34170 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices

technologies. A possible XL project may

involve the use of green chemistry that

would make a production process

cleaner, and reduce the regulatory

burden that would be required of the

production facility.

Other Ideas Suggested by External

Organizations that the Agency

Considers Worthy of Further

Exploration:

These ideas were proposed merely as

topics that would need to be fleshed

out. (in alphabetic order)

• Alternatives for reducing persistent

toxins in the Great Lakes

• Conservation and sustainable use of

biodiversity and ecosystem services

(for example, pollination, natural pest

control, natural water flow

management, and natural filtering and

breakdown processes of pollutants)

• Energy conservation

• Environmental consequences of urban

sprawl

• Global warming/climate change

• Green spaces

• Habitat preservation

• Improved management of timberland

• Watershed management

(D) Key Elements of Good XL Proposals

A successful project sponsor must

have a solid record of compliance and

demonstrate that the proposed XL

project meets the eight XL criteria, as

discussed in previous Federal Register

documents and summarized in the

‘‘Supplementary Information’’ section in

the beginning of this document. The

review process will be easier and EPA,

States, and other stakeholders will be

more receptive to proposals if they:

√ Clearly lay out what is innovative

about the approach to be tested and the

potential benefits of applying the

approach to other facilities, sectors, or

communities, i.e. its transferability;

√ Clearly identify the area(s) of

flexibility needed in EPA regulations,

policies, and/or procedures;

√ Be as clear as possible about the

benefits the project sponsor will derive

from implementing the project, such as

environmental improvements at the

facility and in the community, worker

health protection improvements, timeto-market savings and/ or paperwork

reductions. EPA is also very interested

in measurements of resources and cost

savings.

√ Avoid being focused primarily on

the requirement the project sponsor

wants to avoid, but focus instead on the

new approach to be tested;

√ Have early stakeholder support and

a well-developed plan for facilitated

stakeholder involvement;

√ Plan your idea in pre-proposal

discussions before the actual proposal is

formally submitted; pre-proposal

discussions with EPA, States and other

stakeholders go a long way toward

reducing ‘‘transaction costs’’ (i.e. time

and resources) in the selection and

negotiation of projects;

√ Lay out a plan for how

environmental baselines will be

measured and superior environmental

performance achieved. For more

information on baselines, please refer to

the Federal Register document (62 FR

19872) issued on April 23, 1997.

√ Propose a workable schedule for

the development of a final project

agreement and a plan for how the

project will be managed.

EPA encourages potential project

sponsors to talk early to EPA before

submitting a formal proposal. This

allows the Agency to help develop the

proposal and to explain the process. The

Agency recognizes that community

project sponsors may require special

assistance from EPA in developing

proposals and any resulting projects.

This assistance could include working

with community project sponsors to

help identify additional resources to

support development and

implementation of XL projects.

Proposals, in brief, will go through the

following process: EPA will evaluate all

proposals with input from relevant EPA

and State offices to determine whether

a proposal has the potential of meeting

Project XL’s set of criteria for facilities

and/or communities, and whether it

contains environmental, regulatory, and

policy concepts worth testing in Project

XL. If the Agency and the relevant

State(s) determine that it is appropriate

to proceed with proposal development,

the project sponsor then leads a process

involving all affected stakeholders to

develop an agreement on the project.

Conclusion

Project XL presents a unique

opportunity for private and public

sector facilities, states, sectors, and local

communities to design and test

alternative approaches, while deriving

substantial benefits for themselves and

the communities around them. 27

facilities, sectors, states, and

communities are already implementing

or developing such innovations. EPA

has integrated many ‘‘lessons learned’’

into its regulatory and policy-setting

system. In addition, the Agency has

learned how to process XL proposals

with greater efficiency and efficacy.

EPA’s goal of implementing 50 XL pilot

projects will provide the Agency with a

range of innovations that can create a

better system of protecting our

environment and our health in the 21st

century.

Dated: June 11, 1998.

J. Charles Fox,

Associate Administrator, Office of

Reinvention.

[FR Doc. 98–16398 Filed 6–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6113–6]

Pretreatment Program Reinvention

Pilot Projects under Project XL

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; Solicitation of Local

Pilot Pretreatment Program Proposals

under Project XL.

SUMMARY: Publicly Owned Treatment

Works (POTWs) regulated under the

National Pretreatment Program are

required to identify industrial users,

issue permits to these users, monitor

industrial user activities through on-site

sampling and inspections, and carry out

other administrative functions involving

extensive recordkeeping and reporting.

Many POTWs have mastered the

programmatic aspects of their

pretreatment programs, and a number of

these POTWs feel that their programs

should be measured against

environmental results rather than strict

adherence to procedural and

administrative requirements. These

POTWs have expressed an interest in

being allowed to focus their resources

on activities that they believe will

provide greater environmental benefits

than are achieved by complying with

the current requirements.

The Project XL program, which is

discussed in greater detail in another

document in today’s Federal Register,

was implemented to provide the

flexibility to conduct innovative pilot

projects to develop and test ‘‘cleaner,

cheaper and smarter’’ programmatic

alternatives that could yield greater

environmental results than those

achieved under the current regulatory

system. EPA is interested in exploring

alternative environmental performancebased pretreatment programs on a pilot

basis under the Project XL program.

Today, EPA is requesting that POTWs

interested in pursuing a program based

on environmental performance

measures submit preliminary, one to

two page proposals explaining what

they would include in their Local Pilot

Pretreatment Programs. These short

proposals must include a clear

description of the alternative program

the POTW plans to implement, the

environmental benefits to be gained by
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices 34171

the program, the regulatory

requirements that need to be revised,

and how program resources would be

modified. POTWs that are interested in

participating must submit their

proposals to their State Pretreatment

Program Coordinator, EPA Regional

Pretreatment Program Coordinator, and

the Director of EPA’s Office of

Wastewater Management. EPA will

review the preliminary proposals and

choose those that are most likely to

achieve measurable improvements in

environmental performance.

The number of proposals selected will

be based on available Approval

Authority resources for reviewing and

modifying Approved Pretreatment

Programs and coordinating pilot

program implementation.

EFFECTIVE DATES: POTWs interested in

participating in this Project XL

solicitation have until September 21,

1998 to submit a preliminary proposal

for consideration.

ADDRESSES: POTWs must submit formal

proposals to Mr. Michael B. Cook,

Director, Office of Wastewater

Management (MC 4201), U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460.

Duplicate copies of your proposal

should be sent, concurrently, to the

appropriate EPA Regional Pretreatment

Coordinator and the State Pretreatment

Program Coordinator providing

oversight of your pretreatment program.

This Federal Register document has

been placed on the Internet for review

and downloading at the following

location: ‘‘www.epa.gov/owm’.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patrick Bradley, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater

Management (4203), 401 M Street, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20460, telephone

number (202) 260–6963.

I. Introduction

In General, What is EPA Requesting?

EPA is interested in exploring

alternative environmental performancebased pretreatment programs on a pilot

basis under EPA’s Project XL program.

The intent of this effort is to investigate

ways of increasing the effectiveness of

the pretreatment program and thus

obtaining greater environmental benefit.

Today, EPA is requesting that

interested POTWs submit preliminary

proposals for implementing Local Pilot

Pretreatment Programs. EPA will choose

the proposals that are most likely to

achieve measurable improvements in

environmental performance. The

number of proposals selected will be

based on available approval authority

resources for reviewing and modifying

approved pretreatment programs and

coordinating pilot program

implementation. EPA expects to

implement no more than fifteen

projects.

The process for reviewing and

choosing acceptable pilot program

candidates will include input from the

POTW’s State and EPA Regional

Pretreatment Coordinators, as well as

opportunity for public participation.

After opportunity for public

participation at the local level and

review of a pilot by the selected POTW’s

State and EPA Regional Office, EPA

Headquarters will revise 40 CFR part

403, if necessary, to allow the selected

Local Pilot Pretreatment Programs to be

tested, and then the POTW’s NPDES

permit will be modified to authorize the

POTW to implement its pilot program

instead of its current Approved POTW

Pretreatment Program. States might first

need to revise their own regulations or

statutes to authorize the pilot program.

What Are the Current Pretreatment

Program Requirements?

The minimum requirements for an

Approved POTW Pretreatment Program

are currently found in 40 CFR 403.8(f).

POTWs with Approved Pretreatment

Programs must maintain adequate legal

authority, identify industrial users,

designate which are Significant

Industrial Users 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 national standards to

their industrial users. POTWs are also

required to develop local limits in

accordance with 40 CFR 403.5. An

environmental performance-based pilot

program would replace certain

programmatic requirements of the

POTW’s Approved Pretreatment

Program.

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 must also 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.

Why is EPA Considering Allowing

POTW Local Pilot Pretreatment

Programs at This Time?

Some POTWs have mastered the

programmatic 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 being allowed

to focus their resources on activities that

they believe will 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 benefiting the

environment and toward activities that

can achieve measurable improvements

in the environment.

The Project XL program was

implemented to provide the flexibility

to conduct innovative pilot projects.

This current solicitation represents an

attempt to spur innovation in the

pretreatment program to increase

environmental benefits and, in

conjunction with the streamlining

proposal, to determine if further

streamlining of the program is needed,
34172 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices

and in what direction those future

streamlining efforts should be directed.

II. Stakeholder Comments

How Have Stakeholders Been Involved

in the Development of This Idea?

EPA has been working with

stakeholders to learn how to direct the

pretreatment program toward the

achievement of environmental goals. In

1993, pursuant to a Cooperative

Agreement with EPA, the Association of

Metropolitan Sewage Agencies (AMSA)

assembled a 16-member steering

committee to explore environmental

measures of performance of

pretreatment programs. The committee

consisted of federal and state approval

authorities, local and state control

authorities, industrial users, and

environmental groups. This committee

helped shape the original research and

reviewed findings to identify

appropriate measures of performance.

The Committee identified 18

measures for assessing the performance

of a pretreatment program. Consistent

with the committee’s belief that an

adequate program would need to be

judged by environmental trends,

compliance rates, and procedural or

programmatic criteria, the measures

were separated into the following three

categories:

Measures of Trends in Pollutant

Loadings and Concentrations

1. Trends in mass loadings of metal

and other toxic compounds and

nonconventional pollutants in POTW

effluent; and comparisons to allowable

levels in NPDES permits where such

limits exist.

2. Trends in emissions of hazardous

pollutants to the air, particularly for

volatile pollutants from unit processes

and metals from incineration.

3. Trends in mass loadings of metals

and other toxic contaminants in POTW

influent, as a total and where possible,

divided into domestic, commercial,

industrial, and storm water

contributions to the total; and

comparison to allowable loadings as

calculated during the headworks

analysis, where such an analysis is

available.

4. Reductions in annual average

metals levels in biosolids, with an

indication of any trend towards or

compliance with the most stringent

nationwide biosolids standards.

Measures of Compliance With

Requirements

5. Percent compliance with NPDES

permit discharge requirements.

6. For each POTW, whether the

POTW is failing Whole Effluent Toxicity

(WET) tests due to industrial sources.

7. Percent compliance with nonpathogen biosolids quality limits for the

management method currently used,

with sites divided into categories based

on applicable biosolids regulations.

8. Percent compliance at each

Industrial User with categorical limits.

9. Percent compliance at each

Industrial User with all permit limits.

10. Percent of Industrial users in

compliance with reporting

requirements.

11. For each control authority, the

number and percent of Industrial Users

in a significant noncompliance (SNC)

for the current year that were also in

SNC last year.

Procedural or Programmatic Measures

12. Whether an effective method is

being used to prevent, detect, and

remediate incidents of violations of the

specific pretreatment prohibitions

attributable to industrial or commercial

sources (e.g., fire and explosion

hazards).

13. Whether an effective procedure is

being used to identify non-domestic

users and to update the list of regulated

users.

14. Number of sample events

conducted by the control authority per

significant industrial user (SIU) per

year, and percent of all sample events

that were conducted by the control

authority.

15. Number of inspections per SIU per

year.

16. Whether the control authority has

site-specific, technically-based local

limits, based on the most recent

regulatory changes and latest NPDES

permit requirements; or a technical

rationale for the lack of such limits.

17. Whether the POTW or control

authority has significant activities or

accomplishments that demonstrate

performance beyond traditional goals

and standards.

18. Whether or not POTWs have an

effective public involvement program in

place.

EPA then funded a second multistakeholder peer review group

assembled by AMSA to evaluate the

extent to which POTWs were using or

collecting data to support these

measures. The evaluation consisted of

site visits to five case study cities.

During the site visits, the researchers

collected data on the current status of

performance measurement and

investigated ways to redirect the

pretreatment program using a broader

array of environmental indicators. The

final report (Case Studies in the

Application of Performance for POTW

Pretreatment Programs, May 1997),

presented ‘‘preliminary conclusions

regarding the use of environmental

indicators within the broader context of

streamlining the pretreatment program

to meet objectives of the Clean Water

Act while better serving the needs of

local communities and the nation as a

whole.’’

One of the principal findings of the

May 1997 report was a recommendation

for ‘‘Pilot Programs’’ to investigate

performance measures. The report

recommended pilot programs as a

means to phase-in and promote

reinvention efforts at low risk.

Specifically, the Report suggested:

Under such a strategy, only those

wastewater utilities that could demonstrate

readiness to manage locally directed

programs would be eligible for a pilot. Once

eligible, the exact dimensions of each local

program would be negotiated with the public

and the appropriate Approval Authority.

Administrative orders or enforcement

discretion could be used during the pilot to

allow local priorities to shape local programs

in place of strict compliance with national

program regulations under 40 CFR part 403.

Accountability would be sustained through

agreed upon measures of performance.

The August 1996 WEF/AMSA

Pretreatment Streamlining Workshop

also recommended creating a

fundamentally more innovative and

results-oriented pretreatment program

that focussed on environmental

endpoints. The Workshop’s final report

recommends a national pretreatment

program consisting of three different

tiers or options for local programs. One

option would be a performance

approach that would provide POTWs

with flexibility in administering various

aspects of their pretreatment programs

in exchange for evaluating the

accomplishments of the programs based

on a series of designated performancebased measures that had been agreed

upon by all stakeholders.

Finally, AMSA hosted a 1997

stakeholder meeting in Chicago where

more than 20 members of key

stakeholder groups, including POTWs,

federal and state regulators, and

industrial users, discussed all of these

previous efforts and portions of this

proposal. The attendees at the meeting

did not reach consensus on a

methodology for addressing

environmental performance measures,

but one recommendation was to pursue

a change to the regulations that would

allow pilot programs to test some

alternate approaches.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices 34173

III. Today’s Request for Project

Proposals

What is EPA Requesting?

EPA is requesting that POTWs that are

interested in pursuing a program based

on environmental performance

measures submit preliminary, one to

two page proposals explaining what

they would include in their Local Pilot

Pretreatment Programs. These short

proposals must include a clear

description of the alternative program

the POTW plans to implement, the

environmental benefits to be gained by

the program, the regulatory

requirements that need to be revised,

and how resources will be modified.

POTWs that are interested in

participating must submit their

preliminary proposals within 90 days of

the publication date of this Federal

Register Notice to their State

Pretreatment Program Coordinator, EPA

Regional Pretreatment Program

Coordinator, and the Director of EPA’s

Office of Wastewater Management. EPA

will then contact the POTWs that

submitted acceptable proposals and

request detailed proposals within 90

days which outline exactly how the

POTWs plan to implement their Local

Pilot Pretreatment Programs and how

they address the Project XL criteria.

These proposals will be reviewed by

EPA.

EPA encourages interested POTWs to

contact EPA early—via their Regional

Pretreatment Coordinator or their

Regional XL Coordinator or their State

Pretreatment Coordinator—to express

their interest in submitting a proposal.

EPA stands ready to discuss pilot ideas

or to clarify principles, expectations or

guidance for the Pretreatment Pilot

Program or Project XL.

The following sections outline what

EPA believes should be the criteria for

determining which POTWs may qualify

for administering a Local Pilot

Pretreatment Program, what would be

an adequate Local Pilot Pretreatment

Program, and what existing

pretreatment program requirements

would not have to be part of an

approved Local Pilot Pretreatment

Program. They also discuss application,

approval, withdrawal and reporting

requirements.

How Would Local Pilot Pretreatment

Programs be Selected?

After consultation with the POTW’s

State, EPA Regional Office, and other

Offices in EPA Headquarters, the

Director of EPA’s Office of Wastewater

Management will select the pilot

projects from the proposals that best

meet EPA’s criteria. If more than fifteen

(15) Local Pilot Pretreatment Programs

meet the criteria generally, EPA will

select the programs that are likely to

achieve the greatest transferable

environmental benefit.

Transferable environmental benefit

means the methodology is such that

other POTW programs may be likely to

implement the method and also achieve

increased environmental benefits. EPA

will select a proposal for further

consideration only if the POTW’s State

and EPA Regional Office agree to

participate.

Which POTWs May Apply To Run a

Pilot Program?

The pilot program is being limited to

POTWs that have demonstrated that

they have run successful Pretreatment

Programs, have available significant

amounts of environmental performance

data (or demonstrated ability to collect

the necessary data), and are most likely

to achieve transferable environmental

benefits greater than those achieved

under the current requirements. EPA

intends to apply the following criteria to

determine which POTWs may be

considered for a Local Pilot

Pretreatment Program:

1. The POTW is administering an

Approved POTW Pretreatment Program.

2. The POTW has a solid record of

compliance. In general, this means that

the POTW must not be the subject of a

planned or ongoing judicial or

administrative enforcement action, be in

significant noncompliance with

applicable requirements, or have

outstanding obligations under (or be in

violation of) an order or consent decree.

Additionally, a POTW’s history of

compliance will also be considered;

POTWs most likely to be included in

the pilot program would be those which

do not have a history or pattern of

violations, violations resulting in

serious threats or harms, or have other

recent significant compliance problems.

3. The POTW has five years of

influent, effluent, and sludge quality

data, as well as three years of ambient

water quality measurements for its

receiving water or can demonstrate the

ability to collect ambient data.

What Are the Project XL Criteria?

Since this pilot programis being

administered under the Project XL

program, the proposals must address the

Project XL criteria:

1. Superior Environmental Performance

Projects that are chosen should be

able to achieve environmental

performance that is superior to what

would have been achieved absent the

XL project. EPA uses a two-part method

of determining whether an XL project

will achieve superior environmental

performance: (1) Develop a quantitative

baseline estimate of what would have

happened to the environment absent the

project and, then compare that baseline

estimate against the project’s anticipated

environmental performance; and (2)

Consider both quantitative and

qualitative measures in determining if

the anticipated environmental

performance will produce a level of

environmental performance superior to

the baseline.

2. Cost Savings and Paperwork

Reduction

The project should produce cost

savings or economic opportunity, and/

or result in a decrease in paperwork

burden.

3. Stakeholder Support

The extent to which project

proponents have sought and achieved

the support of parties that have a stake

in the environmental impacts of the

project is an important factor.

Stakeholders may include communities

near the project, local or state

governments, businesses, environmental

and other public interest groups, or

other similar entities.

4. Innovation/Multi-Media Pollution

Prevention

EPA is looking for projects that test

innovative strategies for achieving

environmental results. These strategies

may include processes, technologies, or

management practices. Projects should

embody a systematic approach to

environmental protection that tests

alternatives to several regulatory

requirements and/or affects more than

one environmental medium. EPA has a

preference for protecting the

environment by preventing the

generation of pollution rather than by

controlling pollution once it has been

created. Pilot projects should reflect this

preference.

5. Transferability

The pilots are intended to test new

approaches that could conceivably be

incorporated into the Agency’s

programs or in other industries, or other

facilities in the same industry. EPA is

therefore most interested in pilot

projects that test new approaches that

could one day be applied more broadly.

6. Feasibility

The project should be technically and

administratively feasible and the project

proponents must have the financial

capability to carry it out.
34174 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices

7. Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation

The project proponents should

identify how to make information about

the project, including performance data,

available to stakeholders in a form that

is easily understandable. Projects

should have clear objectives and

requirements that will be measurable in

order to allow EPA and the public to

evaluate the success of the project and

enforce its terms. Also, the project

sponsor should be clear about the time

frame within which results will be

achievable.

8. Shifting of Risk Burden

The project must be consistent with

Executive Order 12898 on

Environmental Justice. It must protect

worker safety and ensure that no one is

subjected to unjust or disproportionate

environmental impacts.

These criteria are described in detail

in the following Federal Register

documents: 60 FR 27282, May 23, 1995

and 62 FR 19872, April 23, 1997.

What Environmental Results Must a

Local Pilot Pretreatment Program

Achieve?

The POTW’s Local Pilot Pretreatment

Program would have to commit the

POTW to achieve environmental results

consistent with the XL program’s

expectations. As detailed in the Federal

Register document of April 23, 1997,

‘‘In order to test innovative approaches

to reinvent environmental protection for

the 21st Century, Project XL offers

potential project sponsors and cosponsors the opportunity to develop and

implement alternative strategies that

produce superior environmental

performance, replace specific regulatory

requirements, and promote greater

accountability to stakeholders. The May

23, 1995, Federal Register document

defining the XL program stated EPA’s

intent to approve only those projects

that ‘achieve superior environmental

performance relative to what would

have been achieved through compliance

with otherwise applicable

requirements.’ This document further

refines the definition of superior

environmental performance to assist

future applicants, stakeholders and

those evaluating the program.’’ The

system uses a two tiered approach. The

first tier establishes an environmental

performance benchmark for an XL

project. This quantifies current

performance levels and sets a baseline

against which the project’s anticipated

environmental performance can be

compared. The project benchmark will

be set at either the current actual

environmental loadings (historical

environmental data) or the future

allowable environmental loadings,

whichever is more protective. Tier two

is an examination of factors that lead

EPA to judge that a project will produce

truly superior environmental

performance. For local POTW Pretreatment

Programs, Superior Environmental

Performance may include: (i) Reducing pollutant loadings to the

environment or achieving 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. Such

information would include data on

pollutant loadings to the environment,

ambient environmental conditions and

measures of the impact of these

conditions on the health of ecosystems.

The data should be able to support

decisions concerning the future use of

pretreatment program resources), (ii) Reducing or optimizing 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) Other environmental benefits

gained by allowing pretreatment

program flexibility. EPA’s ultimate objective is to gain

information on how the pretreatment

program might be better oriented

towards the achievement of measures of

environmental performance. This

objective is 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.

Collecting environmental

performance data alone would not be

enough to qualify as an objective. The

data collected must be used to benefit

the environment. For example, the data

collected could help POTWs apply

enforcement and compliance assistance

resources more effectively. If the focus of the Local Pilot Program

is to reduce the cost of administering

the Approved POTW Pretreatment

Program without reducing the local

program’s environmental effectiveness,

the resources saved must be dedicated

to some other environmental

application. In this situation, the

resources might be used to integrate the

Pretreatment Program with other local

environmental protection programs

such as storm water monitoring or

collection system management or local

pollution prevention initiatives. In all

cases, the benefits of a trade-off of

resources from existing pretreatment

requirements to other activities will

need to be quantified and tracked.

A Local Pilot Pretreatment Program

could focus resources on program

integration and then measure the

environmental benefits of an integrated

program. Environmental performance

measures can foster increased

integration of pretreatment programs

with other local environmental

programs and with broader

environmental efforts, such as

watershed or community-based

environmental protection.

It is intended that Local Pilot

Pretreatment Programs will provide

clearer linkages between environmental

goals and program implementation

procedures. This will allow programs to

identify the goals that are best for their

specific situations and to design

procedures to reach those goals.

To determine what the environmental

focus should be, the POTW should

conduct community outreach. Through

a stakeholder dialogue, the POTW may

gain additional perspective on what is

important to the community and may

help the POTW to make resource

allocation decisions. Each pilot POTW

would then set its own goals based upon

input from the local community.

The POTW would then design a

management program (the Local Pilot

Pretreatment Program) to achieve the

environmental goals. The alternate

program would include specific

measures to determine whether or not

implementation procedures are

achieving their desired results.

Which Existing Requirements Would not

Have to be Part of Local Pilot

Pretreatment Programs?

Local Pilot Pretreatment Programs

may not have to implement certain

currently required pretreatment program

elements if they are not necessary for

the achievement of the POTW’s

environmental objectives. The resources

saved from not implementing these

program elements could then be

redirected to other means of achieving

and measuring environmental

performance.

EPA proposes that a Local Pilot

Pretreatment Program would still need

to include adequate legal authority to

identify and control industrial users,

and the authority to take appropriate

and necessary enforcement actions.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices 34175

These authorities would then be

supported by a set of procedures. The

legal authority and procedures must be

clearly explained in the POTW’s

proposal.

Specifically, the Local Pilot

Pretreatment Programs would still be

required to develop/maintain legal

authority and ensure compliance with

categorical pretreatment standards and

local limits, including taking necessary

enforcement actions. The POTW would

be required, at a minimum, to identify

industrial users that are subject to

categorical standards, receive and

review reports from the categorical

users, and take enforcement action as

appropriate based on the reports

received. The Local Pilot Pretreatment

Programs would also be required to

develop and implement procedures to

operate their programs such as

permitting, inspection and monitoring,

and technically-based local limits.

However, the procedures would not

necessarily have to include the

prescriptive permitting or reporting

requirements in 40 CFR 403.8(f) or

403.12. The POTW may not necessarily

be expected to permit a specific subset

of industrial users designated by the

federal regulations, but instead would

have the latitude to decide which

industrial users need permits. The

POTW would be expected to monitor

(sample and inspect) industrial users,

but would be able to decide how often

to monitor the users. These procedures

would likely involve modifying existing

program procedures rather than

developing new procedures.

Industrial users would continue to be

subject to all currently applicable

requirements; except that, as described

above, a Local Pilot Pretreatment

Program may alter the timing of certain

reports and may consider certain

industrial users that are subject to

national categorical standards to no

longer be SIUs.

What Will Be the Duration of Local Pilot

Pretreatment Programs?

Local Pilot Pretreatment Programs

may be approved to operate for one fiveyear period. Prior to the end five-year

period (at least 180 days), the POTW

may apply for a renewal or extension of

the project period. If a POTW is not able

to meet the performance goals of its

Local Pilot Pretreatment Program, the

Approval Authority may allow the

performance measures to be adjusted if

the primary objectives of the Local Pilot

Pretreatment Program will be met. The

revised Local Pilot Pretreatment

Program must be approved in

accordance with the procedures in 40

CFR 403.18.

If the primary objectives of the

proposal are not being met, the

Approval Authority shall direct the

POTW to discontinue implementing the

Local Pilot Pretreatment Program and

resume implementation of its previously

approved pretreatment program. The

Approval Authority will ensure that the

POTW’s NPDES permit includes a

reopener clause with this requirement.

The results of the pilots, including

recommendations in POTW pilot

reports, will be used to determine the

direction of future Pretreatment Program

streamlining and/or reinvention.

Will the Pilot Program POTW Be

Required to Submit Periodic Progress

reports?

The POTW will be required to

periodically report the progress of its

pilot program. The POTW’s periodic

report would describe its Local Pilot

Pretreatment Program activities and

accomplishments, including activities

and accomplishments of any

participating agencies and public

involvement. The report should include

an analysis of all environmental data

collected over the reporting period and

activities conducted to reduce pollutant

loadings to the environment and any

other activities that address the

objectives of the Local Pilot

Pretreatment Program.

The report following the fourth year

of pilot program implementation must

also include the findings of the pilot.

This report must specifically address all

objectives of the pilot program and

provide measures related to the

effectiveness of the program, as

implemented, in meeting the objectives.

The report should also include

recommendations concerning the

implementation of the pretreatment

program at the local level.

The minimum report requirements

will be detailed in the POTW’s NPDES

permit. This requirement will be similar

to the current requirement for the

POTW to annually report to the

Approval Authority the status of its

Pretreatment Program. See 40 CFR

403.12(i). At the discretion of the

NPDES permitting authority, the report

may be required more frequently than

once per year.

What Should a Proposal to Implement

a Pilot Program Include?

The POTW should discuss the pilot

project with its State and EPA Regional

Office early in the process of developing

a proposal, and prior to submitting any

proposal to EPA Office of Wastewater

Management. This should save time for

both the Approval Authority and the

POTW.

A POTW seeking approval to

implement a Local Pilot Program must

first submit a preliminary, one to two

page, written proposal to EPA

Headquarters (Office of Wastewater

Management—MC 4201) with copies to

its Approval Authority and EPA

Regional Office within 90 days of the

publication of this document. These

short proposals must include a clear

description of the alternative program

the POTW plans to implement, the

environmental benefits to be gained by

the program, the regulatory

requirements that will be revised, and

how resources will be modified. The

request should be mailed to U.S. EPA,

Office of Wastewater Management (MC

4201), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,

DC 20460. Telephone inquiries may be

directed to Patrick Bradley at (202) 260–

6963.

If EPA determines the POTW’s

preliminary proposal meets the criteria

explained in this document, EPA will

request that the POTW submit a more

detailed proposal in 90 days. The

detailed proposal shall include a

complete draft of the POTW’s proposed

Local Pilot Pretreatment Program,

including a description of the specific

measures to determine whether or not

the alternative management procedures

are achieving their desired results. The

proposal shall address all necessary

modifications to the procedures, legal

authority and resources of the POTW’s

existing Approved Pretreatment

Program. It must also contain

commitments from the appropriate

municipal officials that the POTW will

have the necessary legal authority,

procedures, personnel and resources to

implement the pilot program. The

proposal should include a copy (or

drafts) of any statutes, ordinances,

regulations, agreements, or other

authorities that the POTW will rely

upon for its administration of the Local

Pilot Pretreatment Program.

The POTW’s draft pilot program

should address all of the major

pretreatment program elements. It

should document how the POTW will

continue to develop, implement, and

enforce its Local Pilot Pretreatment

Program. For example, it should identify

the manner in which Pretreatment

Standards will be applied to individual

Industrial Users (e.g., by order, permit,

ordinance, etc.). It should also identify

how the POTW intends to ensure

compliance with Pretreatment

Standards (including categorical

Pretreatment Standards) and

Requirements, and to enforce them in

the event of noncompliance by

Industrial Users. The detailed proposal

should also address how the Local
34176 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices

Pretreatment Pilot Program would meet

the eight Project XL criteria discussed

earlier in this notice.

EPA believes stakeholder involvement

in developing Local Pilot Pretreatment

Programs is crucial to the success of the

programs. Therefore, as part of the

application, the 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 document.

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 should finalize a Final

Project Agreement (FPA). The FPA is a

non-binding agreement that enumerates

the conditions of the project. (In order

to expedite this process, EPA will

develop a FPA template for these

projects that will contain the elements

that are anticipated to be common

among these projects and shall make

this available to the candidates.) The

actual regulatory flexibility will be

granted by modifying 40 CFR part 403

to allow these specific POTWs to

operate Local Pilot Pretreatment

Programs.

After an opportunity for public

participation at the local level and the

development of the Final Project

Agreement, a selected POTW’s

Approval Authority would approve or

disapprove the pilot program using the

procedures in 40 CFR 403.18. The

POTW may implement its Local Pilot

Pretreatment Program once its NPDES

permit has been modified to incorporate

the program as an enforceable permit

element.

As with any XL Project, EPA intends

to work cooperatively with the POTWs

that submit applications for Local Pilot

Pretreatment Programs to develop and

fine tune the applications. Applicants

must recognize that EPA retains the

ultimate authority to select projects

based on a qualitative consideration of

the criteria described earlier. Since

these are pilot projects and there are a

limited number of pilots that can be

approved, projects that satisfy many or

all of the criteria may not be chosen for

Local Pilot Pretreatment Programs

status. The decision of which projects

will be selected will be based on an

Agency decision about which projects

are expected to best serve the objectives

of this program. No person is required

to submit a proposal or obtain approval

as a condition of commencing or

continuing a regulated activity.

Accordingly, there will be no formal

administrative review available for

proposals that are not selected, nor does

EPA believe there will be a right to

judicial review.

Dated: June 20, 1998.

Michael B. Cook,

Director, Office of Wastewater Management.

[FR Doc. 98–16399 Filed 6–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[PF–813; FRL–5795–1]

Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petitions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

initial filing of pesticide petitions

proposing the establishment of

regulations for residues of certain

pesticide chemicals in or on various

food commodities.

DATES: Comments, identified by the

docket control number PF–813, must be

received on or before July 23, 1998.

ADDRESSES: By mail submit written

comments to: Public Information and

Records Integrity Branch, Information

Resources and Services Division

(7502C), Office of Pesticides Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In

person bring comments to: Rm. 119, CM

#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically by following

the instructions under

‘‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.’’

No confidential business information

should be submitted through e-mail.

Information submitted as a comment

concerning this document may be

claimed confidential by marking any

part or all of that information as

‘‘Confidential Business Information’’

(CBI). CBI should not be submitted

through e-mail. Information marked as

CBI will not be disclosed except in

accordance with procedures set forth in

40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment

that does not contain CBI must be

submitted for inclusion in the public

record. Information not marked

confidential may be disclosed publicly

by EPA without prior notice. All written

comments will be available for public

inspection in Rm. 1132 at the address

given above, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

product manager listed in the table

below:

Product Manager Office location/telephone number Address

Mary Waller .................... Rm. 247, CM #2, 703–308–9354, e-mail:waller.mary@epamail.epa.gov. 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Arlington, VA

James Tompkins ............ Rm. 239, CM #2, 703–305–5687, e-mail: tompkins.james@epamail.epa.gov.

Stephanie Willett ............ Rm. 202, CM #2, 703-305-5419, e-mail:willett.stephanie@epamail.epa.gov. Do.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has

received pesticide petitions as follows

proposing the establishment and/or

amendment of regulations for residues

of certain pesticide chemicals in or on

various food commodities under section

408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and

Comestic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a.

EPA has determined that these petitions

contain data or information regarding

the elements set forth in section

408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully

evaluated the sufficiency of the

submitted data at this time or whether

the data supports granting of the

petition. Additional data may be needed

before EPA rules on the petition.

The official record for this notice of

filing, as well as the public version, has

been established for this notice of filing

under docket control number [PF–813]

(including comments and data

submitted electronically as described

below). A public version of this record,

including printed, paper versions of

electronic comments, which does not

include any information claimed as CBI,

is available for inspection from 8:30

a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The official

record is located at the address in

‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the beginning of this

document.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA at:

opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov

Electronic comments must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the