Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 59791

January 1, 1995, for all class I controlled

substances any person (‘‘transferor’’)

may transfer to any other person

(‘‘transferee’’) any amount of the

transferor’s Article 5 allowances, and

after January 1, 2001 any essential use

allowance holder (‘‘transferor’’) may

transfer essential use allowances for

CFCs to any other essential use

allowance holder for CFCs

(‘‘transferee’’) solely for the production

of essential products (defined at 21 CFR

2.125) as follows:

(i) * * *

(H) The amount of the one percent

offset applied to the unweighted amount

traded that will be deducted from the

transferor’s production or consumption

allowance balance (except for trades

from transformers and destroyers to

producers or importers for the purpose

of allowance reimbursement) In the case

of transferring essential use allowances,

the amount of one tenth of one percent

of the amount traded will be deducted

from the transferor’s allowance balance.

(ii) The Administrator will determine

whether the records maintained by EPA,

taking into account any previous

transfers and any production, allowable

imports and exports of controlled

substances reported by the transferor,

indicate that the transferor possesses, as

of the date the transfer claim is

processed, unexpended allowances

sufficient to cover the transfer claim

(i.e., the amount to be transferred plus,

in the case of transferors of essential use

allowances, one tenth of one percent of

that amount, and in the case of

transferors of production or

consumption allowances, one percent of

that amount). Within three working

days of receiving a complete transfer

claim, the Administrator will take

action to notify the transferor and

transferee as follows:

(A) If EPA’s records show that the

transferor has sufficient unexpended

allowances to cover the transfer claim,

the Administrator will issue a notice

indicating that EPA does not object to

the transfer and will reduce the

transferor’s balance of unexpended

allowances by the amount to be

transferred plus, in the case of transfers

of production or consumption

allowances, one percent of that amount,

or in the case of transfers of essential

use allowances, one tenth of one percent

of that amount. When EPA issues a no

objection notice, the transferor and the

transferee may proceed with the

transfer. However, if EPA ultimately

finds that the transferor did not have

sufficient unexpended allowances to

cover the claim, the transferor and

transferee will be held liable for any

violations of the regulations of this

subpart that occur as a result of, or in

conjunction with, the improper transfer.

* * * * *

(iii) In the event that the

Administrator does not respond to a

transfer claim within the three working

days specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of

this section, the transferor and

transferee may proceed with the

transfer. EPA will reduce the

transferor’s balance of unexpended

allowances by the amount to be

transferred plus, in the case of transfers

of production or consumption

allowances, one percent of that amount,

or in the case of essential use

allowances, one tenth of one percent of

that amount. However, if EPA

ultimately finds that the transferor did

not have sufficient unexpended

allowances to cover the claim, the

transferor and transferee will be held

liable for any violations of the

regulations of this subpart that occur as

a result of, or in conjunction with, the

improper transfer.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–25745 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 403

[FRL–6883–1]

RIN 2090–AA16

Pretreatment Program Reinvention

Pilot Projects Under Project XL

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Today EPA is proposing

changes to the National Pretreatment

Program regulations to allow Publicly

Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) that

have completed the Project eXcellence

and Leadership (Project XL) selection

process, including Final Project

Agreement (FPA) development, to

modify their approved local

Pretreatment Programs. These POTWs

would be allowed to modify their

programs following the procedures in 40

CFR 403.18, and implement the new

local programs as described in their

FPAs.

In today’s proposed rule, EPA

recognizes that many POTWs with

approved Pretreatment Programs have

mastered the administrative and

procedural requirements of the National

Pretreatment regulations (40 CFR Part

403). Several of these POTWs want the

opportunity to implement local

pretreatment programs with

effectiveness measured against

environmental results rather than strict

adherence to programmatic and

administrative measures. These POTWs

have expressed an interest in Project XL

to test new pilot ideas that focus

resources on activities that they believe

would provide greater environmental

benefits than are achieved by complying

with current regulatory requirements.

This rule is intended to provide the

regulatory flexibility that will enable

these test programs to move forward.

Currently, five POTWs are actively

involved in this Project XL process.

DATES: Public Comments: All public

comments on the proposed rule must be

received on or before November 6, 2000.

Comments provided electronically will

be considered timely if they are

submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m.

(Eastern time) November 6, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to ‘‘Project XL/CWA

Pretreatment,’’ Water Docket MC–4101;

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Environmental Protection

Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Commenters are

also requested to submit an original and

3 copies of their written comments as

well as an original and 3 copies of any

attachments, enclosures, or other

documents referenced in the comments.

Commenters who would like EPA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

should include a self-addressed,

stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes)

will be accepted.

EPA will also accept comments

electronically. Comments should be

addressed to the following Internet

address: ow-docket@epamail.epa.gov.

Electronic comments must be submitted

as an ASCII, WordPerfect 5.1/6.1/8

format file and avoid the use of special

characters or any form of encryption.

Electronic comments will be transferred

into a paper version for the official

record. EPA will attempt to clarify

electronic comments if there is an

apparent error in transmission.

Supporting materials are also

available for inspection and copying at

U.S. EPA, Headquarters, 401 M Street,

SW., Room 445 West Tower,

Washington, DC 20460 during normal

business hours. Persons wishing to view

the materials at the Washington, DC

location are encouraged to contact Mr.

Chad Carbone in advance by

telephoning (202) 260–4296.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Brian Frazer, (202) 260–0101, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel

Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania

59792 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Avenue, NW., (MC 4203), Washington,

DC 20460.

The information presented in this

preamble is organized as follows:

I. Authority

II. Background

A. What is Project XL?

A. What is EPA Proposing?

C. Stakeholder Involvement in the XL

Process

D. What is the National Pretreatment

Program?

E. What are the Current Pretreatment

Program Requirements?

F. How Do the Current Requirements

Relate to Environmental Objectives?

G. Why is EPA Considering Allowing

POTW Local Pilot Pretreatment Programs

at this Time?

H. Are There Any POTWs Currently Going

Through Project XL Approval Process?

I. What Are the Environmental Benefits

anticipated through Project XL?

J. What is the Project Duration and

Completion Date?

K. How Could the Project be Terminated?

III. Rule Description

IV. Request for Public Comments

V. Additional Information

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

I. Authority

This regulation is being proposed

under the authority of sections 307, 402

and 501 of the CWA.

II. Background

A. What Is Project XL?

Project XL, which stands for

‘‘eXcellence and Leadership,’’ is a

national pilot program that tests

innovative ways of achieving better and

more cost-effective public health and

environmental protection through sitespecific agreements with project

sponsors. Project XL was announced on

March 16, 1995, as a central part of the

National Performance Review and EPA’s

effort to reinvent environmental

protection. See 60 FR 27282 (May 23,

1995) and 60 FR 55569 (November 1,

1995). The intent of Project XL is to

allow EPA and regulated entities to

experiment with pragmatic, potentially

promising regulatory approaches, both

to assess whether they provide superior

environmental performance and other

benefits at the specific facility affected,

and whether they should be considered

for wider application. Such pilot

projects are intended to allow EPA to

collect more data on a more focused

basis prior to national rulemaking.

Today’s proposed regulation would

enable implementation of specific XL

projects. These efforts are crucial to

EPA’s ability to test new strategies that

reduce the regulatory burden and

promote economic growth while

achieving better environmental and

public health protection. EPA intends to

evaluate the results of this and other XL

projects to determine which specific

elements of the project(s), if any, should

be more broadly applied to other

regulated entities for the benefit of both

the economy and the environment.

B. What Is EPA Proposing?

In the June 23, 1998, Federal Register

(63 FR 6113–6), EPA requested

proposals for XL projects from POTWs

based on environmental performance

measures for the pretreatment program.

The process for reviewing and choosing

acceptable pilot program candidates

included input from POTWs, State and

EPA Regional Pretreatment

Coordinators, as well as opportunity for

public participation. As discussed in

more detail below, five POTWs have

advanced to the final steps of the Project

XL process. In today’s proposal, EPA

announces proposed revisions to the

national pretreatment regulations at 40

CFR part 403 that would allow the

selected Local Pilot Pretreatment

Programs to be implemented. These

POTWs will then need to submit revised

pretreatment programs for approval and

obtain modified permits to authorize the

POTW to implement its pilot program

instead of its current Approved POTW

Pretreatment Program. In addition, the

affected states may first need to revise

their own regulations or statutes to

authorize the pilot programs for

pretreatment XL project sponsors before

this rule can be implemented in their

jurisdictions.

C. Stakeholder Involvement in the XL

Process

EPA believes stakeholder involvement

in developing Local Pilot Pretreatment

Programs is crucial to the success of the

programs, therefore, as part of the

Project XL proposal, a POTW must

clearly explain its process for involving

stakeholders in the design of the pilot

program. This process should be based

upon the guidance set out in the April

23, 1997, Federal Register notice. The

support of parties that have a stake in

the program is very important. Once

EPA has accepted a candidate based on

its detailed proposal, the POTW, EPA,

the State and local stakeholders

typically finalize a Final Project

Agreement (FPA). The FPA is a nonbinding agreement that describes the

intentions and commitments of the

implementing parties. Stakeholders may

include communities near the project,

local or state governments, businesses,

environmental and other public interest

groups, or other similar entities.

Stakeholders will also have formal

opportunities to comment on provisions

of the FPA that are incorporated in the

POTW’s revised pretreatment program

under the procedures established at 40

CFR 403.18 and this proposal.

D. What Is the National Pretreatment

Program?

The National Pretreatment Program is

part of the Clean Water Act’s (CWA’s)

water pollution control program. The

program is a joint regulatory effort by

local, State, and federal authorities that

requires the control of industrial and

commercial sources of pollutants

discharged to municipal wastewater

plants (called ‘‘publicly owned

treatment works’’ or ‘‘POTWs’’). Control

of pollutants prior to discharge of

wastewater to the municipal sewer

system minimizes the possibility of

pollutants interfering with the operation

of the POTW and reduces the levels of

toxic pollutants in wastewater

discharges from the POTW and in the

sludge resulting from municipal

wastewater treatment.

E. What Are the Current Pretreatment

Program Requirements?

The minimum requirements for an

Approved POTW Pretreatment Program

currently are published at 40 CFR

403.8(f). POTWs with Approved

Pretreatment Programs must maintain

adequate legal authority, identify

industrial users, designate which

industrial users (IUs) are ‘‘Significant

Industrial Users’’ (SIUs) (under 40 CFR

403.3(t)) and perform required

monitoring, permitting and

enforcement. Other sections of part 403

require POTWs with Approved

Pretreatment Programs to sample and

apply nationally applicable

pretreatment standards to the industrial

users discharging pollutants to the

POTW collection system. POTWs are

also required to develop local limits in

accordance with 40 CFR 403.5. As

proposed today, EPA would allow

Approval Authorities to require a POTW

to meet requirements in an

environmental performance-based pilot

program instead of certain

administrative programmatic

requirements currently required in a

POTW’s Approved Pretreatment

Program under 40 CFR part 403.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 59793

F. How Do the Current Requirements

Relate to Environmental Objectives?

As described in 40 CFR 403.2, the

general pretreatment regulations

promote three objectives:

(a) To prevent the introduction of

pollutants into POTWs which will

interfere with the operation of POTWs,

including interference with the use or

disposal of municipal sludge;

(b) To prevent the introduction of

pollutants into POTWs which will pass

through the treatment works or

otherwise be incompatible with such

works; and

(c) To improve opportunities to

recycle and reclaim municipal and

industrial wastewaters and sludges.

These objectives require local

programs to be designed so they are

preventative in nature, and therefore,

any pilot program also would need to

maintain this preventative approach.

The specific requirements for an

Approved POTW Pretreatment Program

are intended to achieve these objectives.

Individual pretreatment programs,

however, are not routinely required to

report on the achievement of

environmental measures.

The 1991 National Pretreatment

Program Report to Congress provides

extensive data related to the sources and

amounts of pollutants discharged to

POTWs, the removal of pollutants by

secondary treatment technology, and the

general effectiveness of the pretreatment

program. The 1991 Report did, however,

point to a serious lack of comprehensive

environmental data with which to fully

assess the effectiveness of both the

national and local pretreatment

programs. These project XL pilots

would help to provide data for this

purpose.

G. Why Is EPA Considering Allowing

POTW Local Pilot Pretreatment

Programs at this Time?

Some POTWs have mastered the

administrative aspects of the

pretreatment program (identifying

industrial users, permitting, monitoring,

etc.) and want to move into more

environmental performance-based

processes. These POTWs have

expressed an interest in focusing their

resources on activities that they believe

would provide greater environmental

benefit than is achieved by complying

with the current requirements. Some

POTWs want to be able to make

decisions on allocating resources based

on the risk associated with the

industrial contributions they receive or

other factors. Others want to be able to

focus more resources on ambient

monitoring in their receiving waters

and/or to integrate their pretreatment

programs with their storm water

monitoring programs. In general, these

POTWs want the opportunity to redirect

limited resources away from currently

required activities that they do not

believe are benefitting the environment

and toward activities that may achieve

measurable improvements in the

environment.

EPA developed the Project XL

program to provide regulated entities

the flexibility to conduct innovative

pilot projects. Today’s proposed rule

represents an attempt to spur innovation

in the pretreatment program to increase

environmental benefits and, in

conjunction with the streamlining

proposal, (see 64 FR 39564) to

determine if further streamlining of the

program is needed, how streamlining

can achieve environmental

improvements and in what direction

those future streamlining efforts should

be directed.

H. Are There Any POTWs Currently

Going Through Project XL Approval

Process?

In order to implement the

pretreatment XL projects, EPA is

proposing a rule that would provide

regulatory flexibility under the Clean

Water Act. Currently, five (5) POTWs

have requested flexibility through the

Project XL FPA approval process. The

POTWs are: The Narragansett Bay

Commission (NBC) in Rhode Island; the

Jeffersontown Wastewater Treatment

Plant (WWTP), owned and operated by

the Louisville and Jefferson County

Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) in

Kentucky; the Metropolitan Water

Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

(Chicago) in Illinois; the City of

Albuquerque (Albuquerque), New

Mexico; and the City of Denton

(Denton), Texas. The FPA for NBC lays

out the following flexibilities: (1)

Reduced self-monitoring requirements

for ten (10) categorical industrial users

(CIUs) for tier 1 facilities, (2) reduced

inspection frequency for ten (10) CIUs

tier 1 facilities from once every year to

once every two years and, (3) allow

participating CIUs tier 1 facilities to not

sample for pollutants not expected to be

present. Under the FPA for MSD, the

POTW is requesting flexibility to (1) use

an alternative definition for significant

industrial user (SIU), (2) allow

participating CIUs to not sample for

pollutants not expected to be present

and (3) use an alternative definition of

significant noncompliance (SNC). The

Chicago FPA describes flexibility that

includes (1) use of an alternative (in

relation to the pretreatment streamlining

proposal) definition for de minimis

categorical industrial user (CIU) and (2)

reduced self-monitoring and selfreporting requirements for participating

CIUs and (3) use alternative monitoring

methods. The Albuquerque FPA lays

out flexibility to (1) use an alternative

definition of SIU, (2) use an alternative

definition of SNC, (3) reduce permitting

requirements for participating IUs, (4)

use alternative monitoring methods and

(5) reduce reporting requirements for

participating IUs. The Denton FPA lays

out flexibility to (1) reduce its

monitoring of participating IUs and (2)

reduce its inspection of participating

IUs. In exchange for these flexibilities,

each individual POTW would need to

commit to produce certain proportional

amounts of superior environment

performance as laid out in the FPA and

maintain all legal and preventative

environmental health and safety

standards. Complete project site-specific

descriptions can be found on the web at:

http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.

I. What Are the Environmental Benefits

Anticipated Through Project XL?

These XL projects are expected to

achieve superior environmental

performance beyond that which is

achieved under the current CWA

regulatory system by allowing local

agencies the ability to identify

environmental goals and allocate the

necessary resources on a site specific

local basis. Specifically, these projects

are expected to produce additional

benefits by (i) reducing pollutant

loadings to the environment or some

other environmental benefit beyond that

currently achieved through the existing

pretreatment program (including

collecting environmental performance

data and data related to environmental

impacts in order to measure the

environmental benefit), (ii) reduced or

optimized costs related to

implementation of the pretreatment

program with the savings used to attain

environmental benefits elsewhere in the

watershed in any media, and (iii)

providing EPA with information on how

the pretreatment program might be

better oriented towards the achievement

of measures of environmental

performance. These objectives are

consistent with the principles of the

National Performance Review.

EPA’s intent is to allow Local Pilot

Pretreatment Programs to be

administered by those POTWs that best

further those objectives. Each pilot

program’s method of achieving the

environmental benefit should be

transferable so that other programs may

be able to implement the method and

also achieve increased environmental

benefits.

59794 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

J. What Is the Project Duration and

Completion Date?

Under Project XL, local Pilot

Pretreatment Programs may be approved

to operate for the term expressed in the

FPA. Prior to the end of the FPA

approval period (at least 180 days), the

POTW may apply for a renewal or

extension of the project period in

accordance with the terms of the FPA.

If a POTW is not able to meet the

performance goals of its Local Pilot

Pretreatment Program, the Pretreatment

Approval Authority (either EPA or the

authorized State) could allow the

performance measures to be adjusted if

the primary objectives of the Local Pilot

Pretreatment Program would be met.

The revised Local Pilot Pretreatment

Program would need to be approved in

accordance with the FPA and the

procedures in 40 CFR 403.18.

If the primary objectives of the

proposal are not being met, the

Approval Authority would direct the

POTW to discontinue implementing the

Local Pilot Pretreatment Program and

resume implementation of its previously

approved pretreatment program. The

Pretreatment Approval Authority would

need to ensure that the POTW’s NPDES

permit includes a reopener clause to

implement this procedure.

The results of the pilots, including

recommendations in POTW reports,

may be used to determine the direction

of future Pretreatment Program

streamlining and/or reinvention.

K. How Could the Project Be

Terminated?

Either the Approval Authority or the

POTW may terminate a project earlier

than the final project agreement’s (FPA)

anticipated end date. Parties will follow

procedures set out in the FPA. The

implementing permits will also reflect

the possibility of early termination.

When the NPDES permitting agency

modifies the POTW’s NPDES permit to

incorporate the flexibility allowed by

today’s rule, it must include a ‘reopener’

provision that requires the POTW to

return to compliance with current

pretreatment requirements at the

expiration or termination of the FPA,

including an interim compliance period,

if needed. Additional details are

available in the site-specific FPAs.

III. Rule Description

Today’s proposed rule will modify 40

CFR part 403 to allow Pretreatment

Approval Authorities (EPA or State) to

grant regulatory flexibility to selected

Project XL POTWs with approved FPAs.

The regulatory flexibility would allow

these specific POTWs to implement

Pretreatment Programs that include

legal authorities and requirements that

are different than the administrative

requirements in 40 CFR part 403. The

POTW would need to submit any such

alternative requirements as a substantial

program modification in accordance

with the procedures outlined in 40 CFR

403.18. The approved modified program

would need to be incorporated as an

enforceable part of the POTW’s NPDES

permit. The Approval Authority would

approve or disapprove the pilot program

using the procedures in 40 CFR 403.18.

For example, the POTW would work

through the Project XL process as

described above. The POTW either

would or has already developed the

necessary FPA with stakeholder

participation (local interest groups,

State representatives, EPA, any other

interested parties). The POTW would

use the FPA as the blueprint when

developing a revision of the POTW’s

approved local pretreatment program.

The POTW would submit the revised

program to its Approval Authority (State

or EPA region) requesting a substantial

program modification using the

procedures outlined in 40 CFR 403.18.

The Approval Authority would review

the program modification request to

determine that it contains the provisions

of the blue-print FPA and makes a

determination to approve or deny the

request. The proposal for modification

is publicly noticed following the

procedures in 40 CFR 403.11 and 40

CFR 403.18. After the close of the public

comment period, the Approval

Authority will consider and respond to

public comments and revise the

POTW’s pretreatment program

accordingly. Then the POTWs NPDES

permit will be modified by adding the

modified pretreatment program as an

enforceable part of the permit.

IV. Request for Public Comments

The Agency requests public

comments on today’s Rule.

V. Additional Information

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993) the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety in

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlement, grants, user fees,

or loan programs of the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Because the annualized cost of this

final rule will be significantly less than

$100 million and will not meet any of

the other criteria specified in the

Executive Order, it has been determined

that this rule is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under the terms of

Executive Order 12866, and is therefore

not subject to OMB review.

Executive Order 12866 also

encourages agencies to provide a

meaningful public comment period, and

suggests that in most cases the comment

period should be 60 days. In

consideration of the very limited scope

of today’s rulemaking and the

considerable public involvement in the

development of the proposed Final

Project Agreements subject to today’s

rule, EPA considers 30 days to be

sufficient in providing a meaningful

public comment period for today’s

action.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),

5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires

an agency to conduct a regulatory

flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking

requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and small

governmental jurisdictions. This rule

will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities

because the modifications to the

pretreatment regulations EPA is

allowing would reduce the regulatory

costs to POTWs and industrial users of

complying with the pretreatment

requirements and affect a small number

of dischargers. Therefore, EPA certifies

that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

An Information Collection Request

(ICR) document is currently being

prepared by EPA.The ICR will be

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 59795

submitted for approval to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.

The proposed rule provides regulatory

flexibility to participating sponsors. The

changes in information collection

requirements as a consequence of the

rule allow participating facilities to

satisfy the reporting requirements with

a single yearly report and provide

certification in lieu of not sampling for

pollutants not present if certain

conditions are met. Also, this regulatory

change can result in decreased reporting

and recordkeeping burdens for

participating facilities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation of why that

alternative was not adopted. Before EPA

establishes any regulatory requirements

that may significantly or uniquely affect

small governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that this rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector in any one year. Thus,

today’s rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA. In addition, because this

rule contains no regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, it is

not subject to UMRA section 203.

E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

The Executive Order 13045,

‘‘Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)

applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant,’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866; and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it is not an

economically significant rule, as defined

by Executive Order 12866, and because

it does not involve decisions based on

environmental health or safety risks.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’

Under section 6 of Executive Order

13132, EPA may not issue a regulation

that has federalism implications, that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs, and that is not required by statute,

unless the Federal government provides

funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by State and

local governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the regulation.

EPA may also not issue a regulation that

has federalism implications and that

preempts State law, unless the Agency

consults with the State and local

officials early in the process of

developing the regulation.

This proposed rule does not have

federalism implications. It will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do not apply to this

rule. Although section 6 of Executive

Order 13132 does not apply to this rule,

EPA did fully coordinate and consult

with the affected state and local officials

in developing this rule.

G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments. If the mandate is

unfunded, EPA must provide to the

Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of EPA’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order

13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected and

other representatives of Indian tribal

governments to provide meaningful and

timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities. Today’s rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. There are no communities

of Indian tribal governments located in

the vicinity of the affected facility.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law

59796 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272

note) directs EPA to use voluntary

consensus standards in its regulatory

activities unless to do so would be

inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures, and

business practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standard. This

proposed rulemaking does not involve

technical standards. Therefore, EPA is

not considering the use of any voluntary

consensus standards. EPA welcomes

comments on this aspect of the

proposed rulemaking and, specifically,

invites the public to identify

potentially-applicable voluntary

consensus standards and to explain why

such standards should be used in this

regulation.

Dated: September 29, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, part 403, title 40, chapter I of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 403—GENERAL

PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS FOR

EXISTING AND NEW SOURCES OF

POLLUTION

1. The authority for Part 403

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 403.20 is added to read as

follows:

§ 403.20 Pretreatment Program

Reinvention Pilot Projects Under Project

XL.

The Approval Authority may allow

any publicly owned treatment works

(POTW) that has a final ‘‘Project XL’’

agreement to implement a Pretreatment

Program that includes legal authorities

and requirements that are different than

the administrative requirements

otherwise applicable under this part.

The POTW must submit any such

alternative requirements as a substantial

program modification in accordance

with the procedures outlined in

§ 403.18. The approved modified

program must be incorporated as an

enforceable part of the POTW’s NPDES

permit. The Approval Authority must

include a reopener clause in the

POTW’s NPDES permit that directs the

POTW to discontinue implementing the

approved alternative requirements and

resume implementation of its previously

approved pretreatment program if the

primary objectives of the Local Pilot

Pretreatment Program are not met or the

‘‘Project XL’’ agreement expires or is

otherwise terminated.

[FR Doc. 00–25750 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ‘

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–2215, MM Docket No. 00–184, RM–

9955]

Digital Television Broadcast Service;

Sheridan, WY

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by

Duhamel Broadcasting Enterprises,

licensee of Station KSGW–TV, NTSC

Channel 12, Sheridan, Wyoming,

proposing the substitution of DTV

Channel 13 for Station KSGW–TV’s

assigned DTV Channel 21. DTV Channel

21 can be allotted to Sheridan,

Wyoming, in compliance with the

principle community coverage

requirements of section 73.625(a) at

reference coordinates (44–37–20 N. and

107–06–57 W.). As requested, we

propose to allot DTV Channel 13 to

Sheridan with a power of 50 and a

height above average terrain (HAAT) of

372 meters.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before November 27, 2000, and reply

comments on or before December 12,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Room TW–A325, Washington, DC

20554. In addition to filing comments

with the FCC, interested parties should

serve the petitioner, or its counsel or

consultant, as follows: Richard R.

Zaragoza, Colette M. Capretz, Shaw

Pittman, 2300 N Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20037–1128 (Counsel

for Duhamel Broadcasting Enterprises).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam

Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

00–184, adopted October 3, 2000, and

released October 4, 2000. The full text

of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding. Members of the public

should note that from the time a Notice

of Proposed Rule Making is issued until

the matter is no longer subject to

Commission consideration or court

review, all ex parte contacts are

prohibited in Commission proceedings,

such as this one, which involve channel

allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for

rules governing permissible ex parte

contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

Federal Communications Commission.

Barbara A. Kreisman,

Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00–25736 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–2213, MM Docket No. 00–182, RM–

9957]

Digital Television Broadcast Service;

Sumter, SC

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by

McLaughlin Broadcasting, Inc., licensee

of Station WQHG–TV, NTSC Channel

63, Sumter, South Carolina, proposing

the substitution of DTV Channel 39 for

Station WQHB–TV’s assigned DTV

Channel 38. DTV Channel 39 can be

allotted to Sumter, South Carolina, in

compliance with the principle

community coverage requirements of

Section 73.625(a) at reference

coordinates (34–06–33N. and 80–44–35

W.). As requested, we propose to allot

DTV Channel 39 to Sumter with a

power of 500 and a height above average

terrain (HAAT) of 269 meters.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before November 27, 2000, and reply

comments on or before December 12,

2000.