[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 89 (Monday, May 8, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26550-26560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11433]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 403

[FRL -6602-5]


Community XL (XLC) Site-Specific Rulemaking for Steele County, 
Minnesota; Proposed Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
implement a project under the Project XLC program for certain 
facilities in Steele County, Minnesota. The terms of the project are 
defined in a draft Final Project Agreement (FPA) which was made 
available for public review and comment through a Federal Register 
notice on December 29, 1999 (64 FR 73047). In addition, EPA is 
proposing a site-specific rule, applicable only to the Steele County 
sponsors who are Participating Industrial Users, to facilitate 
implementation of the project. By this document, EPA solicits comment 
on the proposed rule. This proposed site-specific rule is intended to 
provide regulatory changes under the Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act) 
to implement the Community XL project, which will result in superior 
environmental performance.
    The proposed site-specific rule would change some of the CWA 
requirements which apply to the sponsors who are Participating 
Industrial Users to promote a reduction in the discharge of four 
priority metals and certain conventional pollutants, a reduction in 
water usage, and the development of an environmental management system. 
An incentive-based monitoring approach would be implemented, such that 
as discharge reduction goals are met, monitoring frequency could be 
reduced, mass-based limits would replace certain concentration limits, 
and an alternative Significant Noncompliance (SNC) publication approach 
would be tested. Monitoring reductions for pollutants determined not to 
be present in an industry's wastestream would also be authorized.

DATES: Public Comments: All public comments on the proposed rule must 
be received on or before May 30, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Written comments on the proposed rule should be 
mailed to: Ms. Abeer Hashem, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region V, WC-15J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604-3507. 
Please send an original and two copies of all comments, and refer to 
Docket for the Steele County Site-Specific Rulemaking.
    Viewing Project Materials: A docket containing the proposed rule, 
draft Final Project Agreement, supporting materials, and public 
comments is available for public inspection and copying at U.S. EPA, 
Region V, Water Division, Room Number 15046, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, IL 60604-3507. The Office is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday 
through Friday, excluding federal holidays. The public

[[Page 26551]]

is encouraged to phone in advance to review docket materials. 
Appointments can be scheduled by phoning Abeer Hashem at (312) 886-
1331. Refer to the Docket for the Steele County Site-Specific 
Rulemaking. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages at no charge. 
Additional copies cost 15 cents per page. Project materials are also 
available for review for today's action on the World Wide Web at: 
http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.
    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 Ms. Kristina Heinemann in advance by telephoning (202) 260-
5355. In addition supporting materials are available at the Owatonna, 
MN Public Library, 105 Elm Avenue North, Owatonna, MN 55060. The phone 
number for the library is 507-444-2460, TDD 507-444-2480.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Abeer Hashem or Mr. Matthew 
Gluckman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Water 
Division, WC-15J or WN-16J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 
60604-3507. Ms. Hashem can be reached at (312) 886-1331 and Mr. 
Gluckman can be reached at (312) 886-6089. Further information on 
today's action may also be obtained on the world wide web at: http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed site-specific rule sets forth 
the mechanism through which the sponsors would attempt to reach 
discharge reduction goals for chromium, copper, nickel, zinc, reach 
water use reduction goals, and commit to arrange and participate in 
training for the development of an Environmental Management System 
(EMS), as outlined in the Steele County Project XLC draft FPA (the 
document that embodies the parties' intent to implement this project). 
Today's proposal would facilitate implementation of the draft FPA that 
has been developed by the Steele County Project Sponsors, EPA, the 
Steele County Community Advisory Committee (``ACAC''), the Minnesota 
Pollution Control Agency (``AMPCA''), the Owatonna Waste Water 
Treatment Facility (OWWTF), the Blooming Prairie Waste Water Treatment 
Facility (BPWWTF), and other stakeholders. The FPA is available for 
review in the docket for today's action and on the world wide web at 
http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.
    The draft FPA addresses the nine Project XLC criteria, and the 
expectation of EPA that this XLC project will meet those criteria. 
Those criteria are: (1) Environmental results superior to what would be 
achieved through compliance with current and reasonably anticipated 
future regulations; (2) economic opportunity; (3) stakeholder 
involvement, support and capacity for community participation; (4) test 
of innovative, multi-media, pollution prevention strategies for 
achieving environmental results; (5) approaches that could be evaluated 
for future broader application (transferability); (6) technical and 
administrative feasibility; (7) mechanisms for monitoring, reporting, 
and evaluation; (8) consistency with Executive Order 12898 on 
Environmental Justice (avoidance of shifting of risk burden); and (9) 
community planning. The draft FPA specifically addresses the manner in 
which the project is expected to produce superior environmental 
benefits.
    EPA is proposing today's rule to implement the provisions of this 
Project XLC initiative that require regulatory changes. However, 
Minnesota has had an approved state National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) program since June 30, 1974, and an approved 
State pretreatment program since July 16, 1979. Therefore, the 
requirements outlined in today's proposed rule would not take effect 
until Minnesota revises the Owatonna pretreatment program as 
incorporated in its NPDES permit. EPA would not be the primary 
regulatory agency responsible for implementing the requirements of this 
rule. In addition, for the sake of simplicity, the remainder of this 
preamble refers to the effects of this rule, although it would be the 
corresponding State and local law and corresponding NPDES and 
Industrial User permits that would actually govern this XL project.

Outline of Today's Document

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Authority
II. Background
    A. Overview of Project XL and XLC
    B. Overview of the Steele County XLC Project
    1. Description of the Steele County Community XL Project
    2. What Are the Environmental Benefits of the Project?
    3. What Are the Economic Benefits and Paperwork Reduction 
Deriving From the Project?
    4. Stakeholder Involvement
    5. What Is the Project Duration and Completion Date?
    6. How Will EPA Ensure That Only Appropriate Sponsors Continue 
To Receive Flexibility Under This Proposal?
    7. How May the Project Be Terminated?
III. Rule Description
    A. Clean Water Act Requirements, Pre-Treatment Streamlining 
Proposal and Summary of Regulatory Requirements for the Steele 
County XL Project
IV. Additional Information
    A. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 12866?
    B. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required?
    C. Is an Information Collection Request Required for This Rule 
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    D. Does This Rule Trigger the Requirements of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act?
    E. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13045: 
Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks?
    F. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13132 on 
Federalism?
    G. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13084: 
Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments?
    H. Does This Rule Comply with National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act of 1995 (``ANTTAA'')?

I. Authority

    This regulation is being proposed under the authority of sections 
307, 308, and 501 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1317, 1318, 1361.

II. Background

A. Overview of Project XL and XLC

    Each Project XL pilot--``eXcellence and Leadership'' is described 
in a Final Project Agreement (FPA). For this Project XL for Communities 
(XLC), the draft FPA sets forth the intentions of EPA, the Minnesota 
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the Steele County Community with 
regard to a project developed under Project XLC, an EPA initiative to 
allow regulated entities to achieve better environmental results using 
common sense, cost effective strategies. This regulation will enable 
implementation of the project.
    Project XL was announced on March 16, 1995, as a central part of 
the National Performance Review and the EPA's effort to reinvent 
environmental protection. See 60 FR 27282 (May 23, 1995) and 60 FR 
55569 (November 1, 1995). Project XL provides a limited number of 
private and public regulated entities an opportunity to develop their 
own pilot projects to provide regulatory flexibility that will result 
in environmental protection that is superior to that which would be 
achieved through compliance with current and future regulations. These 
efforts are crucial to EPA's ability to test new strategies that reduce 
the regulatory burden and promote economic growth

[[Page 26552]]

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.
    Under Project XL, participants in four categories--facilities, 
industry sectors, governmental agencies and communities--are offered 
the flexibility to develop common sense, cost-effective strategies that 
will replace or modify specific regulatory requirements on the 
condition that they produce and demonstrate superior environmental 
performance. Project XLC, excellence and leadership for communities, 
was developed to focus on communities and local governments or regional 
organizations that are interested in creating an XL project. Project 
XLC encourages potential sponsors to come forward with new approaches 
to demonstrate community-designed and directed strategies for achieving 
greater environmental quality consistent with community economic goals.
    To participate in Project XLC, applicants must develop alternative 
pollution reduction strategies pursuant to nine criteria: superior 
environmental results; stakeholder involvement, support, and capacity 
for community participation; economic opportunity; test of an 
innovative multi-media strategy; transferability; feasibility; 
community planning; identification of monitoring, reporting and 
evaluation methods; and equitable distribution of environmental risks. 
Projects must have full support of affected federal, state and tribal 
agencies to be selected.
    For more information about the XL and XLC criteria, readers should 
refer to the three descriptive documents published in the Federal 
Register (60 FR 27282, May 23, 1995; 60 FR 55569, November 1, 1995; and 
62 FR 19872, April 23, 1997). For further discussion as to how the 
Steele County XL Communities project addresses the XLC criteria, 
readers should refer to the draft Final Project Agreement and fact 
sheet that are available from the docket for this action (see ADDRESSES 
section of today's preamble).
    Project XL is intended to allow the EPA to experiment with untried, 
potentially promising regulatory approaches, both to assess whether 
they provide benefits at the specific facility affected, and whether 
they should be considered for wider application. Such pilot projects 
allow the EPA to proceed more quickly than would be possible when 
undertaking changes on a nationwide basis. EPA may modify rules, on a 
site- or state-specific basis, that represent one of several possible 
policy approaches within a more general statutory directive, so long as 
the alternative being used is permissible under the statute. Adoption 
of such alternative approaches or interpretations in the context of a 
given XL project does not, however, signal EPA's willingness to adopt 
that interpretation as a general matter, or even in the context of 
other XL projects. It would be inconsistent with the forward-looking 
nature of these pilot projects to adopt such innovative approaches 
prematurely on a widespread basis without first determining whether or 
not they are viable in practice and successful for the particular 
projects that embody them. Depending on the results in these projects, 
EPA may or may not be willing to consider adopting the alternative 
approach or interpretation again, either generally or for other 
specific facilities.
    EPA believes that adopting alternative policy approaches and/or 
interpretations, on a limited, site- or state-specific basis and in 
connection with a carefully selected pilot project, is consistent with 
the expectations of Congress about EPA's role in implementing the 
environmental statutes (so long as EPA acts within the discretion 
allowed by the statute). Congress' recognition that there is a need for 
experimentation and research, as well as ongoing reevaluation of 
environmental programs, is reflected in a variety of statutory 
provisions, e.g., section 104 of the CWA.

B. Overview of the Steele County XLC Project

1. Description of the Steele County Community XL Project
Community Based Environmental Regulation
    The Steele County XLC pilot project would test the effectiveness of 
a community based approach to industrial regulated wastewater effluent 
reductions and water use reduction controls designed to: (1) Result in 
pollution prevention; (2) meet the objectives of the CWA regulatory 
program; and (3) be at least as protective of human health and the 
environment as the current system. This project would pilot a 
community-based approach to environmental regulation with the goal of 
achieving a reduction in the discharge of certain metals to the OWWTF, 
and Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and 
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) to the BPWWTF. Other aspects of the pilot 
program would include water usage reduction, the development and 
implementation of a storm water and sewer water separation and 
education plan, and the development of a training and assessment 
program of an Environmental Management System.
    If this first phase of the project is considered by the parties to 
be successful, a Phase II--consisting in general outline of a multi-
media approach to environmental permitting based on overall community 
performance in the areas of air emissions, solid waste, hazardous 
waste, chemical storage, and community sustainability--may be 
considered. Today's proposal does not cover or commit to a second phase 
of this project.
    For the purposes of today's proposed rule, the group of Owatonna 
sponsors who are Participating Industrial Users includes the following 
Industrial Users (IUs) in the City of Owatonna: Crown Cork and Seal 
Company, Inc.; Cybex International Inc.; Gandy Company, Inc.; Josten's 
Inc.--Southtown Facility; Mustang Manufacturing Company; SPx 
Corporation, Power Team Division; SPx Corporation, Service Solutions 
Division; Truth Hardware Corporation; and Uber Tanning Company. The 
final rule may include all or only some of the Industrial Users listed 
above. Two facilities included in the Owatonna Sponsor group, Viracon-
Marcon, Inc. and the Wenger Corporation and one sponsor located in 
Blooming Prairie, Minnesota, Elf Atochem, are not receiving regulatory 
flexibility under today's proposed rule and are therefore not included 
as Participating Industrial Users.
    To achieve the objectives of Phase 1 of the Project, part of this 
project would pilot an incentive-based approach to reduced monitoring 
requirements. As the Owatonna sponsors who are Participating Industrial 
Users, as a group meet certain discharge reduction goals, the City 
could reduce the required frequency of monitoring for any of the 
Participating Industrial Users. Other aspects of this pilot program 
would include: (1) Pollutant monitoring could be eliminated where a 
pollutant is not discharged; (2) in order to encourage water use 
reduction compliance with a concentration-based standard could be 
demonstrated by compliance with a mass-based limit; (3) an alternative 
publication process for Significant Noncompliance (SNC) would be put in 
place, and (4) sponsors may seek ``No Exposure Certification for 
Exclusion from NPDES Storm Water Permitting'', which is available under 
existing regulations (40 CFR 122.26 (g) pursuant to a change in the 
regulations found at

[[Page 26553]]

64 FR 68722 (December 8, 1999)), and does not require flexibility under 
today's proposal. Each of these elements of the pilot program requiring 
regulatory flexibility is explained below.
    To achieve the objectives of this project the Participating 
Industrial Users would commit to utilize their best efforts to reach 
certain discharge reduction goals. Only if these goals are met would 
regulatory flexibility regarding lesser monitoring requirements than 
currently required under 40 CFR 403.12(e)(1) be granted. Specifically, 
the Participating Industrial Users located in Owatonna (or ``City'') 
would commit to a 20% reduction goal in the amount of nickel, chromium, 
copper, and zinc (by mass) they discharge to the OWWTF. These reduction 
goals are for each individual pollutant.
    If the first 20% reduction goal is met, a further 20% reduction 
goal could be set for the remaining project term. If the initial 20% 
reduction goal is met for all pollutants, the City would be authorized, 
at its discretion, to reduce the self-monitoring frequency of Owatonna 
sponsors who are Participating Industrial Users to once per year. After 
the second metal reduction goal is met, the minimum monitoring 
frequency could remain once per year. In exercising this discretion, 
the OWWTF would be required to consider the Participating Industrial 
User's previous three years of compliance data, and could not reduce 
monitoring for pollutants where there is a reasonable potential of 
violating Pretreatment Standards.
    This project would focus on the four metals slated for 20% release 
reductions because they are the metals determined to be discharged at 
the highest levels to the Owatonna wastewater treatment system relative 
to applicable water quality and biosolids criteria. In addition, the 
participants are regulated for these pollutants under categorical 
pretreatment standards and influence the loading of these pollutants to 
the Owatonna wastewater treatment system. Specific reductions of other 
categorically regulated metals are not being pursued under this project 
because they are released in small quantities relative to applicable 
environmental criteria. Because certain of these other metals may be 
present at some of the participant facilities, these metals may not 
qualify for the elimination of monitoring due to no releases. In such 
cases, the POTW would need to require continued monitoring of these 
metals. Through this proposed rule the POTW would be given the 
discretion to reduce monitoring frequencies for the other categorically 
regulated metals to the same extent it is being authorized to consider 
reduced monitoring for the four metals subject to the 20% reduction 
goals.
    This project would also authorize the City to allow a sponsor 
Participating Industrial User subject to categorical standards to not 
sample for a pollutant, if it is not expected to be present in its 
wastestream at levels greater than background levels in its water 
supply. For such pollutants, the OWWTF would only be required to 
conduct sampling and analysis once during the term of the Participating 
Industrial User's permit. The Participating Industrial User would still 
be subject to the categorical standards for pollutants determined not 
to be present, and would need to resume monitoring if sampling 
indicates that a pollutant is present at above-background levels, or at 
any time at the discretion of the OWWTF.
    If the POTW determines that one or more pollutants are not expected 
to be present at a Participating Industrial User, it could modify the 
IU's permit to reduce or eliminate the monitoring requirements for the 
pollutant(s). The Participating Industrial User permit would also 
require the user to submit, as part of its regular semi-annual 
monitoring reports, certification that there has been no increase in 
the pollutant in its wastewater due to its activities. The POTW would 
sample the Participating Industrial User's effluent for all pollutants 
in the applicable categorical standard at least once during the term of 
the IU's permit.
    One of the goals of this pilot project would be to facilitate water 
conservation measures at the sponsors' facilities. The total flow to 
the OWWTF from the nine Owatonna sponsors who are Participating 
Industrial Users is 477,000 gallons per day. The Owatonna sponsors 
commit to a goal in the draft FPA of reducing this flow by 10%. To 
facilitate meeting this goal this rule proposes that the OWWTF be 
allowed to set equivalent mass limits as an alternative to 
concentration limits to meet concentration-based categorical 
Pretreatment Standards. Under the proposed rule entitled ``Streamlining 
the General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of 
Pollution'' (Pretreatment Streamlining Proposal), which was published 
on July 22, 1999 (64 FR 39564), POTWs would be allowed to establish 
alternative mass limits if an Industrial User has installed Best 
Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT), or equivalent to 
BAT treatment, and the Industrial User is employing water conservation 
methods and technologies that substantially reduce water use.
    While all of the conditions for receiving mass limits laid out in 
EPA's Streamlining Proposal are not being required for this site-
specific rule (see discussion regarding Today's Proposal in Equivalent 
Mass Limits for Concentration Limits section of III.A, below), EPA is 
interested in determining whether providing mass limits prior to full 
adoption of water conservation practices will encourage more widespread 
adoption of such practices. To ensure the continued appropriateness of 
the specific mass limits, sponsor industries who are Participating 
Industrial Users would also be required to notify the City in the event 
production rates are expected to vary by more than 20 percent from a 
baseline production rate determined by Owatonna when it establishes a 
Participating Industrial User's initial mass limits. The Participating 
Industrial Users would commit to continued operation of at least the 
same level of treatment as at the outset of the project. Upon 
notification of a revised production rate, the City would reassess the 
appropriateness of the mass limit. Sponsor Elf Atochem discharges 
16,900 gallons per day to the BPWWTF and commits in the draft FPA to a 
reduction goal of 10% of this amount. Because Elf Atochem is currently 
required to comply with mass-based limits, no change to its limits are 
required to facilitate water conservation measures.
    EPA is today proposing a site-specific alternative procedure for 
publishing Significant Noncompliance for Participating Industrial 
Users. SNC is defined in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii) as including 
violations by an Industrial User which meet one or more of eight 
specific criteria. Currently, POTWs are required to publish in the 
largest daily newspaper in the municipality in which the POTW is 
located a list of Industrial Users who have been in SNC at any time 
during the previous twelve months. The SNC publication requirement 
serves at least two important functions: (1) A deterrent effect on 
industrial users to avoid noncompliance generally, and SNC 
specifically; and (2) notice to the public of Significant 
Noncompliance. One result of this approach is that if the POTW 
publishes the notice for a particular SNC violation after the end of 
the twelve month period, the publication may not occur close in time to 
the violation, resulting in a delay between the violation and the 
notice to the public.
    The intent of the proposed alternative procedure is to require 
website notice of all SNC violations, and reserve

[[Page 26554]]

additional newspaper publication for cases where this format is needed 
for its potentially greater effect. The Sponsors also intended to 
promote prompt and appropriate assistance for identifying and 
correcting violations through a unique community-based approach. 
Pursuant to the Steele County FPA, an Owatonna Peer Review Committee 
would be established. This Committee would consist of at least two 
Owatonna Sponsors not connected to the noncompliance event being 
reviewed and any stakeholders that wish to participate. The Peer Review 
Committee would investigate all instances of noncompliance by an 
Owatonna sponsor who is a Participating Industrial User and provide 
recommendations and assistance to expedite a return to compliance. The 
Peer Review Committee would make recommendations to the City regarding 
whether or not publication in a newspaper should occur, in addition to 
the website publication described below.
    All recommendations by the Peer Review Committee would be non-
binding on the City, and the City would continue to implement its 
State-approved Enforcement Response Plan. Under the Steele County FPA, 
the Sponsors would take steps to conduct public outreach on the 
information available regarding Significant and other noncompliance by 
the Sponsors, including a description of the Peer Review Committee and 
its functions, a Committee contact person and telephone number, and 
notice of Peer Review Committee meetings. Such outreach would include, 
but not be limited to, periodic (at least annual) mailings to the 
identified Steele County XL community stakeholders, and notice in the 
public library.
    Any violation which is not corrected within thirty (30) calendar 
days or which results in pass through or interference would continue to 
be published in a newspaper as currently required in Part 403. All SNC 
violations, whether published in a newspaper or not, would be published 
as soon as is practicable on the MPCA web site. The website would 
contain an explanation of how SNC is determined. A contact name and 
phone number for information regarding all other violations would also 
be listed on the MPCA website.
2. What Are the Environmental Benefits of the Project?
    This XLC project is expected to achieve superior environmental 
performance beyond that which is achieved under the current CWA 
regulatory system by encouraging the sponsors to work together in a 
coordinated manner to efficiently reduce their discharges to the OWWTF. 
As has been described, the Owatonna sponsors who are Participating 
Industrial Users have committed to 20% discharge reduction goals for 
nickel, chromium, copper, and zinc. Although not receiving regulatory 
flexibility under today's proposal, Elf Atochem has committed to 
analogous discharge reduction goals for BOD, TSS, and TKN to the 
BPWWTF. The Participating Industrial Users have additionally committed 
to a goal of at least a 10% reduction in water usage.
    Besides the direct environmental benefits of these reductions, the 
sponsors have agreed to conduct an Environmental Management System 
(EMS) assessment within eighteen months of the effective date of the 
project. In the first year of the project, the Sponsors commit to 
arrange and participate in training for the development of the EMS. The 
Sponsors will utilize the information from the EMS assessment to reach 
the discharge reduction goals as well as to examine their facilities 
for other possible environmental improvements. The sponsors have agreed 
to report to the EPA and the MPCA the results of the assessment, and 
the suggestions which have been adopted by each facility. Additionally, 
the City has identified storm water infiltration into the collection 
system during wet weather events as a major problem. The Owatonna 
sponsors have agreed to work with the City to help alleviate this 
problem through the development of educational materials which will be 
distributed to sponsor employees as well as to the community at large. 
The Owatonna Sponsors have also committed in the draft FPA to develop a 
plan to minimize storm water infiltration into the sewer system at each 
participating facility.
    One unique aspect of this pilot project is the desire of the 
sponsor facilities to work together to reach common goals. It is hoped 
that this cooperation will go beyond the specific goals of this project 
and result in presently unforseen environmental benefits.
3. What Are the Economic Benefits and Paperwork Reduction Deriving From 
the Project?
    This XLC Project will encourage the sponsors to reduce water 
consumption at their facilities. This may result in reduced water costs 
for the facilities, without diminishing the level of environmental 
protection. Assuming the sponsors discharge lower levels of pollutants 
to the OWWTF and the BPWWTF, these POTWs may benefit from lower 
treatment costs. To the extent monitoring and reporting frequencies are 
reduced under this project, reduced expenditures may result. The EMS 
assessments may identify further environmental and economic benefits.
4. Stakeholder Involvement
    Stakeholder involvement and participation is vital to the success 
of the Steele County XLC project. The participants have worked through 
a Community Advisory Committee, established by the Steele County 
Project Sponsors, to ensure that the general public has had an 
opportunity to be involved throughout the development of this project. 
The participants will continue to work to foster full and open 
communication between the general public and the project sponsors.
    In addition, the Peer Review Committee will continue to provide 
opportunities for input from the community on important compliance 
issues. For example, if a sponsor is in noncompliance, the Peer Review 
Committee would provide input to bring the sponsor back into 
compliance. Sponsors would continue outreach work with all stakeholders 
using the strategies and tactics contained in their Proposed 
Stakeholder Involvement Plan (June 1999). MPCA, the Steele County 
Sponsors, Owatonna, Blooming Prairie, and EPA have been involved in the 
development of this project, and support it. From the beginning of the 
Steele County XLC process, there has been a high priority on providing 
opportunity for diverse stakeholder input and review. Public meetings 
were held in the City of Owatonna on June 9, September 23, and October 
7, 1999.
5. What Is the Project Duration and Completion Date?
    As with all XL projects testing alternative environmental 
protection strategies, the term of the Steele County Community XL 
project is one of limited duration. The duration of the regulatory 
relief provided by this rule is anticipated to be five (5) years from 
[PUBLICATION DATE OF FINAL RULE] or until [DATE FIVE YEARS FROM THE 
PUBLICATION DATE OF FINAL RULE.] However, the project may be terminated 
or suspended at any time for failure to comply with any of the 
requirements of the rule. If the parties renew the Steele County 
Community XL Final Project Agreement beyond its initial five year 
period, then it may be necessary to extend this site-

[[Page 26555]]

specific rule for an additional period of time.
6. How Will EPA Ensure That Only Appropriate Sponsors Continue To 
Receive Flexibility Under This Proposal?
    If EPA determines that it is appropriate to terminate one or more 
Sponsors, who are Participating Industrial Users, participation in this 
Project so that they will no longer be eligible to receive the 
regulatory flexibility provided in today's proposed rule, EPA will 
coordinate with the POTW and State to make the necessary changes to the 
Participating Industrial User's permit. EPA retains its enforcement 
authority under the CWA to enforce Pretreatment Standards whether or 
not the POTW or State make such changes to the Participating Industrial 
User's permit.
7. How May the Project Be Terminated?
    When the State modifies Owatonna's NPDES permit to incorporate the 
flexibility in today's rule, it will include a reopener provision 
enabling the State to eliminate this flexibility. This reopener 
provision would be utilized if the Project is terminated. In the event 
of early project termination, EPA will eliminate the provisions of 
proposed section 403.19 in advance of its [DATE FIVE YEARS FROM 
PUBLICATION DATE OF FINAL RULE] expiration date.

III. Rule Description

A. Clean Water Act Requirements, Pretreatment Streamlining Proposal and 
Summary of Regulatory Requirements for the Steele County XL Project

Equivalent Mass Limits for Concentration Limits (40 CFR 403.19(b))
    1. Existing Requirements (40 CFR 403.6(c)). National categorical 
Pretreatment Standards establish limits on pollutants discharged to 
POTWs by facilities in specific industrial categories. The standards 
establish pollutant limitations in different ways for different 
categories. EPA has established categorical Pretreatment Standards that 
are: (1) Concentration-based standards that are implemented directly as 
concentration limits; (2) mass limits based on production rates; (3) 
both concentration-based and production-based limits; and (4) mass 
limits based on a concentration standard multiplied by a facility's 
process wastewater flow. The current regulations do not allow a mass 
limit to substitute for a concentration limit when the applicable 
standard is expressed in terms of concentration.
    While 40 CFR 403.6(d) allows the Control Authority to develop 
equivalent mass limits for concentration-based standards in order to 
prevent dilution, the equivalent limit applies in addition to the 
concentration limit. Today's rule would allow a Participating 
Industrial User who qualifies for flexibility under the rule to 
demonstrate compliance with the categorical Pretreatment Standard by 
demonstrating compliance with an equivalent mass-based limit alone.
    2. The Pretreatment Streamlining Proposal. In its proposed rule 
entitled Streamlining the General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing 
and New Sources of Pollution (64 FR 39564, July 22, 1999) (Pretreatment 
Streamlining Proposal), EPA proposed to allow Control Authorities to 
set equivalent mass limits as an alternative to concentration limits to 
meet concentration-based categorical Pretreatment Standards in cases 
where an industrial user has installed model treatment technology or a 
treatment technology that yields optimum removal efficiencies, and the 
Industrial User is employing water conservation methods and 
technologies that substantially reduce water use. The Agency, however, 
solicited comments on whether mass limits would be appropriate in other 
situations. EPA proposed that 40 CFR 403.6(c) be revised to clarify 
that equivalent mass limits may be authorized by the Control Authority 
in lieu of promulgated concentration-based limits for industrial users. 
The Control Authority would be required to document how the mass limits 
were derived and make this information publicly available.
    The July 22, 1999, proposed rule also specifically referenced the 
Steele County XL Community Project and indicated that, if this project 
was ready to proceed before EPA finalized the complete Pretreatment 
Streamlining proposal, EPA may promulgate, based on that proposal and 
comments received, a separate site-specific rule to allow the 
industries involved in the Steele County XLC project to use, at the 
discretion of the Control Authority, the change proposed for 40 CFR 
403.6(c).
    3. Today's Proposal. To facilitate water use reduction by 
industries involved in the Steele County XLC Project, EPA is proposing 
to allow the City of Owatonna, which is the Control Authority for the 
Owatonna sponsor industries, the Participating Industrial Users, to set 
equivalent mass limits as an alternative to concentration limits to 
meet concentration-based categorical Pretreatment Standards. Mass 
limits would be established by multiplying the five year, long term 
average process flows of the sponsors (or a shorter period if 
production has significantly increased or decreased during the five 
year period) by the concentration-based categorical standards. In 
general, flows used to establish mass-based limits must be appropriate 
in relation to current production or known future production, and will 
be determined based on consultation between the industry and the City 
of Owatonna. EPA's Guidance Manual for the Use of Production-Based 
Standards and the Combined Wastestream Formula (September 1985) 
provides additional guidance on establishing appropriate long-term 
average flows. In return for this flexibility, the sponsor industries, 
the Participating Industrial Users, are committing as a group to reduce 
water usage by 10 percent over the initial five year project period. In 
this site-specific rule EPA is not conditioning the availability of 
mass-based limits on the use of water conservation methods and 
technologies as it would in the Pretreatment Streamlining Rule. EPA is 
interested in determining whether providing mass limits prior to full 
adoption of water conservation practices will encourage more widespread 
adoption of such practices pursuant to the commitment described above.
    In addition, this rule would not require that Participating 
Industrial Users utilize model treatment technologies that serve as the 
basis for the applicable Pretreatment Standards. Instead, EPA is 
interested in determining whether or not it would be sufficient to 
prevent facilities from complying with the applicable Standards, in the 
event of production decreases, by requiring that the facility maintain 
at least the same level of treatment as at the time an equivalent mass 
limit is established. To ensure the continued appropriateness of the 
specific mass limits, the Participating Industrial Users would also be 
required to notify the City in the event production rates are expected 
to vary by more than 20 percent from the previous year's average. Upon 
notification, the City will reassess the appropriateness of the mass 
limit.
    In addition to EPA's rulemaking action, MPCA will need to issue a 
revised NPDES permit to the OWWTF, and the City will need to revise IU 
permits issued to Participating Industrial Users to enable it to 
establish alternative mass limits. The City will also need to evaluate 
its sewer use ordinance to determine if revisions are necessary to 
implement the changes proposed today.

[[Page 26556]]

Sampling for Pollutants Not Present (40 CFR 403.19(c))
    1. Existing Requirements (40 CFR 403.12(e), 403.8(f)(2)(v)). 
Currently, 40 CFR 403.12(e)(1) requires industrial users subject to 
categorical Pretreatment Standards to submit reports to the Control 
Authority at least twice a year, indicating the nature and 
concentration of all pollutants in their effluent that are limited by 
the standards. 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v) requires Control Authorities to 
sample these industrial users at least annually. Sampling is currently 
required for all pollutants limited by a categorical Pretreatment 
Standard even if certain pollutants regulated by the standard are not 
reasonably expected to be present.
    2. The Pretreatment Streamlining Proposal. The July 22, 1999 
Pretreatment Streamlining proposal would authorize a Control Authority 
to allow an industrial user subject to categorical Pretreatment 
Standards to not sample for a pollutant if the pollutant is not 
expected to be present in its wastestream in a quantity greater than 
the background level present in its water supply, with no increase in 
the pollutant due to the regulated process. The Agency also proposed a 
reduced sampling requirement for the Control Authority, to once per 
permit term, once it had determined that a pollutant was not expected 
to be present.
    The Pretreatment Streamlining proposal would require the Control 
Authority's decision to waive sampling to be based upon both sampling 
and other technical data, such as the raw materials, industrial 
processes, and potential by-products. EPA did not propose that a 
specific amount of sampling data be required but solicited comment on 
that issue.
    3. Today's Proposal. For purposes of this project, and as specified 
in Attachment C of the FPA, the City would be authorized to allow a 
sponsor Participating Industrial User subject to categorical standards 
to reduce the required sampling to less than twice per year, or to not 
sample for a pollutant, if it is not expected to be present in its 
wastestream at levels greater than background levels in its water 
supply, with no increase in the pollutant due to the regulated process. 
For such pollutants, the POTW would only be required to conduct 
sampling and analysis once during the term of the Participating 
Industrial User's permit. The Participating Industrial User would still 
be subject to the categorical standards for pollutants determined not 
to be present, and would be in violation of the limit and would need to 
resume the required sampling if existing sampling indicates the user 
has violated the limit.
    Consistent with the Streamlining Proposal, for purposes of this 
project, determinations by the City of Owatonna to either waive or 
reduce Participating Industrial User sampling to less than twice per 
year would be based on both sampling and other technical data, such as 
raw material usage, industrial processes, and potential by-products. 
Existing data on pollutant concentrations of the local public water 
supply will be used to characterize background concentrations; where a 
Participating Industrial User uses an alternative water supply, 
representative influent sampling would need to be provided. At least 
three years of Participating Industrial User effluent data would then 
be compared to the background data in making the determination that a 
given pollutant is not expected to be present. In addition, the city 
would need to make its determination based on its knowledge of the raw 
materials used and the facility's processes and potential by-products, 
but would not consider capability and efficiency of the user's 
pretreatment system. Where it believes it is necessary to make a 
determination, the City may require a Participating Industrial User to 
provide representative data on its untreated effluent.
    Once the POTW determines that one or more pollutants are not 
expected to be present at a Participating Industrial User, it may 
modify the Participating Industrial User's permit to reduce or 
eliminate the monitoring requirements for the pollutant(s). The IU 
permit would also require the Participating Industrial User to submit, 
as part of its regular semi-annual monitoring reports, certification 
that there has been no increase in the pollutant in its wastewater due 
to its activities. The POTW would sample the Participating Industrial 
User for all pollutants in the applicable categorical standard at least 
once during the term of the Participating Industrial User's permit.
    In addition to EPA's rulemaking action, MPCA will need to issue a 
revised NPDES permit to the OWWTF, and the City will need to revise 
Participating Industrial User permits issued to Sponsor facilities to 
enable it to eliminate monitoring for pollutants not present. The City 
will also need to evaluate its sewer use ordinance to determine if 
revisions are necessary to implement the changes proposed today.
Monitoring Frequency Reductions (40 CFR 403.19(e))
    1. Existing Requirements (40 CFR 403.12(e)). As discussed above, 40 
CFR 403.12(e)(1) currently requires industrial users subject to 
categorical Pretreatment Standards to submit reports to the Control 
Authority twice a year, or more frequently if required by the 
Pretreatment Standard or the Control Authority, indicating the nature 
and concentration of all pollutants in their effluent that are limited 
by the standards. The City of Owatonna generally requires its 
significant IUs to monitor and report on a quarterly basis.
    2. Today's Proposal. Upon initiation of this project, the City 
would evaluate the recent performance of sponsor Participating 
Industrial Users, and could reduce monitoring requirements to twice per 
year for facilities with satisfactory compliance records. After the 
first metal reduction goal of 20% is met, the City would be authorized, 
at its discretion, to reduce the self-monitoring frequency of 
Participating Industrial Users for any regulated pollutant to once per 
year. EPA believes that this mechanism will provide an incentive for 
Participating Industrial Users to reduce their contribution of the 
specified metals. In exercising this discretion, the OWWTF would be 
required to consider the Participating Industrial User's previous three 
years of compliance data, and would not reduce monitoring for 
pollutants where there is a reasonable potential of violating 
Pretreatment Standards.
    If one or more of the Industrial Users in the City of Owatonna, 
(Crown Cork and Seal Company, Inc.; Cybex International Inc.; Gandy 
Company, Inc.; Josten's Inc.--Southtown Facility; Mustang Manufacturing 
Company; SPx Corporation, Power Team Division; SPx Corporation, Service 
Solutions Division; Truth Hardware Corporation; and Uber Tanning 
Company), does not become a Participating Industrial User, the loading 
values specified in today's proposed rule would be adjusted in the 
final rule based on a 20 percent reduction from the baseline loadings 
from the final group of Owatonna Participating Industrial Users.
    In addition to EPA's rulemaking action, MPCA will need to issue a 
revised NPDES permit to the OWWTF, and the City will need to revise 
Participating Industrial User permits issued to Sponsor facilities to 
reduce monitoring frequencies for regulated pollutants. The City will 
also need to evaluate its sewer use ordinance to determine if revisions 
are necessary to implement the changes proposed today.

[[Page 26557]]

Significant Noncompliance Criteria (40 CFR 403.19(f))
    1. Existing Requirements (40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii)). ``Significant 
Noncompliance'' (SNC) is defined in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii) to include 
violations that meet one or more of eight criteria. The criteria are: 
(1) Chronic violations of discharge limits (where 66 percent of all 
measurements taken during a six-month period exceed the daily maximum 
limit or the average limit for the same pollutant parameter); (2) 
technical review criteria (TRC) violations (where 33 percent or more of 
all measurements for each pollutant parameter taken during a six-month 
period equal or exceed the product of the daily maximum limit or the 
average limit multiplied by the applicable TRC (TRC equals 1.4 for BOD, 
TSS, fats, oil and grease and 1.2 for all other pollutants except pH)); 
(3) any other violation of a pretreatment effluent limit that the 
Control Authority determines has caused, alone or in combination with 
other discharges, interference or pass through; (4) any discharge of a 
pollutant that has caused imminent endangerment to human health, 
welfare or to the environment or has resulted in the POTW's exercise of 
its emergency authority to halt or prevent such a discharge; (5) 
failure to meet, within 90 days after the schedule date, a compliance 
schedule milestone contained in a local control mechanism or 
enforcement order for certain activities; (6) failure to provide 
required reports within 30 days after the due date; (7) failure to 
accurately report Noncompliance; and (8) any other violation or group 
of violations which the Control Authority determines will adversely 
affect the operation or implementation of the local Pretreatment 
Program.
    On July 24, 1990, EPA modified 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii) to include 
the existing definition of SNC (55 FR 30082). The purpose of this 
modification was to provide some certainty and consistency among POTWs 
for publishing their lists of industrial users in Noncompliance. Under 
this provision, POTWs are required to annually publish a list of 
industrial users in SNC at any time during the previous twelve months. 
The POTW must publish this list in the largest daily newspaper 
published in the municipality in which the POTW is located. Independent 
of this publication requirement, POTWs are required to develop and 
implement Enforcement Response Plans, which describe the range of 
enforcement responses they will use in addressing various types of IU 
Noncompliance. Where an IU is identified as being in SNC, EPA guidance 
recommends that the POTW respond with some type of formal enforcement 
action such as an enforceable order (``Guidance For Developing Control 
Authority Enforcement Response Plans,'' EPA 832-B-89-102, September 
1989).
    2. The Streamlining Proposal. EPA did not propose to amend the 
entire provision on SNC, or even seek comment on all of it. Instead, 
the Agency proposed limited changes and sought comment on a number of 
options for a few specific provisions. With respect to publication, the 
primary purposes of which are to notify the public of violations and 
provide a disincentive for violating, EPA proposed to amend 40 CFR 
403.8(f)(2)(vii) to allow publication of the SNC list in any paper of 
general circulation within the jurisdiction served by the POTW that 
provides meaningful public notice. EPA also proposed to amend the SNC 
criteria so that they must only be applied to significant industrial 
users, and to address more than just daily maximum and monthly average 
limits. The Agency also sought comments on whether to revise the 
Technical Review Criteria, whether to revise the SNC criteria for late 
reports, and whether to codify the rolling quarters approach to 
determining SNC or adopt some other approach.
    3. Today's Proposal. Under today's proposed site-specific rule, the 
City would have the discretion to not publish certain instances of SNC 
by sponsor Participating Industrial Users in a newspaper. EPA believes 
that this change would provide faster public notice of SNC and would 
reserve additional newspaper publication of SNC for cases where this 
format is needed for its potentially greater effect. The City would 
continue to be required to provide newspaper publication of any 
violation which is not corrected within thirty (30) calendar days, or 
which results in pass through or interference. All SNC violations, 
whether published in a newspaper or not would be published as soon as 
is practicable, on the MPCA web site. The web site would contain an 
explanation of how SNC is determined, as well as a contact name and 
phone number for information regarding all other violations. The 
Owatonna Peer Review Committee system contemplated in the Steele County 
FPA will not be specified expressly in the rule, but rather is a 
voluntary agreement on the part of the Sponsors.
    In addition to EPA's rulemaking action, MPCA will need to issue a 
revised NPDES permit to the OWWTF. The City will also need to evaluate 
its sewer use ordinance to determine if revisions are necessary to 
implement the changes proposed today.

IV. Additional Information

A. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 12866?

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) EPA 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 proposed rule would be 
significantly less than $100 million and would not meet any of the 
other criteria specified in the Executive Order and because this 
proposed rule affects only nine specific private sector facilities and 
a single Publically-Owned Treatment Works (POTW), it is not a rule of 
general applicability or a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore not subject to OMB review and Executive Order 12866. Further 
today's proposed rule does not affect the POTW or the facilities unless 
they choose on a voluntary basis to participate in the XL project. 
Finally, OMB has agreed that review of site specific rules under 
Project XL is not necessary.
    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. However, for today's action, EPA has 
chosen a shorter comment period of 21 days. Today's proposed rule 
affects a total of nine Industrial Users and one publically-owned 
wastewater treatment facility. These entities were involved in the 
development of the draft Final Project Agreement which was made 
available for public comment on December 29,

[[Page 26558]]

1999 (64 FR 73047). Additional stakeholder involvement activities have 
been described in the Stakeholder Involvement discussion of this 
preamble. In conclusion, considering the very limited, site-specific 
scope of today's rulemaking and the considerable public involvement in 
the development of the draft FPA, the EPA considers 21 days to be 
sufficient in providing a meaningful public comment period for today's 
action.

B. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required?

    Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et. 
seq.
    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Under section 605(b) of the RFA, however, if the head of an agency 
certifies that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, the statute does not require the 
agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. Pursuant to 
section 605(b), the Administrator certifies that this proposal, if 
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities for the reasons explained below. 
Consequently, EPA has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis.
    Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and 
small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts 
of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: 
(1) A small business according to RFA default definitions for small 
business (based on SBA size standards); (2) a small governmental 
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and 
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    Today's proposed rule amends EPA's General Pretreatment Regulations 
to modify on a site-specific basis the requirements for POTW 
pretreatment programs. The rule authorizes the Owatonna, Minnesota 
Waste Water Treatment Facility, in its discretion, to reduce the 
required frequency of monitoring for its industrial users. Only one 
POTW is subject to this rule and grant of the relief authorized by the 
rule would reduce costs to the Owatonna Wastewater Treatment Facility's 
industrial users, including any industrial user that is a small 
business. Under these circumstances, EPA has concluded that the rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.

C. Is an Information Collection Request Required for This Rule Under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act?

    This action applies to nine companies and a single POTW and 
therefore requires no information collection activities subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, and therefore no Information Collection 
Request (ICR) will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

D. Does This Rule Trigger the Requirements of the 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 why the 
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.
    As noted above, this proposed rule is limited to the OWWTF and 
certain sponsoring industries. This proposed rule would create no 
federal mandate because EPA is imposing no new enforceable duties. EPA 
has also determined that this proposed 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 proposed rule is not subject to 
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Nevertheless, in 
developing this proposed rule, EPA worked closely with MPCA and the 
OWWTF and received meaningful and timely input in the development of 
this proposed rule.

E. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13045: Protection of 
Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks?

    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.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This proposed action is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically 
significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. The proposed rule does 
not impose any new or amended standards for discharged wastewater 
resulting from treatment by a POTW. With respect to the effects on 
children, the collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater occurs 
in a restricted system (e.g., buried sewer lines and fenced

[[Page 26559]]

wastewater treatment plants) that children are unlikely to come in 
contact with on a routine basis. The proposed rule has no identifiable 
direct impact upon the health and/or safety risks to children and 
adoption of the proposed regulatory changes would not 
disproportionately affect children. The proposed rulemaking is thus in 
compliance with the intent and requirements of the Executive Order.

F. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13132 on 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 the 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 proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless 
the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process 
of developing the proposed 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. The requirements outlined in 
today's proposed rule will not take effect unless Minnesota chooses to 
adopt equivalent requirements through revisions to Owatonna's NPDES 
permit and Owatonna chooses to take the steps to implement the proposed 
rule and make revisions to any local law and industrial user permits. 
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 State and 
local officials in developing this rule.

G. How Does This Rule Comply with 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 or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to 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 proposed 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 Steele County. Accordingly, the requirements 
of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

H. Does This Rule Comply With National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act of 1995 ``NTTAA'')?

    Section 12(d) of NTTAA, Public Law 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 standards. This proposed 
rulemaking sets equivalent means of expressing the same technical 
standards, and of determining compliance with those standards. It also 
uses voluntary goals to achieve pollutant reductions beyond those 
required by the technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering 
the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 403

    Environmental protection, Confidential business information, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal, 
Water pollution control.

    Dated: May 3, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out 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 citation for part 403 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

    2. Section 403.19 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 403.19  Provisions of specific applicability to the Owatonna Waste 
Water Treatment Facility.

    (a) For the purposes of this section, the term ``Participating 
Industrial Users'' includes the following Industrial Users in the City 
of Owatonna, Minnesota: Crown Cork and Seal Company, Inc.; Cybex 
International Inc.; Gandy Company, Inc.; Josten's Inc.--Southtown 
Facility; Mustang Manufacturing Company; SPx Corporation, Power Team 
Division; SPx Corporation, Service Solutions Division; Truth Hardware 
Corporation; and Uber Tanning Company.
    (b) For a Participating Industrial User discharging to the Owatonna 
Waste Water Treatment Facility in Owatonna, Minnesota, when a 
categorical Pretreatment Standard is expressed in terms of pollutant 
concentration the City of Owatonna may convert the limit to a mass 
limit by multiplying the five-year, long-term average process flows of 
the Participating Industrial User (or a shorter period if production 
has significantly increased or decreased during the five year period) 
by the concentration-based categorical standard. Participating 
Industrial Users must notify the City in the event production rates are 
expected to vary by

[[Page 26560]]

more than 20 percent from a baseline production rate determined by 
Owatonna when it establishes a Participating Industrial User's initial 
mass limit. To remain eligible to receive equivalent mass limits the 
Participating Industrial User must maintain at least the same level of 
treatment as at the time the equivalent mass limit is established. Upon 
notification of a revised production rate from a Participating 
Industrial User, the City will reassess the appropriateness of the mass 
limit. Owatonna shall reestablish the concentration-based limit if a 
Participating Industrial User does not maintain at least the same level 
of treatment as when the equivalent mass limit was established.
    (c) If a categorical Participating Industrial User of the Owatonna 
Waste Water Treatment Facility has demonstrated through sampling and 
other technical factors, including a comparison of three years of 
effluent data with background data, that pollutants regulated through 
categorical Pretreatment Standards, other than 40 CFR part 414, are not 
expected to be present in quantities greater than the background 
influent concentration to the industrial process, the City of Owatonna 
may reduce the sampling frequency specified in Sec. 403.8(f)(2)(v) to 
once during the term of the categorical Participating Industrial User's 
permit.
    (d) If a Participating Industrial User is discharging to the 
Owatonna Waste Water Treatment Facility in Owatonna, Minnesota and is 
subject to a categorical Pretreatment Standard other than one codified 
at 40 CFR part 414, the City of Owatonna may authorize the 
Participating Industrial User to forego sampling of a pollutant if the 
Participating Industrial User has demonstrated through sampling and 
other technical factors, including a comparison of three years of 
effluent data with background data, that the pollutant is not expected 
to be present in quantities greater than the background influent 
concentration to the industrial process, and the Participating 
Industrial User certifies on each report, with the following statement, 
that there has been no increase in the pollutant in its wastestream due 
to activities of the Participating Industrial User. The following 
statement is to be included as a comment to the periodic reports 
required by Sec. 403.12(e):

    Based on my inquiry of the person or persons directly 
responsible for managing compliance with the pretreatment standard 
for 40 CFR ____, I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and 
belief, the raw materials, industrial processes, and potential by-
products have not contributed this pollutant to the wastewaters 
since filing of the last periodic report under 40 CFR 403.12(e).

    (e) If the average daily loading from the Participating Industrial 
Users to the Owatonna Waste Water Treatment Facility is equal to or 
less than .69 pounds per day of chromium, .28 pounds per day of copper, 
1.18 pounds per day of nickel, and 1.11 pounds per day of zinc, 
Owatonna may authorize a categorical Participating Industrial User to 
satisfy the reporting requirements of Sec. 403.12(e) with an annual 
report provided on a date specified by Owatonna, provided that the 
Participating Industrial User has no reasonable potential to violate a 
Pretreatment Standard for any pollutant for which reduced monitoring is 
being allowed, and has not been in Significant Noncompliance within the 
previous three years.
    (f) The Owatonna Waste Water Treatment Facility in Owatonna, 
Minnesota shall post public notice of all Significant Noncompliance 
subject to the publication requirement in Sec. 403.8(f)(2)(vii) at the 
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency website for a period of one year, as 
soon as practicable upon identifying the violations. In addition, the 
Owatonna Waste Water Treatment Facility shall post an explanation of 
how Significant Noncompliance is determined, and a contact name and 
phone number for information regarding other, non-Significant 
Noncompliance violations. If a violation is not corrected within thirty 
(30) calendar days or results in pass through or interference at the 
Owatonna Waste Water Treatment Facility, publication must also be made 
in the format specified in Sec. 403.8(f)(2)(vii).
    (g) The provisions of this section shall expire on [DATE FIVE YEARS 
FROM PUBLICATION DATE OF FINAL RULE].

[FR Doc. 00-11433 Filed 5-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P