63334 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Notices

January 21, 1998, from 7:30 p.m. until

9 p.m. The second will occur on

Thursday, January 22, 1998, from 3:30

p.m. until 5:00 p.m.

FUTURE MEETING DATES: The Committee

has one remaining meeting scheduled

on May 4–6, 1998, in Atlanta, Georgia.

ADDRESSES: Materials or written

comments may be transmitted to the

Committee through Hazel Groman,

Designated Federal Officer, NACEPT/

TMDL, U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Office

of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds,

Assessment and Watershed Protection

Division (4503F), 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hazel Groman, Designated Federal

Officer for the Total Maximum Daily

Load Committee, at 202–260–8798.

Dated: November 20, 1997.

Hazel Groman,

Designated Federal Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–31279 Filed 11–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–5486–6]

Notice of Proposed Changes to

Voluntary Environmental Impact

Statement Policy

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of changes to existing

policy and opportunity for public

comment.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing changes in

its Statement of Policy for Voluntary

Environmental Impact Statements (EIS),

which it adopted and published in the

Federal Register (Vol. 39, No. 89/

Tuesday, May 7, 1974/Notices/16186–

16187). The proposed changes would

update the EPA policy to reflect how

Congress and the Courts have defined

EPA’s National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) obligations and to ensure

that EPA’s voluntary practices regarding

NEPA compliance are consistent with

practices provided in the NEPA

regulations issued by the Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ). The

proposed changes will also encourage

expansion of the increased discretionary

use of voluntary EISs in circumstances

where they can be particularly helpful

for decision-making involving other

federal agencies, cross-media issues, or

other concerns such as environmental

justice. The proposed changes will

affect certain EPA standard-setting and

cancellation procedures. EPA is

soliciting comments on these proposed

changes.

DATES: Submit written comments on or

before January 27, 1998. After

addressing any comments received, EPA

will issue a final policy in the Federal

Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION AND TO SUBMIT

WRITTEN COMMENTS CONTACT: Marguerite

Duffy at (202) 564–7148; E-mail:

duffy.marguerite@epamail.epa.gov; or

Joseph Montgomery at (202) 564–7157;

E-mail:

montgomery.joseph@epamail.epa.gov;

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Federal Activities (2252–A),

401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C.

20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Unless otherwise exempted, Section

102(2)(C) of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et

seq.) (hereafter ‘‘NEPA’’), implemented

by Executive Orders 11514 and 11991

and the Council on Environmental

Quality (CEQ) Regulations at 40 CFR

parts 1500–1508, requires that Federal

agencies prepare detailed environmental

statements on proposals for legislation

and other major Federal actions

significantly affecting the quality of the

human environment. The objective of

NEPA is to build into the Federal

agency decision-making process an

appropriate and careful consideration of

all environmental impacts of proposed

actions. Accordingly, under CEQ

regulations, where major Federal actions

will have a significant effect on the

quality of the human environment, a

detailed environmental impact

statement (EIS) is required; where it is

believed that an action will have no

significant impact, or where the level of

impact is uncertain, agencies can

prepare less detailed environmental

assessments (EAs) to determine the level

of impact and/or document a finding of

no significant impact.

EPA is legally required to comply

with the procedural requirements of

NEPA for its research and development

activities, facilities construction,

wastewater treatment construction

grants under Title II of the Clean Water

Act, and EPA-issued National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permits for new sources. The Agency is

exempted by statute for actions taken

under the Clean Air Act and for most

Clean Water Act programs. EPA is also

exempted from the procedural

requirements of environmental laws,

including NEPA, for Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

response actions. For other programs,

courts have consistently recognized that

EPA procedures or environmental

reviews under enabling legislation are

functionally equivalent to the NEPA

process and thus exempt from the

procedural requirements in NEPA.

However, as discussed below, it has

been long-standing Agency policy to

prepare EISs voluntarily for some

actions.

EPA has long recognized the value of

sound environmental analysis, the

importance of public participation, and

the desirability of integration of other

environmental requirements across the

range of its activities. EPA issued a

‘‘Statement of Policy’’ (Policy) in the

Federal Register (Vol. 39, No. 89/

Tuesday, May 7, 1974/Notices/16186–

16187) expressing the belief that

preparation of environmental impact

statements would have beneficial effects

for certain of its regulatory actions. EPA

decided that, while it was not legally

bound to do so by Section 102(2)(C) of

NEPA, it would voluntarily prepare

environmental impact statements for

specific regulatory actions relating to

the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 et

seq.); Noise Control Act (42 U.S.C. 4901

et seq.); Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C.

2011 et seq.); the Marine Protection,

Research, and Sanctuaries Act (33

U.S.C. 1401 et seq.); and, Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., as

amended by 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.).

EPA believes that several aspects of

the 1974 Voluntary EIS Policy have

become outdated since its publication.

EPA issued this Policy four years prior

to CEQ promulgation of regulations

implementing NEPA. CEQ’s regulations

state that while an EIS is required to

document significant impacts, an EA

will be adequate documentation to

determine if an action will have no

significant impact. EPA has gained

extensive experience concerning what

types of analysis will be useful to

enhance environmental decisionmaking under particular circumstances.

In addition, Congress, through statutory

exemptions from NEPA requirements,

and the Courts, through finding that

EPA statutes provide an analysis

functionally equivalent to what would

be done under NEPA, have explicitly

defined the legal role of NEPA analysis

in EPA decision-making.

In October 1993, an EPA Workgroup

on NEPA issued a report entitled ‘‘The

National Environmental Policy Act and

Environmental Protection Agency

Programs.’’ This Report recommended

that EPA revise its ‘‘voluntary EIS’’

Policy to: (1) Make it a ‘‘voluntary

NEPA’’ policy under which EPA would
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Notices 63335

prepare analyses that would be

appropriate under CEQ regulations. This

revision would allow the Agency, as it

could if it were governed by NEPA, to

prepare ‘‘environmental assessments’’

and subsequent findings of no

significant impact where warranted.

Accordingly, as under NEPA, only

major Federal actions with potential for

having a significant effect on the quality

of the human environment would

require the more extensive

environmental impact statements. This

revision would enable the Agency to

focus its efforts and limited resources on

environmentally significant actions and

also would be in keeping with the

Administration’s policy to streamline

government by eliminating unnecessary

paperwork and analysis and to focus its

efforts on significant environmental

problems. (2) The Report also

recommended expanding the Policy’s

scope by encouraging EPA program

managers to use voluntary EISs to

address, among other things, issues

involving multi-media impacts, indirect

effects, environmental justice, largescale ecological impacts, or where there

is significant public controversy. EPA

Administrator Browner has explained

that the policy changes would ‘‘make

EPA’s existing voluntary EIS policy

more flexible and encourage the

expanded use by EPA managers of

voluntary EISs as a means of involving

the public, states, tribes, localities, and

other Federal agencies in EPA decisionmaking provided that such voluntary

EISs are not duplicative of existing

procedures and do not significantly

delay actions.’’ Such changes would

enhance appropriate use of voluntary

EISs and also would be in keeping with

the Administration’s policy to

streamline government by providing

managers with one process for dealing

with multiple issues and programs.

II. Proposed Changes to Existing Policy

Agency officials will be encouraged to

consider, where appropriate and on a

case-by-case basis, the use of voluntary

EISs or EAs where they can provide

additional benefits for public

participation, environmental analysis,

or cooperation with other Federal, state

or local agencies, or tribal governments.

For example, there are several areas

where NEPA documents may be

appropriate in individual cases: (1)

Actions involving cumulative crossmedia or ecosystem impacts; (2) actions

involving environmental justice issues;

(3) actions which also involve other

Federal agencies which are addressing

issues under the NEPA process; (4)

actions involving special resources,

such as endangered species or historic,

archaeological, or cultural resources;

and (5) public health risk.

The policy will be changed to modify

voluntary EIS requirements for

regulatory actions under the programs

identified in the 1974 policy statement:

standard setting under the Clean Air

Act, the Noise Control Act, and the

Atomic Energy Act; criteria and site

designations under the Marine

Protection, Research and Sanctuaries

Act; and pesticide disposal regulations

and pesticide cancellations under

FIFRA. For these actions EPA will

continue to fulfill its commitment to

meeting the fundamental elements of

NEPA through the Agency’s Regulatory

Development Process for rule-making,

and through negotiated settlements with

pesticide producers under FIFRA. This

change will not preclude the voluntary

preparation of an EIS in an individual

case should it be determined that it

would be beneficial.

III. Basis for Proposed Change

This proposed change is based on the

following: (1) The need to update the

Policy to parallel established procedures

for implementation of NEPA which

allow for the preparation of an EA (and

a Finding of No Significant Impact)

rather than requiring an EIS in all cases;

(2) the need to streamline EPA

operations in order to ensure that

Agency resources are effectively used;

(3) the need to foster increased

utilization of NEPA processes for

decision-making and promote use of the

EA as a decision-making document for

those actions that have less than

significant impacts but which can

benefit from an environmental analysis

that leads to environmentally protective

modifications of the proposed action;

and (4) recognize that procedures for

environmental impact analysis and

public participation provided by the

EPA regulatory development process

have significantly changed since 1974.

Under the proposed new Policy,

instead of preparing EISs for the

regulatory actions listed in the 1974

Policy, EPA will routinely meet the

fundamental elements of NEPA for rulemaking actions through the Agency’s

Regulatory Development Process. This

process, which has become considerably

more developed over the last twenty

years, includes the fundamental steps

which would be carried out in a NEPA

analysis: identification of environmental

impacts; consideration of alternatives;

compliance with other environmental

statutes; and process for public

participation, including public review

and comment on draft regulations. The

Agency also considers environmental

justice impacts and impacts on

endangered species, and cultural,

archaeological, and historical resources

in its regulation process. EPA’s rulemakings involve detailed examination

of environmental effects and are

oriented towards achieving

environmental protection in furtherance

of EPA’s unique mission of

implementing statutes that are

environmentally protective. The

analysis and public participation

provided in EPA’s regulatory

development process would make

separate NEPA documents, i.e.,

preparation of EISs, redundant.

EPA rules, policy, and guidance are

developed by the EPA program office

which has lead responsibility for the

relevant statute. Where appropriate, the

lead program office also includes other

interested program and staff offices. In

addition to following the substantive

and procedural regulatory requirements

set out in the relevant statute, the lead

program office must follow

requirements in Executive Orders and

legislation which prescribe the

regulatory development process and

must analyze a number of factors,

including those which would be

considered in an EIS analysis. These

include: (1) Different regulatory

alternatives, including use of marketbased incentives, as well as different

levels of environmental protection and

technical feasibility; (2) cross-media

impacts; (3) coordination with state/

local standards; (4) applicable Federal

laws or executive orders (such as the

Endangered Species Act and Executive

Order 12898, ‘‘Federal Actions to

Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations’’); (5) implementation and

enforcement of the rule; and (6)

economic impacts and impacts on state,

local, and tribal governments.

As with the preparation of an EIS

document, public participation is also a

key part of the EPA regulatory

development process. The

Administrative Procedure Act and a

number of environmental statutes

require EPA to provide the members of

the public with an opportunity to

participate in the development of

regulations affecting them. The Agency

must provide an opportunity for public

comment and must consider the views

expressed, providing a summary of

significant comments and what the

Agency has done to address them. This

includes publication of the proposed

rule in the Federal Register and offering

the public the opportunity to submit

written comment, before Federal

Register publication of the final rule,

policy, or guidance. The lead program

office involved in developing a
63336 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Notices

regulation, policy, or guidance must

select the forms of participation best

suited to the issues and audiences

interested in that particular regulation.

These can include: written comments

submitted in response to notice of

proposed rulemaking, policy, or

guidance or an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking; comment from

established Federal Advisory Committee

Act (FACA) groups that advise the

Agency on policy issues; public briefing

sessions or meetings held to elicit views

on specific rules; and regulatory

negotiation groups. Federal Executive

Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and

Review) and 12875 (Enhancing

Intergovernmental Partnerships) as well

as EPA policy require timely and

meaningful intergovernmental

consultation with affected states,

localities and tribes. Planning for

intergovernmental consultation should

consider what governmental entities

will be affected, how they may be

affected, and what issues are likely to

concern them. The lead program office

is required to develop consultation

plans to set out processes for public

participation and intergovernmental

consultation that will be followed for a

rule-making.

An additional level of review for

significant regulations is carried out by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866 to

ensure that guidance, regulations, and

policies are consistent with applicable

law and the President’s priorities. This

process assures that, in deciding

whether and how to regulate, agencies

have assessed the costs and benefits of

the various approaches to regulation

when appropriate, including the

alternative of not regulating (this

corresponds to the ‘‘no action’’

alternative which would be considered

in a NEPA document). As appropriate,

this process also includes review of the

regulation, policy or guidance by other

Federal agencies to assure consistency

with their policies and any planned

actions and includes a process for

resolution of Federal interagency

disputes.

Public Comments

EPA seeks comment on these

proposed changes to the existing Policy.

To ensure full consideration, comments

must be submitted within 60 days of

publication of this Notice to the

Contacts listed above.

Date: November 21, 1997.

Richard E. Sanderson,

Director, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 97–31251 Filed 11–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5928–7]

Agency Information Collection

Activities; OMB Responses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This document announces the

Office of Management and Budget’s

(OMB) responses to Agency clearance

requests, in compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.). An agency may not

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not

required to respond to, a collection of

information unless it displays a

currently valid OMB control number.

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s

regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9

and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandy Farmer (202) 260–2740, please

refer to the appropriate EPA Information

Collection Request (ICR) Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Responses to Agency Clearance

Requests

OMB Approvals

EPA ICR No. 1807.01; National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Pesticide Active

Ingredient; was approved 11/07/97;

OMB No. 2060–0370; expires 11/30/

2000.

EPA ICR No. 1056.06; NSPS for Nitric

Acid Plants—Subpart G; was approved

11/14/97; OMB No. 2060–0019; expires

11/30/2000.

EPA ICR No. 1711.02; Voluntary

Customer Service Satisfaction Surveys;

was approved 11/12/97; OMB No. 2090–

0019; expires 10/31/99.

EPA ICR No. 1824.01; State Use of

EPA’s Policy on Compliance Incentives

for Small Businesses or Comparable

State Policy on Reducing Penalties for

Small Entities; was approved 11/04/97;

OMB No. 2020–0011; expires 04/30/98.

Short Term Extensions

EPA ICR No. 1723.01; Reporting and

Recordkeeping Requirements for the

Importation of Nonconforming Marine

Engines; expiration date was extended

from 01/31/98 to 05/31/98.

Change in Expiration Date

EPA ICR No. 1743.01; Application for

Motor Vehicle Emission Certification of

Air Revisions to the Federal Test

Procedure (FTP); OMB No. 2060–0332;

expiration date was changed from 04/

30/98 to 11/30/97.

Dated: November 21, 1997.

Joseph Retzer,

Division Director, Regulatory Information

Division.

[FR Doc. 97–31274 Filed 11–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5929–7]

Notice of Proposed Administrative De

Minimis Settlement Under Section

122(g)(4) of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act,

Regarding the Carroll & Dubies

Superfund Site, Town of Deerpark,

New York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed

administrative agreement and

opportunity for public comment.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section

122(i) of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of

1980, as amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C.

9622(i), the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) Region II

announces a proposed administrative de

minimis settlement pursuant to section

122(g)(4) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.

9622(g)(4), relating to the Carroll &

Dubies Superfund Site (the ‘‘Site’’),

Town of Deerpark, Orange County, New

York. This Site is on the National

Priorities List established pursuant to

section 105(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.

9605(a). This document is being

published to inform the public of the

proposed settlement and of the public’s

opportunity to comment.

This settlement, memorialized in an

Administrative Order on Consent

(Order), is being entered into by EPA

and the Reynolds Metals Company

(Respondent), and is the second and

final de minimis settlement between

these parties for this Site. The

Respondent contributed a relatively

minimal amount of hazardous

substances to the Site and is eligible for

a de minimis settlement under section

122(g) of CERCLA. Under the Order, the

Respondent has agreed to pay EPA

$14,154.03, toward the costs of certain

past and future response actions at the

Site. In exchange, Respondent will

receive a covenant not to sue from EPA

relating to liability for the Site under

sections 106 or 107(a) of CERCLA, 42

U.S.C. 9606 or 9607(a).