[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27282-27291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12563]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5197-9]
Regulatory Reinvention (XL) Pilot Projects
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Solicitation of proposals and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a set of actions to give regulated sources
the flexibility to develop alternative strategies that will replace or
modify specific regulatory requirements on the condition that they
produce greater environmental benefits. This document announces three
of EPA's regulatory [[Page 27283]] reinvention pilot programs: the XL
program for facilities; the industry-wide or sector-based XL program;
and XL program dealing with government agencies regulated by EPA. EPA
invites private and public entities or groups of entities regulated by
EPA under its various statutory authorities to submit proposals in
these areas. Proposals for a fourth area--the community-based XL
program--will be accepted at a later time. This document also invites
interested members of the public to comment on all aspects of these
programs. The document responds to President Clinton's announcement,
contained in the March 16, 1995, document Reinventing Environmental
Regulation, that EPA would implement pilot programs to develop
innovative alternatives to the current regulatory system. EPA has set a
goal of implementing a total of fifty projects in the four program
areas. Each project will involve the exercise of regulatory flexibility
by EPA in exchange for a commitment on the part of the regulated entity
to achieve better environmental results than would have been attained
through full compliance with all applicable regulations. This program
will be undertaken in full partnership with the states. These pilots
complement EPA's ongoing regulatory reinvention activities, including
the Common Sense Initiative and the Environmental Leadership Program.
This summer, EPA will select up to six project proposals and begin the
development of a final project agreement. Final Project Agreements for
the remaining pilots will be based on EPA's learning experience on the
initial projects.
The document includes background information on the programs; a
description of the programs; their relationship to other regulatory
reinvention activities; the criteria, process, and timing for the
selection of projects; an invitation for public comment; and the
Information Collection Request document required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
DATES: The period for submission of proposals will begin upon EPA's
announcement in the Federal Register that clearance has been obtained
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, allowing EPA to accept proposals.
This will be an open solicitation with no set end date, and project
proponents may submit more than one project proposal. The period for
comment on all aspects of the programs will begin with publication of
this document and extend for thirty days. The period for comment on the
attached Information Collection Request will begin with the publication
of this document and extend for ten days.
ADDRESSES: Project proposals and all comments should be sent to:
Regulatory Reinvention Pilot Projects, FRL-5197-9, Water Docket, Mail
Code 4101, US EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20460. The docket
accepts no faxes. In addition to providing general information about
the proposed project, project proponents are encouraged to comment on
the relationship of their proposals to the criteria for project
selection described in this notice. Proponents of projects are invited,
but by no means required, to submit other useful materials in paper or
other audio/visual or electronic formats.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jon Kessler, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation; United States
Environmental Protection Agency; West Tower 1013; 401 M Street, SW.;
Mail Code 2111; Washington, DC, 20460. The telephone number for the
Office is (202) 260-4034. The facsimile number is (202) 401-6637.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Over the last two years, the Environmental Protection Agency has
charted a course designed to demonstrate that environmental goals can
best be achieved by providing regulatory and policy flexibility while
maintaining accountability, that flexibility can also provide greater
protection at a lower cost, that better decisions result from a
collaborative process with people working together, and that
environmental solutions are often achieved by focusing efforts at the
facility or place where protection is being sought. EPA has found that
allowing facilities, communities, and other entities to explore non-
traditional pollution control solutions can result in regulated
entities achieving environmental protection results beyond those
anticipated by current regulations or policies. Often these alternative
approaches can produce cheaper, more efficient results as well.
Description of the Programs
On March 16, 1995, the President announced as part of his National
Performance Review regulatory reinvention initiative that EPA would
develop a set of pilot projects that provide the flexibility to test
alternative strategies to achieve environmental goals. The initiative
will give a limited number of regulated entities an opportunity to
demonstrate excellence and leadership. They will be given the
flexibility to develop alternative strategies that will replace or
modify specific regulatory requirements on the condition that they
produce greater environmental benefits. In exchange for greater
flexibility, regulated entities will be held to a higher standard of
accountability for demonstrating project results. This Federal Register
Notice is a solicitation for pilot project proposals in the three
general areas: Industry-wide projects (XL for Sectors); facility based
projects (XL for Facilities); and government agency projects (XL for
Government). Proposals are invited from groups of firms in an industry,
individual regulated facilities, and government agencies regulated by
EPA.
These projects will require the participation of state and tribal
regulatory agencies. In most cases, these agencies are full partners
with EPA as they implement EPA programs that have been delegated to
them. EPA is taking a decentralized or ``franchising'' approach to the
implementation of XL programs. Under this approach, individual projects
will be managed in most cases by the units of government that are best
suited to address the issues raised by the projects. These may be state
or tribal environmental agencies that are co-regulators with EPA, EPA
headquarters, or EPA regional offices. As they develop project
proposals, project proponents should coordinate with and gain the
support of their state and tribal environmental agencies that have
regulatory responsibility within the scope of the project. In addition
to their role as co-regulators, these same agencies, as well as other
local government agencies, are major stakeholders in the management of
environmental quality. As such, their support for project proposals
should be sought in any case.
Selection and participation in the program will proceed as
indicated in the flow chart that follows. EPA expects that there will
be competition among project proponents for acceptance into the
program. The first stage in the process begins with the publication of
this notice. Those who have projects meeting the listed criteria are
encouraged to submit initial project proposals. EPA will then review
submissions to select those that do most to advance the purposes of
this program. An internal review process has been established to
evaluate proposals submitted in response to this notice. This group,
consisting of representatives of state and tribal environmental
agencies as well as EPA headquarters and regional offices, will screen
all proposals, considering the criteria described in this notice, and
recommend proposals for further [[Page 27284]] development. The group
may also seek additional comment from relevant local environmental
officials.
Based on the recommendations of the review group, EPA will invite
particular project proponents to join with state or tribal
environmental agencies as well as other coregulators, to develop a
Final Project Agreement. EPA will encourage project proponents at this
stage to incorporate their project plans into the overall strategic
plan of the business entity. In any case, the responsibility for
developing detailed project plans that address the program criteria
will be with the project proponents. Only the signing of a Final
Project Agreement will constitute the selection of a pilot as a full
fledged pilot project. Parties to the Final Project Agreement should
include at least EPA, project proponents, state or tribal environmental
agencies, as well as other co-regulators. These agreements will deal
with project-specific issues such as legal authority for project
implementation, provision for regulatory flexibility for pilots, public
involvement, specific commitments to environmental progress, expected
environmental results, enforceability, etc. Each Final Project
Agreement should clearly set forth objective, specific requirements
that the subject facility or facilities have agreed to meet. EPA
anticipates that the agreements will be structured so that any
enforcement relief EPA has provided with respect to applicable
regulatory requirements will be conditioned on the facilities'
compliance with the specified requirements. EPA invites project
proponents to include, in their proposals, suggestions for additional
or alternative approaches to enforcing these requirements. Unless
otherwise agreed to by both EPA and the proponent, the time to
negotiate and sign a Final Project Agreement should be limited to six
months from the date of initial project acceptance. The final phase of
the program involves implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the
agreement terms.
EPA will hold a series of state and regional workshops to provide
additional information on the programs and on project proposal
development.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
[[Page 27285]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN23MY95.000
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 27286]]
Data Quality Issues
To demonstrate that an alternative environmental management
strategy is more effective than existing and reasonably foreseeable
future regulatory requirements, project proponents should estimate both
the baseline result from these requirements and the environmental
results from the alternative strategy for their specific projects.
These estimates are likely to be uncertain due to scientific and/or
engineering questions as well as to interpretations of future
applicable regulatory requirements. An important element of the Final
Project Agreement will be an explicit statement concerning what data
and analyses are needed to make these findings. The Final Project
Agreement will be based on the learning experience EPA has with the
projects it initially selects.
Project Examples
Consistent with EPA's objective to develop and demonstrate more
flexible environmental management strategies, EPA intends to be
flexible in entertaining proposals pursuant to this notice. In
evaluating proposals, EPA will consider the selection criteria included
in this notice. EPA also encourages proponents of proposals to be
creative in suggesting alternative strategies and new forms of
flexibility. To help stimulate such creativity, we provide the
following guidance for the three different types of pilot projects.
These examples are intended to be illustrative only; EPA encourages the
submission of other types of projects that address the selection
criteria and that have the strong prospect of producing ``cleaner,
cheaper, smarter'' results compared to the current system.
Facility-based XL projects. National environmental requirements may
not always be the best solution to environmental problems. Substantial
cost savings can sometimes be realized, and environmental quality
enhanced, through more flexible approaches involving pollution
prevention. Pilot projects focused on individual facilities should test
alternatives to current environmental management approaches driven by
compliance with existing regulations. Taking account of facility-
specific circumstances, the overall objective should be to devise and
test more flexible approaches that result in both better environmental
results and reduced compliance costs.
Industry-wide XL projects. The many regulations affecting an
industry are often promulgated piecemeal over a long period of time
rather than as a comprehensive environmental program. In many cases,
national regulations apply relatively uniform requirements to many
industries with very different environmental and economic
characteristics. Pilot projects addressing these problems might take
many forms. One example is the approach taken in The Netherlands, where
overall environmental performance objectives and emission reduction
targets for entire industries are negotiated between trade associations
and the government, followed by enforceable facility-specific
agreements to implement the industry-wide goals. Such projects might
take the form of combining all federal (and possible state)
requirements for an industry into a single, integrated Final Project
Agreement. Sector-based and place-based strategies might be combined in
a project that focused on a number of facilities in the same or related
industries within a given geographic region or ecosystem. Projects
might propose development of enforceable ``best management practices''
for pollution prevention or pilot the application of upcoming ISO 14000
voluntary environmental standards within a specific industry sector.
EPA also encourages projects that combined an industry-wide component
with facility-specific pilots to test the industry-wide strategy being
developed.
XL projects for government agencies regulated by EPA. Government
agencies, in the management of their facilities, have the same
environmental responsibilities and face many of the same regulatory
issues as private businesses. Agency-sponsored projects might test
concepts with broad application in both public and private sector
facilities. In seeking to comply with environmental statutes, however,
government agencies also face unique obstacles and often have unique
opportunities to innovate. Pilot projects in this category might
address themselves to the unique issues faced by government agencies,
such as the optimization of environmental control strategies over the
long term in the context of annual budgeting, or the ability to reduce
overall compliance costs by controlling specific pollution sources out
of reach of environmental regulators. Outside of the process described
today, the Department of Defense and EPA are working to develop pilot
projects at two to four DOD facilities. The DOD pilots will seek to
define performance goals and create an optimal approach to achieve
those goals, combining compliance with unique pollution prevention and
technology resources available to DOD.
Relationship of Pilots to Other Reinvention Efforts
The Common Sense Initiative was launched to move the Agency beyond
the traditional medium by medium approach to environmental management
to a systematic, sector-based approach. Announced in July 1994, the CSI
focuses on six industry sectors--auto manufacturing, computers and
electronics, iron and steel, metal finishing, petroleum refining, and
printing industries. Each is directed by a consensus-based, multi-
stakeholder advisory subcommittee, with CSI as a whole directed by the
Common Sense Initiative Council operating under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act. The purpose of CSI is to recommend changes in
environmental regulations, statutes and programs that will result in
``cleaner, cheaper, and smarter'' outcomes for entire industries. Such
changes, when accepted and promulgated, will lead to permanent
adjustments to current programs.
Each of the CSI sector-specific subcommittees is developing a plan
covering a broad spectrum of activities including (but not limited to)
regulations, pollution prevention, reporting requirements and public
access to data, permitting, innovative compliance assistance and
enforcement, and innovative technology. In some cases, these plans will
include projects that meet the criteria outlined today for regulatory
reinvention pilots. Firms or other project sponsors in CSI industries
are encouraged to develop XL projects. Project sponsors in CSI
industries considering such projects should work through CSI in order
to develop them. This will enable them to take advantage of the
substantial progress being made through CSI including established
stakeholder committees, working relationships among stakeholders, and
progress toward identifying common concerns. (Project sponsors in CSI
industries should contact Vivian Daub, Interim Director, Common Sense
Initiative, at (202) 260-7417.)
The Environmental Leadership Program (ELP) grew out of a desire to
test innovative compliance approaches such as third-party auditing. It
is one of the means for streamlining compliance oversight as referenced
in the President's March 16 announcement. ELP allows facilities to
identify ways to streamline reporting requirements and reduce
compliance inspections, without sacrificing environmental and public
health protection. Facilities will use innovative management techniques
such as environmental auditing and pollution prevention to reduce the
[[Page 27287]] burden of paperwork and inspections on the facilities,
while enhancing compliance with existing environmental laws. At the
completion of these one-year pilot projects, the lessons learned from
these projects will be applied to others.
ELP differs from the XL programs being announced today in that the
XL programs include flexibility from existing regulation in exchange
for the attainment of environmental results beyond what would have been
achieved through full compliance with those regulations. ELP projects,
on the other hand, work to achieve improvements in environmental
quality within existing regulatory requirements.
EPA expects that compliance-oriented ELP projects may include
regulatory innovations, and that some projects conducted pursuant to
today's notice will also address compliance systems. EPA welcomes XL
program proposals from ELP participants. (For information on ELP
contact Tai-Ming Chang, Director, Environmental Leadership Program, at
(202) 564-5081.)
Legal Mechanisms for Pilot Projects
EPA will seek to use a variety of administrative and compliance
mechanisms to provide regulatory flexibility for final project
agreements. Where a pilot project does not fully comply with one or
more environmental requirements (e.g., where a facility does not fully
attain a technology-based emission or discharge standard but adopts a
pollution prevention program or installs additional controls on other
releases so as to achieve superior environmental results at the
facility), EPA will use enforcement mechanisms to facilitate the
projects. These will be conditioned on the pilot project meeting
requirements specified in the project plan. In particular
circumstances, EPA may consider changes in underlying regulations, or
may seek changes in underlying statutes. EPA recognizes that these
questions raise issues of importance both to the Government and to
potential participants in regulatory pilot projects. Applicants are
invited to present EPA with proposed approaches tailored to provide the
regulatory flexibility for their pilot projects.
Project Criteria
EPA will consider the following criteria in evaluating pilot
project proposals:
1. Environmental results. Projects that are chosen should be able
to achieve environmental performance that is superior to what would be
achieved through compliance with current and reasonably anticipated
future regulation. ``Cleaner results'' can be achieved directly through
the environmental performance of the project or through the
reinvestment of the cost savings from the project in activities that
produce greater environmental results. Explicit definitions and
measures of ``cleaner results'' should be included in the project
agreement negotiated among stakeholders.
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.
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.
EPA intends to work cooperatively with project proponents to
develop and refine acceptable approaches. At the same time, the Agency
must retain the ultimate authority to select projects based on a
qualitative consideration of these criteria. Moreover, given the pilot
nature of the programs proposed today and the limited number of slots,
projects that satisfy many or all of the criteria may nonetheless not
be selected if, in the Agency's judgment, other proposed projects
better serve the objectives of the program. Moreover, 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.
Timing for Project Selection
EPA intends to invite selected project proponents to negotiate
final project agreements on a phased basis, with a small number of
early selections followed by a period of project selection on a rolling
basis. This summer, EPA plans to invite approximately six project
proponents to begin the development of a Final Project Agreement.
Beyond that date, project proponents will be invited to enter the next
phase of the program on a rolling basis. EPA intends to select and
initiate approximately 50 pilot projects within the next two years.
Request for Comment on Aspects of Program Pilots
Interested members of the public are invited to comment on all
aspects of the pilot project program. EPA requests specific comment on
the legal mechanisms for implementing project agreements, and the data
requirements for determining both existing environmental baselines and
the level of environmental quality that would result from the project
agreement.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection provisions in this notice, including the
request for proposals, have been submitted for approval to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request
[[Page 27288]] document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1749.01) and
is attached as an appendix to this notice. Additional copies may be
obtained from Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch; EPA, 401 M
Street, SW. (Mail Code 2136); Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202)
260-2740. These information collection provisions are not effective
until OMB approves them and a notice of OMB approval containing the ICR
control number is published in the Federal Register. EPA will announce
by separate Federal Register notice when proposals may be submitted.
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 150 hours per application response, including:
time for reviewing instructions; developing the proposal; reviewing the
proposal through respondent management; and consulting in some fashion
with state or tribal co-regulatory agencies as encouraged in the
solicitation. An additional 10 hours per respondent are estimated to be
required of the state and tribal agencies consulted in the development
of project proposals.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden to Chief, Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M Street, SW.
(Mail Code 2136); Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' The
period of comment for the Information Collection Request will begin
with the publication of this notice and extend for ten days.
Dated: May 17, 1995.
Fred Hansen,
Deputy Administrator.
Solicitation for Proposals for Regulatory Reinvention Pilot Projects--
Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request (#1749.01)
1. Identification of the Information Collection
1(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection
Title: Regulatory Reinvention Pilot Projects
1(b) Short Characterization
This is a solicitation for proposals for a new program established
pursuant to President Clinton's March 16, 1995, National Performance
Review initiative: Reinventing Environmental Regulation. Regulatory
Reinvention Pilot Projects are a set of pilot projects to test
performance-based environmental management systems as alternatives to
command and control regulatory approaches. These projects (called
Project XL) are divided into four categories: facility-based projects,
industry- or sector-based projects, community-based projects, and
government agency-based projects. Under these projects, regulated
entities will be given flexibility to depart from existing regulatory
requirements in exchange for enforceable commitments to achieve
environmental results that, on the whole, go beyond what would have
been achieved through full compliance with those regulations. A
competitive proposal process will allow us to select those projects
that show the most promise to demonstrate successful alternative
environmental management strategies.
The information will be collected by EPA's Office of Policy,
Planing, and Evaluation (OPPE), which has been given responsibility for
implementation of this program. The program itself will include other
offices within EPA headquarters, EPA regions, state and tribal
environmental agencies. The solicitation will help us identify those
regulated entities who are interested in participating in Project XL
pilot projects, the types of projects they are interested in pursuing,
and the extent to which those projects our criteria for project
selection. EPA has no form that is designated for a collection of this
type.
This solicitation for proposals will be included in a Federal
Register notice announcing Project XL, and will be sent to parties that
have already expressed interest in developing pilot projects. Potential
project proponents will mail completed proposals to the Office of
Policy, Planning and Evaluation at EPA. The proposals will be
distributed to a cross-agency review group that will evaluate and
select proposals for initial participation in pilot project
development. The process is further described in the attached notice.
2. Need for and Use of the Collection
2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection
The information is needed to implement the regulatory reinvention
pilot project initiative outlined by President Clinton in his
Reinventing Environmental Regulation directive. Under this initiative,
EPA is to solicit its regulated entities for their best ideas on
regulatory reinvention, and for pilot projects to test those ideas.
2(b) Use/Users of the Data
The proposals collected pursuant to this solicitation will be used
as the starting point for development of full-fledged pilot projects. A
competitive process will ensure that EPA can choose from a pool of
useful project ideas. Moreover, a simple and flexible proposal format
such as envisioned here will allow a diversity of regulated entities,
small as well as large firms, agencies, and communities, to develop
proposals. EPA will use the proposal submissions to screen ideas and
select the most promising ones for further development.
3. The Respondents and the Information Requested
3(a) Respondents/SIC Codes
Potential respondents include all entities regulated by EPA
pursuant to its authority under the various environmental statutes who
wish to participate in the regulatory reinvention pilot project
program.
3(b) Information Requested
The attached notice does not specify a format for proposals. It
requests that proposals include, ``* * * in addition to providing
general information about the proposed project, project proponents are
encouraged to comment on the relationship of their proposals to the
criteria for project selection described in this notice. Proponents of
projects are invited, but by no means required, to submit other useful
materials in paper or other audio/visual or electronic formats.'' As
noted earlier, EPA's goal is to create as flexible as possible a
solicitation process.
The nature of activities respondents are expected to conduct
include: preparation of technical proposals, discussion with management
of the respondent, consultation with state, tribal agencies, local
governments and community or environmental stakeholders, and clerical
matters related to project proposal. In technical preparation,
respondents are encouraged to address the nine criteria described in
the attached notice. Respondents are expected to describe the nature of
control, pollution prevention, or other activities to be undertaken as
part of the project; to define the scope of regulatory flexibility
needed to undertake these activities (i.e. The otherwise required
actions to be forgone in this project); and to discuss the nature of
stakeholder or other processes the project would propose in order to
move to Final Project Agreement. Proposals would likely
[[Page 27289]] require some level of management sign-off from the
respondent.
There is no recordkeeping requirement. Time for management
discussions is also included in burden estimates. The notice strongly
encourages consultation with state, tribal and community stakeholders,
such as holding a meeting with the applicable regulatory agency.
4. The Information Collected--Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management
4(a) Agency Activities
EPA will receive proposals and will develop a method for screening
them based on the criteria described in the attached notice. These
proposals will then be distributed to the cross-agency workgroup, with
proposals addressing specific areas of regulatory policy highlighted to
those parts of EPA with specific interest in those areas. Although the
number of proposals submitted in response to this notice is a matter of
speculation, EPA has estimated that it will be between one hundred and
five hundred. EPA intends to ultimately implement about 50 projects. As
such, proposals that clearly violate or do not address the criteria
will be screened out at this point. However, OPPE intends to provide
the other EPA, state and tribal agencies participating in the cross-
agency project selection process maximum opportunity to view project
proposals. As such, most proposals will be distributed directly to the
committee without initial screening.
As was noted earlier, this will be an open solicitation following a
``rolling admissions'' model with no set end date. (A cutoff will
ultimately be announced via a future Federal Register notice.) As such,
proposals will be screened and reviewed as they arrive. Once screened
and reviewed, proposals will be responded to in one of three fashions.
Proposals will be rejected, and proposers thanked for their interest.
Proposals will be accepted, and proponents invited to participate in
the development of Final Project Agreements, or proposals will be
deferred for future consideration. In this instance, EPA may discuss
with the project proponent ways to increase the attractiveness of the
proposal.
4(b) Collection Methodology and Management
This notice was developed by a team consisting of EPA headquarters
and regional personnel; and representatives of state environmental
agencies, through the Environmental Commission of the States. EPA also
held discussions with a number of program stakeholders, including
environmental and regulated community organizations. Also, a number of
comments on the solicitation process were received unsolicited in
response to President Clinton's March 16 directive and follow up press
coverage of the regulatory reinvention effort. The solicitation process
is the result of all of these comments and opinions.
The collection process will be as follows. EPA will place this
solicitation in the Federal Register. EPA will also distribute copies
upon request, and participate where invited in workshops designed to
assist potential project proponents in development of proposals.
Proposals will be sent to an EPA docket, where they will be logged in
and catalogued. The docket will retain a copy for archival purposes,
and display a copy for public viewing. Three additional copies will
then be sent to OPPE for screening, reference purposes, and
distribution to the cross-agency committee for proposal review. OPPE
has also developed a Lotus Notes database for purposes of tracking
proposals and telephone or other inquiries related to them.
4(c) Small Entity Flexibility
The flexible proposal process described earlier is designed to be
useful to large as well as small entities. It was designed to be simple
to respond to, with no undue burden on entities without full-time
environmental managers, etc. EPA does not expect that this solicitation
would impose additional burdens on small entities.
4(d) Collection Schedule
This will be an open solicitation for proposals, beginning with
publication of the attached notice and with no set end date. In terms
of choosing projects for initial participation in the program, EPA
intends to select up to six projects by mid-June.
5. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria
5(a) Nonduplication
EPA does not have a form that would collect the information needed
under the Regulatory Reinvention Pilot Projects pursuant to the
recommendations of our cross-agency committee. Nor do existing
databases of project proposals (e.g. Environmental Technology
Initiative) provide a useful source of projects for this effort.
5(b) Consultations
This notice was developed by a team consisting of EPA headquarters
and regional personnel; and representatives of state environmental
agencies, through the Environmental Commission of the States. EPA also
held discussions with a number of program stakeholders, including
environmental and regulated community organizations. Also, a number of
comments on the solicitation process were received unsolicited in
response to President Clinton's March 16 directive and follow up press
coverage of the regulatory reinvention effort. The solicitation process
is the result of all of these comments and opinions.
5(c) Not Applicable
5(d) Not Applicable
5(e) Not Applicable
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection
6(a) Respondent Burden
This section presents EPA's estimates of the burden hours and cost
to complete the information collection activities associate with this
collection. In using this analysis, however, it should be remembered
not only that all responses to this solicitation are voluntary, but
also that respondents have some expected value attached with their
participation. Fundamental to projects in this program will be reduced
cost of compliance due to increased regulatory flexibility. Not unlike
a contracts-based Request For Proposals, one would not expect a
response from any entity where the burdens associated with preparing
the response outweigh the expected benefits to the respondent.
As noted earlier, EPA estimates the number of response proposals
pursuant to this solicitation to be approximately 100 to 500.
Estimating respondent costs in developing proposals is made difficult
by the extremely flexible approach to this solicitation. Recall that
the solicitation does not specify the form or nature of responses,
except to give respondents a sense that only brief proposals (no more
than 10 pages) are requested. EPA has already received several
unsolicited proposals in response to the March 16, 1995, Reinventing
Environmental Regulation document in which the pilot project programs
were announced. To estimate the cost of proposal development, EPA asked
(via telephone conversation) a sample of seven of these proposal
sponsors to estimate the cost of preparing their unsolicited
submissions. The data presented here are based on the median of their
responses.
The proposal development process is, for these purposes, divided
into four phases: technical aspects, management discussion,
consultation with [[Page 27290]] government agencies and other
potential stakeholders, and clerical preparation. Technical aspects
cover development of the substantive portions of the proposal. The
average for technical aspects of proposal development is estimated at
50 person hours. Management discussion covers presentation and
refinement of proposals at corporate or other entity management levels.
Management time also includes estimates of legal review, which though
technical, has higher than average technical labor costs. The average
time for management level discussions is estimated at 30 person hours.
The solicitation strongly encourages project proponents to seek the
support of state or tribal environmental agencies in advance of
proposal to EPA. Although none of our unsolicited respondents had
actively pursued this, they estimated the cost of doing so at
approximately 60 person hours of management and technical time for the
regulated entities, and 10 person hours of mixed management and
technical time for the state or tribal agency. Clerical aspects of the
proposal, such as typing, mailing, etc., were estimated at 10 hours.
These figures, along with labor costs associated with them, are
summarized in Figure 1.
Figure 1.--Estimate of Respondent Burden and Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hours
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Management Technical Clerical Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepare technical proposal.................. 10 35 5 50
Discuss with management..................... 25 5 ............... 30
Consult with state/tribal agencies.......... 40 20 ............... 60
Clerical aspects of proposal................ ............... ............... 10 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--technical proposal............ 75 60 15 150
===================================================================
Subtotal (@ 100 respondents).......... 7,500 6,000 1,500 15,000
Subtotal (@ 500 respondents).......... 37,500 30,000 7,500 75,000
State/tribal consultation................... 5 5 ............... 10
Subtotal (@ 100 respondents)............ 500 500 ............... 1,000
Subtotal (@ 500 respondents)............ 2,500 2,500 ............... 5,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Range of total burden hours........... 8,000-40,000 6,500-32,500 1,500-7,500 16,000-80,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor cost assumptions (per hour)........... $70 $50 $20 ...............
Subtotal--technical proposal............ 5,250 3,000 300 $8,550
Subtotal (@ 100 respondents).......... 525,000 300,000 30,000 855,000
Subtotal (@ 500 respondents).......... 2,625,000 1,500,000 150,000 4,275,000
Subtotal--state/tribal costs............ 350 250 ............... 600
Subtotal (@ 100 respondents).......... 35,000 25,000 ............... 60,000
Subtotal (@ 500 respondents).......... 175,000 125,000 ............... 300,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Range of total labor costs (x $1000) $560-$2,800 $325-$1,625 $30-$150 $915-$4,575
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, respondent burden are estimated at 150 hours per
respondent for preparation of each application (including consultation
with state and tribal authorities, and mailing), and an additional 10
hours per state or tribal government agency are estimated to be
required for consultation in the development of each project proposals.
Given the expected range of between 100 and 500 applications, the total
application burden are estimated at between 16,000 and 80,000 hours.
6(b) Respondent Costs
Per the previous discussion, total respondent costs are estimated
to range between $915,000 (100 applicants), and $4,575,000 (500
applicants). This includes between $855,000 and $4,275,000 to develop
the technical proposal, and another $60,000 to $300,000 for state and
tribal consultation in proposal development.
6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost
EPA will incur costs to process and review specific proposal and
provide outreach in support of proposal preparation. For specific
applications, EPA will incur costs to: Receive and process the
proposals; initially screen the proposals; and distribute proposals to
the cross-agency review group. (This document does not estimate the
costs of the full regulatory reinvention pilot project program, but
only the gathering of information through this solicitation). In
addition, EPA will incur costs to perform outreach and training and
disseminate information on the solicitation. Agency costs are
summarized in Figure 2. Total EPA costs, at the upper range of five
hundred responses, are estimated at $432,500.
Figure 2.--Estimate of EPA Cost for Information Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Receive and process proposals.................... $10 .........
Perform initial screening........................ 50 .........
distribute proposals across Agency............... 5 .........
Specific proposal costs.......................... 65 $32,500
Creating additional information documents........ .......... 50,000
[[Page 27291]]
Conducting workshops/public outreach............. .......... 350,000
Total........................................ .......... $432,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6(d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs
Total respondent burden and cost for completing the proposals
solicited in the Regulatory Reinvention Pilot Project are estimated at
approximately 16,000 to 80,000 burden hours, and $915,000 to
$4,575,000. Total EPA costs for processing specific proposals and
supporting proposal development through technical outreach and
workshops is estimated at $432,500.
6(e) Reasons for Change in Burden
This new burden results from the desire to implement regulatory
reinvention pilot projects to test implementation alternative,
performance-based, options to conventional command and control
regulatory approaches.
6(f) Burden Statement
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 150 hours per application response, including:
time for reviewing instructions, developing the proposal; reviewing the
proposal through respondent management; and consulting with state or
tribal co-regulatory agencies, and other community or environmental
stakeholders are encouraged in the solicitation. An additional 10 hours
per respondent are estimated to be required of the state and tribal
agencies consulted in the development of project proposals. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to: Director, Regulatory Information Division, Mail Code 2136,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C., 20460, Attention Regulatory Reinvention Pilot Projects
Information Collection Burden (ICR#1749.01); and to the Office of
Management and Budget Paperwork Reduction Project, Washington, D.C.
20503.
[FR Doc. 95-12563 Filed 5-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M