Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Notices 59837

Information Center. The past six Focus

Group meetings were held on April 11–

12, 1996, September 11–12, 1996,

February 19–20, 1997, May 20–21, 1997,

October 8–9, 1997, and March 18–19,

1998.

Dated: September 26, 2000.

Elizabeth A. Cotsworth,

Director, Office of Solid Waste.

[FR Doc. 00–25744 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[OPP–00439E; FRL–6748–7]

Pesticide Program Dialogue

Committee (PPDC): Inert Disclosure

Stakeholder Workgroup; Open Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice announces a

conference call meeting of the Inert

Disclosure Stakeholder Workgroup. The

workgroup was established to advise the

Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee

on ways of making information on inert

ingredients more available to the public

while working within the mandates of

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and related

Confidential Business Information

concerns.

DATES: The meeting will be held by

conference call on Tuesday, October 17,

2000 from 12:00 pm to 3:00 pm EST.

ADDRESSES: Members of the public may

listen to the meeting discussions on site

at: Crystal Mall #2 (CM #2), 1921

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA;

conference Room 1123. Seating is

limited and will be available on a first

come first serve basis.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Cameo Smoot, Office of Pesticide

Programs (7506C), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460,

telephone: (703) 305–5454. Office

locations: 11th floor, CM #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

E-mail smoot.cameo@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Inert

Disclosure Stakeholder Workgroup is

composed of a participants from the

following sectors: environmental/public

interest and consumer groups; industry

and pesticide users; Federal, State and

local governments; the general public;

academia and public health

organizations.

The Inert Disclosure Stakeholder

Workgroup, will advise the EPA through

the Pesticide Program Dialogue

Committee (PPDC), on potential

measures to increase the availability to

the public of information about inert

ingredients (also called ‘‘other

ingredients’’) under the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA). Among the factors the

workgroup has been asked to consider

in preparing its recommendations are:

existing law regarding inert ingredients

and Confidential Business Information

(CBI); current Agency processes and

policies for disseminating inert

ingredient information to the public,

including procedures for the protection

of CBI; informational needs for a variety

of stakeholders; and business reasons

for limiting the disclosure of inert

ingredient information.

The Inert Disclosure Stakeholder

Workgroup meeting is open to the

public. Written public statements are

welcome and should be submitted to the

OPP administrative docket OPP–

00439A. Any person who wishes to file

a written statement can do so before or

after the conference call. These

statements will become part of the

permanent file and will be provided to

the Workgroup members for their

information.

How and to Whom Do I Submit the

Comments?

You may submit comments through

the mail, in person, or electronically. To

ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is

imperative that you identify docket

control number OPP–00439A in the

subject line on the first page of your

response.

1. By mail. Submit your comments to:

Public Information and Records

Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information

Resources and Services Division

(7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP), Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

2. In person or by courier. Deliver

your comments to: Public Information

and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB),

Information Resources and Services

Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide

Programs (OPP), Environmental

Protection Agency, Rm. 119, CM #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington,

VA. The PIRIB is open from 8:30 a.m.

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB

telephone number is (703) 305–5805.

3. Electronically. You may submit

your comments and/or data

electronically by e-mail to: ‘‘oppdocket@epa.gov,’’ or you can submit a

computer disk as described above in

paragraphs 1. and 2. of this section. Do

not submit any information

electronically that you consider to be

CBI. Avoid the use of special characters

and any form of encryption. Electronic

submissions will be accepted in

WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file

format. All comments in electronic form

must be identified by docket control

number OPP–00439A. Electronic

comments may also be filed online at

many Federal Depository Libraries.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection. pesticides,

inerts, PPDC.

Dated: September 29, 2000.

Marcia E. Mulkey,

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–25752 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6882–8]

Policy on Alternative Dispute

Resolution

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This document publishes the

draft final policy of the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

regarding the use of alternative dispute

resolution (‘‘ADR’’). The Agency is

requesting public comment on this draft

document. This document replaces the

Interim Statement of Policy on

Alternative Dispute Resolution (65 FR

13383) which was issued on March 13,

2000.

The draft final policy is published in

the Federal Register to affirm EPA’s

commitment to the use of ADR in

Agency activities. The draft final policy

discusses the types of situations in

which ADR should be considered, how

EPA is organized to support ADR,

confidentiality of information in ADR

processes, efforts to promote a

commitment to and awareness of ADR

within the Agency, and how the success

of ADR will be measured. Nothing in

this document creates any right or

benefit by a party against the United

States.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before December 5, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Please address comments to

W. Robert Ward, Dispute Resolution

Specialist, by mail at Conflict

Prevention and Resolution Center, U.S.

EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200

59838 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Notices

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., (MC

2310A), Washington, DC 20460.

Comments sent by overnight delivery

services or by courier should be

addressed to W. Robert Ward, Conflict

Prevention and Resolution Center, U.S.

EPA, Ariel Rios Building, Room 6330F,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

20004. Comments may also be

submitted by fax at (202) 501–1715, or

by e-mail at ward.robert@epa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: W.

Robert Ward, Dispute Resolution

Specialist, U.S. EPA, Ariel Rios

Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW., (MC 2310A), Washington, DC

20460; (202) 564–2922;

ward.robert@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This draft

final policy is consistent with the

Administrative Dispute Resolution Act

of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–320, Oct. 19, 1996,

5 U.S.C. 571–583), which requires, in

part, that each federal agency adopt a

policy that addresses the use of ADR. It

is also consistent with provisions of the

Civil Justice Reform Act (Pub. L. 101–

650, Dec. 1, 1990, 28 U.S.C. 471–482),

the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act

of 1998 (Pub. L. 105–315, Oct. 30, 1998,

28 U.S.C. 651–658), the Regulatory

Negotiation Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–

320, Oct. 19, 1996, 5 U.S.C. 561–570);

the Federal Acquisition Streamlining

Act (Pub. L. 103–355, Oct. 13, 1994, 41

U.S.C. 405); the Contracts Disputes Act

(41 U.S.C. 601–613); Executive Order

12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ February

5, 1996; Executive Order 12979,

‘‘Agency Procurement Protests,’’

October 25, 1995; the Federal

Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR 33.204);

Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission regulations (29 CFR part

1614); Presidential Memorandum,

‘‘Designation of Interagency Committees

to Facilitate and Encourage Use of

Alternative Means of Dispute Resolution

and Negotiated Rulemaking,’’ May 1,

1998; and the Report of the National

Performance Review, ‘‘Creating a

Government that Works Better and Costs

Less,’’ September 7, 1993.

On March 13, 2000, EPA published an

Interim Statement of Policy on

Alternative Dispute Resolution in the

Federal Register. The document

published today supercedes and

replaces the Interim Statement of Policy.

EPA requested public comment on the

Interim Statement of Policy as input for

the development of this draft final

policy. The Agency received one

comment in response to the Interim

Statement of Policy. The comment was

generally supportive of the application

of ADR in the environmental arena. It

included suggestions regarding the

qualifications for neutral third parties

selected to assist in resolving complex

environmental disputes. It also

supported the concept of flexible ADR

techniques, including the use of

minitrials in appropriate circumstances.

The draft final policy does not address

neutral third party qualification criteria

explicitly, although the Agency

recognizes that the success of an ADR

proceeding often depends upon the

selection of a neutral third party with

the correct combination of background,

skills, and experience for the particular

matter. The Agency chose not to

establish neutral third party

qualification criteria in the context of

the draft final policy because this policy

is intended to apply to a wide range of

ADR activities. The Agency believes

that desirable qualification criteria may

differ based on the type of dispute, the

participating parties, and the type of

ADR technique being used. With regard

to the use of minitrials and other

flexible ADR techniques, the draft final

policy explicitly authorizes the use of

minitrials among a variety of ADR

techniques.

EPA Policy on Alternative Dispute

Resolution

Purpose

The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA or the Agency) strongly

supports the use of alternative dispute

resolution (ADR) to deal with disputes

and potential conflicts. ADR refers to

voluntary techniques for preventing and

resolving conflict with the help of

neutral third parties. Experience within

this Agency and elsewhere shows that

ADR techniques for preventing and

resolving conflicts can have many

benefits including:

• Faster resolution of issues;

• More creative, satisfying and

enduring solutions;

• Reduced transaction costs;

• Fostering a culture of respect and

trust among EPA, its stakeholders, and

its employees;

• Improved working relationships;

• Increased likelihood of compliance

with environmental laws and

regulation;

• Broader stakeholder support for

agency programs; and

• Better environmental outcomes.

ADR techniques can be effective in

both internal Agency disagreements and

external conflicts. ADR allows the

Agency to have a more productive work

environment and to work better with

State, Tribal, and local governments, the

regulated community, environmental

and public health organizations, and the

public. This policy is intended to be

flexible enough to respond to the full

range of disputes EPA faces, and to

achieve these objectives:

• Promote understanding of ADR

techniques;

• Encourage routine consideration of

ADR approaches to anticipate, prevent,

and resolve disputes;

• Increase the use of ADR in EPA

business;

• Highlight the importance of

addressing confidentiality concerns in

ADR processes;

• Promote systematic evaluation and

reporting on ADR at EPA; and

• Further the Agency’s overall

mission through ADR program

development.

What Does EPA Mean by the Term

‘‘ADR’’?

EPA adopts the definition of ADR in

the Administrative Dispute Resolution

Act of 1996 (ADRA): ‘‘Any procedure

that is used to resolve issues in

controversy, including but not limited

to, conciliation, facilitation, mediation,

fact finding, minitrials, arbitration, and

use of ombuds, or any combination

thereof.’’ 5 USC 571(3). All these

techniques involve a neutral third party.

Depending on the circumstances of a

particular dispute, neutrals may be

Agency employees or may come from

outside EPA. Typically, all aspects of

ADR are voluntary, including the

decision to participate, the type of

process used, and the content of any

final agreement.

In What Types of Situations Does EPA

Encourage the Use of ADR?

EPA encourages the use of ADR

techniques to prevent and resolve

disputes with external parties in many

contexts, including adjudications,

rulemaking, policy development,

administrative and civil judicial

enforcement actions, permit issuance,

protests of contract awards,

administration of contracts and grants,

stakeholder involvement, negotiations,

and litigation. In addition, EPA

encourages the use of ADR techniques

to prevent and resolve internal disputes

such as workplace grievances and equal

employment opportunity complaints,

and to improve labor-management

partnerships.

While ADR may be appropriate in any

of these contexts, the decision to use an

ADR technique in a particular matter

must reflect an assessment of the

specific parties, issues, and other

factors. Considerations relevant to the

appropriateness of ADR for any

particular matter include, at a

minimum, the guidelines in section 572

of the ADRA and any applicable Agency

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Notices 59839

guidance on particular ADR techniques

or ADR use in specific types of disputes.

ADR program staff at EPA headquarters

and in the Regions can help the parties

assess whether and which form of ADR

should be used in a particular matter.

How Is EPA Organized To Support

ADR?

EPA’s Conflict Prevention and

Resolution Center (CPRC) in the Office

of General Counsel (OGC) provides ADR

services to the entire Agency. The

Agency’s Dispute Resolution Specialist,

designated under the ADRA, is the head

of the CPRC. Because the Dispute

Resolution Specialist’s responsibilities

include development and

implementation of all Agency ADR

policy, Headquarters Offices and

Regions are expected to coordinate with

the CPRC from the earliest stages in

developing any program-specific ADR

guidance and in addressing issues

during ADR policy implementation. The

CPRC also will administer Agency-wide

ADR programs, coordinate case

management and evaluation, and

provide support to program-specific

ADR activities. Building on existing

ADR efforts at EPA, the CPRC assists

other Agency offices in developing

effective ways to anticipate, prevent,

and resolve disputes, and makes neutral

third parties more readily available for

those purposes.

Other EPA offices, including the

Office of Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance, and the Office of

Administrative Law Judges, are using

ADR to resolve conflicts between the

Agency and regulated entities. The

Office of Policy, Economics and

Innovation and the Office of

Cooperative Environmental

Management, in partnership with many

EPA program offices, use ADR to

provide opportunities for stakeholders

to contribute to the design of Agency

actions that affect them.

EPA Regions have ADR programs that

meet their particular needs. For

example, in some cases, EPA Regions

have identified staff experts to

coordinate workplace, enforcement, and

other ADR activities. EPA Regions have

also used internal and external neutral

third parties to foster stakeholder

involvement, resolve workplace

disputes, help in organizational

problem-solving, and mediate

enforcement cases. The CPRC will

continue to provide support to existing

Regional ADR programs and is available

to help in developing new ADR efforts.

Anyone interested in exploring the

possibility of ADR in an EPA matter can

contact the CPRC, a Regional ADR

program, or a program office with an

established ADR function for

information and assistance regarding

mechanics, process design, or advice on

what to expect from an ADR process.

How Should Confidentiality Be Handled

in ADR Processes?

A thorough discussion of

confidentiality is often critical to

success in ADR. It is EPA’s policy to

maintain confidentiality in ADR

processes consistent with the ADRA and

other applicable law. Section 574 of the

ADRA reflects a balancing of the need

for confidentiality in ADR with the dual

goals of open government and effective

law enforcement. Other federal laws

may impact the confidentiality of

information in specific cases,

potentially compelling disclosure or

enhancing protection against disclosure

(e.g., Inspector General Act, Freedom of

Information Act, Privacy Act). The

CPRC can provide further information

on authorities that may impact

confidentiality in a federal ADR process.

The confidentiality needs and

concerns of the parties must be

discussed early in every ADR process.

EPA staff, the parties, and the neutral

third party should be aware of how

confidentiality operates in the context of

federal ADR. Within this context, the

parties and the neutral third party

should work together to establish a

common understanding of how

confidentiality protections apply in a

specific process. In most cases, this

understanding should be recorded in a

written confidentiality agreement. This

initial work will benefit all parties by

clarifying expectations regarding

confidentiality before full initiation of

the ADR process.

How Will EPA Promote Commitment to

and Awareness of ADR Within the

Agency?

Information Sources

The CPRC, in consultation with

Agency program offices and Regions,

will compile existing information and

develop additional information on ADR

practice at EPA and will make this

information available to EPA personnel

through a website and through the

CPRC. Information may include model

agreements to mediate, case selection

criteria, descriptions of ADR processes,

mechanisms for accessing external

neutral third parties, case studies,

guidance on confidentiality and

evaluating ADR processes, directories of

EPA ADR contacts, bibliographies, and

links to external sources of information.

Training

The Agency strongly encourages all

EPA personnel to learn about ADR.

Training is crucial not only for those

selected to serve as in-house neutrals,

but also for negotiators and others who

need to understand how ADR can

enhance negotiation and agency

decision making. The Dispute

Resolution Specialist will identify and

recommend relevant ADR training.

Training sources may include existing

EPA training programs, training

sponsored by other agencies, newly

developed courses, and commercially

available training.

This policy affirms a goal of EPA’s

Labor/Management Partnership

Strategic Plan (Spring 2000) to train line

managers, first line supervisors, Federal

union representatives and other

employees in consensual methods of

dispute resolution such as ADR and

interest-based negotiation. Finally, the

Agency will add skills in negotiation

and alternative dispute resolution to its

inventory of desirable management

characteristics used to prepare and

select managers for the Senior Executive

Service.

Mentoring

The Agency encourages those with

ADR experience to share their expertise

with other Agency personnel. Mentoring

and apprenticing can strengthen EPA’s

ADR program by expanding the number

of staff with ADR skills, increasing

opportunities to practice ADR

techniques, and providing for exchange

between more and less experienced

ADR professionals.

Funding

Costs associated with ADR processes,

including fees for external neutral third

parties, are typically paid in whole or in

part by the sponsoring EPA office.

Depending on the circumstances, other

parties or offices also contribute. The

Agency expects each program office at

Headquarters and each Region to

demonstrate a commitment to ADR by

making funds available for ADR

processes.

How Will EPA Measure the Success of

Its ADR Programs?

Many federal agencies have shown

significant time and money savings from

the use of ADR and have received

intangible benefits such as improved

relationships and broader stakeholder

support for their programs. Evaluation is

an important way to identify these

savings and benefits and is key to

systematic improvement of ADR

programs. Through evaluation, EPA is

committed to measuring the success of

59840 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Notices

its ADR programs and continually

improving them to better meet the needs

of EPA offices, Regions, and external

stakeholders.

Several EPA offices and Regions have

already evaluated their ADR efforts. To

build on these evaluations and to

strengthen the evaluation component of

ADR practice across the Agency, the

CPRC, consulting with internal and

external stakeholders, will develop an

evaluation system for ADR at EPA. The

evaluation system will include goals

and both qualitative and quantitative

measures of success.

Where Can I Get Additional Information

or Help With ADR at EPA?

Additional information on ADR

contacts within EPA, topics covered in

this policy, and others, may be obtained

from the CPRC at (202) 564–2922.

What Is the Legal Authority for this

Policy?

This policy satisfies the requirement

of the Administrative Dispute

Resolution Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 571–

583, that each federal agency adopt a

policy that addresses the use of ADR.

The policy is also consistent with the

following federal statutes, regulations,

and orders:

• Regulatory Negotiation Act of 1996,

5 U.S.C. 561–570

• Civil Justice Reform Act, 28 U.S.C.

471–482

• Alternative Dispute Resolution Act

of 1998, 28 U.S.C. 651–658

• Federal Acquisition Streamlining

Act, 41 U.S.C. 405

• Contracts Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C.

601–613

• Federal Acquisition Regulation, 48

CFR 33.103 & 33.204

• Federal Sector Equal Employment

Opportunity Regulations, 29 CFR part

1614

• Civil Justice Reform, Executive

Order 12988, 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 5, 1996)

• Agency Procurement Protests,

Executive Order 12979, 60 FR 55171

(Oct. 27, 1995)

• Presidential Memorandum,

‘‘Designation of Interagency Committees

to Facilitate and Encourage Use of

Alternative Means of Dispute Resolution

and Negotiated Rulemaking,’’ May 1,

1998

Request for Public Comment

The Environmental Protection Agency

invites public comment on this draft

document. Comments should be

received by December 5, 2000.

Dated: September 29, 2000.

Carol Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–25749 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6883–2]

Draft EPA Guidelines for Management

of Onsite/Decentralized Wastewater

Systems and Guidance Manual Outline

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability for

comment.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) is making

available for review and comment a

draft of its Guidelines for Management

of Onsite/Decentralized Wastewater

Systems and an outline for a guidance

manual that will be developed to

supplement the guidelines. The purpose

of the guidelines is to raise the level of

performance of onsite/decentralized

wastewater systems through improved

management programs. Onsite/

decentralized wastewater treatment

systems include individual onsite or

cluster wastewater systems (commonly

referred to as septic systems, private

sewage systems, individual sewage

systems, etc.) used to treat and dispose

of relatively small volumes of

wastewater, generally from individual

dwellings, or groups of dwellings and

businesses which are located relatively

close together. EPA is proposing the

voluntary national guidelines in order to

raise the quality of management

programs, establish minimum levels of

activity, and institutionalize the concept

of management. Implementation of the

guidelines will provide a greater range

of options for cost-effectively meeting

wastewater needs and meeting water

quality and public health goals.

The guidelines contain a set of model

programs, based on a comprehensive

approach that relies on coordinating the

responsibilities and actions among the

state, tribal or local regulatory agency,

the management entity or service

provider and the system owner(s). These

model programs are structured to reflect

a need for more comprehensive

management as the sensitivity of the

environment and/or the degree of

technological complexity increases. A

program’s designation increases

progressively from Model Program 1

through Model Program 5, reflecting the

increased level of management activities

needed to achieve water quality and

public health goals. Adoption of the

guidelines is voluntary and EPA

encourages that communities to

consider the guidelines as a basis for

their onsite/decentralized wastewater

management program.

The guidelines apply to both existing

communities and to areas of new

development that use onsite/

decentralized systems of any size for

residential and commercial wastewater

treatment and disposal.

DATES: Email or written comments are

requested by December 5, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments can be submitted

online at http://www.epa.gov/owm/

smallc/guidelines.htm, emailed to

decentralized@epa.gov, via U.S. mail to

Joyce Hudson, US EPA, Office of

Wastewater Management (4204), 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460, or faxed to (202)

260–0116.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any

questions regarding the content of EPA’s

Guidelines for Management of Onsite/

Decentralized Wastewater Systems can

be addressed to Joyce Hudson by email

at hudson.joyce@epa.gov. Additional

copies of the documents may be

obtained by calling Melanie Montalvo,

the EPA contractor, at (703) 934–2323 or

by downloading the documents at

http://www.epa.gov/owm/smallc/

guidelines.htm

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In April,

1997, EPA prepared a ‘‘Response to

Congress on the Use of Decentralized

Wastewater Treatment Systems.’’ The

report concluded that alternative

treatment technologies offer a costeffective, long term wastewater solution

for many communities. However, the

report emphasized that these

‘‘decentralized’’ (onsite and small

cluster) technologies must be

implemented in the context of a

responsible management program to

consistently achieve water quality and

public health goals. The report

identified the current lack of

management as a barrier to successfully

applying these otherwise promising

technologies.

The development of management

standards for decentralized wastewater

treatment systems was therefore

included in the Clean Water Action Plan

(CWAP) as Action Item 77B . In

fulfillment of this action item, EPA

prepared a concept paper in the spring

of 1999, which was gradually developed

into a set of voluntary national

guidelines for the management of onsite

and decentralized wastewater systems.

The guidelines which we are proposing

for formal public comment have been

developed with considerable input from