs are also required to develop local limits in accordance with 40
CFR 403.5. As proposed today, EPA would allow Approval Authorities to
require a POTW to meet requirements in an environmental performance-
based pilot program instead of certain administrative programmatic
requirements currently required in a POTW's Approved Pretreatment
Program under 40 CFR part 403.
[[Page 59793]]
F. How Do the Current Requirements Relate to Environmental Objectives?
As described in 40 CFR 403.2, the general pretreatment regulations
promote three objectives:
(a) To prevent the introduction of pollutants into POTWs which will
interfere with the operation of POTWs, including interference with the
use or disposal of municipal sludge;
(b) To prevent the introduction of pollutants into POTWs which will
pass through the treatment works or otherwise be incompatible with such
works; and
(c) To improve opportunities to recycle and reclaim municipal and
industrial wastewaters and sludges.
These objectives require local programs to be designed so they are
preventative in nature, and therefore, any pilot program also would
need to maintain this preventative approach. The specific requirements
for an Approved POTW Pretreatment Program are intended to achieve these
objectives. Individual pretreatment programs, however, are not
routinely required to report on the achievement of environmental
measures.
The 1991 National Pretreatment Program Report to Congress provides
extensive data related to the sources and amounts of pollutants
discharged to POTWs, the removal of pollutants by secondary treatment
technology, and the general effectiveness of the pretreatment program.
The 1991 Report did, however, point to a serious lack of comprehensive
environmental data with which to fully assess the effectiveness of both
the national and local pretreatment programs. These project XL pilots
would help to provide data for this purpose.
G. Why Is EPA Considering Allowing POTW Local Pilot Pretreatment
Programs at this Time?
Some POTWs have mastered the administrative aspects of the
pretreatment program (identifying industrial users, permitting,
monitoring, etc.) and want to move into more environmental performance-
based processes. These POTWs have expressed an interest in focusing
their resources on activities that they believe would provide greater
environmental benefit than is achieved by complying with the current
requirements. Some POTWs want to be able to make decisions on
allocating resources based on the risk associated with the industrial
contributions they receive or other factors. Others want to be able to
focus more resources on ambient monitoring in their receiving waters
and/or to integrate their pretreatment programs with their storm water
monitoring programs. In general, these POTWs want the opportunity to
redirect limited resources away from currently required activities that
they do not believe are benefitting the environment and toward
activities that may achieve measurable improvements in the environment.
EPA developed the Project XL program to provide regulated entities
the flexibility to conduct innovative pilot projects. Today's proposed
rule represents an attempt to spur innovation in the pretreatment
program to increase environmental benefits and, in conjunction with the
streamlining proposal, (see 64 FR 39564) to determine if further
streamlining of the program is needed, how streamlining can achieve
environmental improvements and in what direction those future
streamlining efforts should be directed.
H. Are There Any POTWs Currently Going Through Project XL Approval
Process?
In order to implement the pretreatment XL projects, EPA is
proposing a rule that would provide regulatory flexibility under the
Clean Water Act. Currently, five (5) POTWs have requested flexibility
through the Project XL FPA approval process. The POTWs are: The
Narragansett Bay Commission (NBC) in Rhode Island; the Jeffersontown
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), owned and operated by the Louisville
and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) in Kentucky; the
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (Chicago) in
Illinois; the City of Albuquerque (Albuquerque), New Mexico; and the
City of Denton (Denton), Texas. The FPA for NBC lays out the following
flexibilities: (1) Reduced self-monitoring requirements for ten (10)
categorical industrial users (CIUs) for tier 1 facilities, (2) reduced
inspection frequency for ten (10) CIUs tier 1 facilities from once
every year to once every two years and, (3) allow participating CIUs
tier 1 facilities to not sample for pollutants not expected to be
present. Under the FPA for MSD, the POTW is requesting flexibility to
(1) use an alternative definition for significant industrial user
(SIU), (2) allow participating CIUs to not sample for pollutants not
expected to be present and (3) use an alternative definition of
significant noncompliance (SNC). The Chicago FPA describes flexibility
that includes (1) use of an alternative (in relation to the
pretreatment streamlining proposal) definition for de minimis
categorical industrial user (CIU) and (2) reduced self-monitoring and
self-reporting requirements for participating CIUs and (3) use
alternative monitoring methods. The Albuquerque FPA lays out
flexibility to (1) use an alternative definition of SIU, (2) use an
alternative definition of SNC, (3) reduce permitting requirements for
participating IUs, (4) use alternative monitoring methods and (5)
reduce reporting requirements for participating IUs. The Denton FPA
lays out flexibility to (1) reduce its monitoring of participating IUs
and (2) reduce its inspection of participating IUs. In exchange for
these flexibilities, each individual POTW would need to commit to
produce certain proportional amounts of superior environment
performance as laid out in the FPA and maintain all legal and
preventative environmental health and safety standards. Complete
project site-specific descriptions can be found on the web at: http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.
I. What Are the Environmental Benefits Anticipated Through Project XL?
These XL projects are expected to achieve superior environmental
performance beyond that which is achieved under the current CWA
regulatory system by allowing local agencies the ability to identify
environmental goals and allocate the necessary resources on a site
specific local basis. Specifically, these projects are expected to
produce additional benefits by (i) reducing pollutant loadings to the
environment or some other environmental benefit beyond that currently
achieved through the existing pretreatment program (including
collecting environmental performance data and data related to
environmental impacts in order to measure the environmental benefit),
(ii) reduced or optimized costs related to implementation of the
pretreatment program with the savings used to attain environmental
benefits elsewhere in the watershed in any media, and (iii) providing
EPA with information on how the pretreatment program might be better
oriented towards the achievement of measures of environmental
performance. These objectives are consistent with the principles of the
National Performance Review.
EPA's intent is to allow Local Pilot Pretreatment Programs to be
administered by those POTWs that best further those objectives. Each
pilot program's method of achieving the environmental benefit should be
transferable so that other programs may be able to implement the method
and also achieve increased environmental benefits.
[[Page 59794]]
J. What Is the Project Duration and Completion Date?
Under Project XL, local Pilot Pretreatment Programs may be approved
to operate for the term expressed in the FPA. Prior to the end of the
FPA approval period (at least 180 days), the POTW may apply for a
renewal or extension of the project period in accordance with the terms
of the FPA. If a POTW is not able to meet the performance goals of its
Local Pilot Pretreatment Program, the Pretreatment Approval Authority
(either EPA or the authorized State) could allow the performance
measures to be adjusted if the primary objectives of the Local Pilot
Pretreatment Program would be met. The revised Local Pilot Pretreatment
Program would need to be approved in accordance with the FPA and the
procedures in 40 CFR 403.18.
If the primary objectives of the proposal are not being met, the
Approval Authority would direct the POTW to discontinue implementing
the Local Pilot Pretreatment Program and resume implementation of its
previously approved pretreatment program. The Pretreatment Approval
Authority would need to ensure that the POTW's NPDES permit includes a
reopener clause to implement this procedure.
The results of the pilots, including recommendations in POTW
reports, may be used to determine the direction of future Pretreatment
Program streamlining and/or reinvention.
K. How Could the Project Be Terminated?
Either the Approval Authority or the POTW may terminate a project
earlier than the final project agreement's (FPA) anticipated end date.
Parties will follow procedures set out in the FPA. The implementing
permits will also reflect the possibility of early termination. When
the NPDES permitting agency modifies the POTW's NPDES permit to
incorporate the flexibility allowed by today's rule, it must include a
`reopener' provision that requires the POTW to return to compliance
with current pretreatment requirements at the expiration or termination
of the FPA, including an interim compliance period, if needed.
Additional details are available in the site-specific FPAs.
III. Rule Description
Today's proposed rule will modify 40 CFR part 403 to allow
Pretreatment Approval Authorities (EPA or State) to grant regulatory
flexibility to selected Project XL POTWs with approved FPAs. The
regulatory flexibility would allow these specific POTWs to implement
Pretreatment Programs that include legal authorities and requirements
that are different than the administrative requirements in 40 CFR part
403. The POTW would need to submit any such alternative requirements as
a substantial program modification in accordance with the procedures
outlined in 40 CFR 403.18. The approved modified program would need to
be incorporated as an enforceable part of the POTW's NPDES permit. The
Approval Authority would approve or disapprove the pilot program using
the procedures in 40 CFR 403.18.
For example, the POTW would work through the Project XL process as
described above. The POTW either would or has already developed the
necessary FPA with stakeholder participation (local interest groups,
State representatives, EPA, any other interested parties). The POTW
would use the FPA as the blueprint when developing a revision of the
POTW's approved local pretreatment program. The POTW would submit the
revised program to its Approval Authority (State or EPA region)
requesting a substantial program modification using the procedures
outlined in 40 CFR 403.18. The Approval Authority would review the
program modification request to determine that it contains the
provisions of the blue-print FPA and makes a determination to approve
or deny the request. The proposal for modification is publicly noticed
following the procedures in 40 CFR 403.11 and 40 CFR 403.18. After the
close of the public comment period, the Approval Authority will
consider and respond to public comments and revise the POTW's
pretreatment program accordingly. Then the POTWs NPDES permit will be
modified by adding the modified pretreatment program as an enforceable
part of the permit.
IV. Request for Public Comments
The Agency requests public comments on today's Rule.
V. Additional Information
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety in State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs of the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Because the annualized cost of this final rule will be
significantly less than $100 million and will not meet any of the other
criteria specified in the Executive Order, it has been determined that
this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of
Executive Order 12866, and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
Executive Order 12866 also encourages agencies to provide a
meaningful public comment period, and suggests that in most cases the
comment period should be 60 days. In consideration of the very limited
scope of today's rulemaking and the considerable public involvement in
the development of the proposed Final Project Agreements subject to
today's rule, EPA considers 30 days to be sufficient in providing a
meaningful public comment period for today's action.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking
requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This rule will not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities
because the modifications to the pretreatment regulations EPA is
allowing would reduce the regulatory costs to POTWs and industrial
users of complying with the pretreatment requirements and affect a
small number of dischargers. Therefore, EPA certifies that this action
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
An Information Collection Request (ICR) document is currently being
prepared by EPA.The ICR will be
[[Page 59795]]
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
The proposed rule provides regulatory flexibility to participating
sponsors. The changes in information collection requirements as a
consequence of the rule allow participating facilities to satisfy the
reporting requirements with a single yearly report and provide
certification in lieu of not sampling for pollutants not present if
certain conditions are met. Also, this regulatory change can result in
decreased reporting and recordkeeping burdens for participating
facilities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, because
this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments, it is not subject to UMRA section
203.
E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically
significant,'' as defined under Executive Order 12866; and (2) concerns
an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not
an economically significant rule, as defined by Executive Order 12866,
and because it does not involve decisions based on environmental health
or safety risks.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the regulation. EPA may also not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency
consults with the State and local officials early in the process of
developing the regulation.
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. Although
section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA did
fully coordinate and consult with the affected state and local
officials in developing this rule.
G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments to provide meaningful and timely input in the
development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities. Today's rule does not significantly
or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. There
are no communities of Indian tribal governments located in the vicinity
of the affected facility. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b)
of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law
[[Page 59796]]
104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use
voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do
so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standard. This proposed rulemaking does
not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the
use of any voluntary consensus standards. EPA welcomes comments on this
aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public
to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to
explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.
Dated: September 29, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 403, title 40,
chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:
PART 403--GENERAL PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS FOR EXISTING AND NEW
SOURCES OF POLLUTION
1. The authority for Part 403 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
2. Section 403.20 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 403.20 Pretreatment Program Reinvention Pilot Projects Under
Project XL.
The Approval Authority may allow any publicly owned treatment works
(POTW) that has a final ``Project XL'' agreement to implement a
Pretreatment Program that includes legal authorities and requirements
that are different than the administrative requirements otherwise
applicable under this part. The POTW must submit any such alternative
requirements as a substantial program modification in accordance with
the procedures outlined in Sec. 403.18. The approved modified program
must be incorporated as an enforceable part of the POTW's NPDES permit.
The Approval Authority must include a reopener clause in the POTW's
NPDES permit that directs the POTW to discontinue implementing the
approved alternative requirements and resume implementation of its
previously approved pretreatment program if the primary objectives of
the Local Pilot Pretreatment Program are not met or the ``Project XL''
agreement expires or is otherwise terminated.
[FR Doc. 00-25750 Filed 10-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P `