[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 218 (Friday, November 9, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56671-56673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-28194]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7101-2]


Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; 
Comment Request; Regulatory Pilot Projects (Project XL)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit for 
renewal the following continuing Information Collection Request (ICR) 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): Regulatory Pilot Projects 
(Project XL) (EPA ICR No. 1755.06) (OMB Control No. 2010-0026, current 
ICR expires February 28, 2002). Before submitting the ICR to OMB for 
review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of 
the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 8, 2002.

ADDRESSES: The public may contact Mr. Brian Swett in EPA's Office of 
Environmental Policy Innovation for a paper copy of the ICR (free of 
charge). Mr. Swett may be reached by mail at the U.S. EPA Office of 
Environmental Policy Innovation (Mail Code 1807), 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at (202) 260-1718, by 
e-mail at [email protected], or by FAX at 202-260-1812.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Eric Marsh in the Office of 
Environmental Policy Innovation. Mr. Marsh may be reached by phone at 
(202) 260-2782, by e-mail at [email protected], or by FAX at 202-260-
1812. Or contact Ms. Katherine Dawes in the Office of Environmental 
Policy Innovation. Ms. Dawes may be reached by phone at (202) 260-8394, 
by e-mail at [email protected], or by FAX at 202-260-3125.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action 
include XL project sponsors, XL project stakeholders, state, tribal and 
local regulatory agencies, select members of the business industry, 
environmental organizations, industry trade associations, academics, 
and community members.
    Title: Regulatory Pilot Projects (EPA ICR No.1755.06) (OMB Control 
No. 2010-0026, current ICR expires February 28, 2002).
    Abstract: In March 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
initiated Project XL in response to a challenge to transform the 
environmental regulatory system to better meet the needs of a rapidly 
changing society while maintaining the nation's commitment to protect 
human health and safeguard the natural environment. Project XL tests 
innovative ideas that demonstrate eXcellence and Leadership by those 
who must comply with EPA regulations and policies. To test these new 
ideas, Project XL gives companies, communities, local governments, 
military bases, and universities flexibility from certain environmental 
regulations in exchange for commitments to achieve superior 
environmental performance at less cost. Through site-specific 
agreements with project sponsors, EPA is gathering data and project 
experience that will help the Agency redesign current approaches to 
public health and environmental protection. Under Project XL, 
sponsors--private facilities, multiple facilities, industry sectors, 
Federal facilities, communities, universities, and states--can 
implement innovative strategies that produce superior environmental 
performance, provide flexibility, cost savings, paperwork reduction or 
other benefits to sponsors, and promote greater accountability to 
stakeholders.
    The intent of Project XL is to allow the EPA to experiment with 
untried, potentially promising regulatory approaches, both to assess 
whether they provide superior environmental performance and other 
benefits at the specific facility affected, and whether they should be 
considered for wider application. Such pilot projects allow the EPA to 
proceed more quickly than would be possible when undertaking changes on 
a nationwide basis. EPA may modify rules, on a site-or state-specific 
basis, that represent one of several possible policy approaches within 
a more general statutory directive, so long as the alternative being 
used is permissible under the statute.
    The adoption of such alternative approaches or interpretations in 
the context of a given project does not, however, signal EPA's 
willingness to

[[Page 56672]]

adopt that interpretation as a general matter, or even in the context 
of other XL projects. It would be inconsistent with the forward-looking 
nature of these pilot projects to adopt such innovative approaches 
prematurely on a widespread basis without first determining whether or 
not they are viable in practice and successful for the particular 
projects that embody them. These pilot projects are not intended to be 
a means for piecemeal revision of entire programs. Depending on the 
results in these projects, EPA may or may not be willing to consider 
adopting the alternative approach or interpretation again, either 
generally or for other specific facilities. EPA believes that adopting 
alternative policy approaches and/or interpretations, on a limited, 
site-or state-specific basis and in connection with a carefully 
selected pilot project is consistent with the expectations of Congress 
about EPA's role in implementing the environmental statutes (so long as 
EPA acts within the discretion allowed by the statute). Congress' 
recognition that there is a need for experimentation and research, as 
well as ongoing reevaluation of environmental programs, is reflected in 
a variety of statutory provisions.
    Before submitting an official proposal to EPA, the project sponsor 
typically has informal discussions with EPA about proposal design. Once 
a formal proposal is submitted, EPA along with the corresponding state 
environmental agency then review the proposal. EPA bases acceptance of 
proposals on the extent to which proposals meet the following eight 
criteria: (1) Superior environmental performance, (2) cost savings and 
reduced paperwork, (3) stakeholder involvement, (4) innovation or 
pollution prevention, (5) transferability, (6) feasibility, (7) 
monitoring, reporting and evaluation, and (8) no shifting of risk 
burden. If the proposal is accepted, EPA and the partnering state 
agency negotiate the conditions of the proposal with the project 
sponsor along with other interested stakeholders, including local and 
national environmental groups and nearby community residents. Once an 
agreement is reached regarding the conditions of the proposal and the 
necessary regulatory flexibility, the Final Project Agreement (FPA) is 
signed and the project sponsor can begin implementation.
    XL project proposals are collected by EPA's Office of Environmental 
Policy Innovation (OEPI) [formerly the Office of Reinvention], which 
has been given responsibility for implementation of this program. Since 
its inception in 1995, over 100 Project XL proposals have been received 
and reviewed, and over 50 pilot projects have been implemented. The 
program itself includes other offices within EPA headquarters, EPA 
regions, federal, state, tribal and local government agencies. The 
renewal of this ICR is important as it will allow the Agency to 
identify additional 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 meet 
our criteria for proposal selection.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    The EPA would like to solicit comments to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden 
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of 
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information to 
be collected: and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic 
submissions of responses.
    Burden Statement: This section presents EPA's estimates of the 
burden and cost to complete the information collection activities 
associated 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.
    EPA estimates the number of response proposals pursuant to this 
ongoing solicitation to be between 10 and 25 per year over the life of 
this ICR. Estimating respondent costs in developing proposals is made 
difficult by the wide variety of projects and the extremely flexible 
approach to this solicitation. Since the March 16, 1995 announcement of 
the program, EPA has received over 100 Project XL proposals. In the 
seventh year of the program, EPA continues to receive inquiries about 
the program as well as formal written proposals.
    In March 2000, Resources for the Future (RFF) released a report 
titled ``The Cost of Developing Site Specific Environmental 
Regulations: Evidence from EPA's Project XL,'' which in part discussed 
survey data regarding the cost of Project XL proposal development for 
sponsors and EPA. The citation information for this report is: 
Blackman, Allen and Mazurek, Janice, ``The Cost of Developing Site-
Specific Environmental Regulations: Evidence from EPA's Project XL,'' 
Resources for the Future, March 2000, Discussion Paper 99-35-REV. It 
can be found at: http://www.rff.org/disc_papers/PDF_files/9935rev.pdf. 
In the Fall of 1998, using a sample of 11 private sector sponsors, all 
of which submitted their proposals within the first six months of the 
initiation of Project XL, RFF conducted a survey of the sponsors and 
EPA regional offices on the cost of proposal development, including the 
monetized value of legal fees and person hours spent. In general, EPA 
regional offices are largely responsible for developing the proposal 
with the sponsor before its formal submission, and thus surveying the 
cost to EPA regional offices of proposal development captures the bulk 
of the total costs to EPA. Staff in the Office of Environmental Policy 
Innovation that work on Project XL have reviewed the cost findings of 
the report and found them to be reasonable and sound estimates of 
current and future costs.
    In 1995, to estimate the cost in hours of proposal development, EPA 
asked (via telephone conversation) a sample of seven proposal sponsors 
to estimate the cost of preparing their submissions. While the monetary 
cost of person hours is well captured by the RFF study, it did not 
report specifically on the average hours spent, and thus the findings 
from this EPA survey are mentioned below.
    The RFF study found that Project XL proposal development cost each 
sponsor an average of $64,637. Using this cost figure as our best 
estimate, total sponsor costs per year for proposal development for 
Project XL are estimated to be between $646,370 (10 proposals) and 
$1,615,925 (25 proposals).
    The EPA survey found that development and preparation of a project 
XL proposal took approximately

[[Page 56673]]

150 hours per sponsor. Using this hour figure as our best estimate, 
total sponsor hours spent per year on proposal development for Project 
XL are estimated to be between 1,500 (10 proposals) and 3,750 (25 
proposals).
    The RFF study found that Project XL proposal development cost the 
EPA regional offices, our proxy for total EPA cost, an average of 
$11,339 per proposal. Using this cost figure as our best estimate, 
total EPA costs per year for proposal development for Project XL are 
estimated to be between $113,390 (10 proposals) and $283,475 (25 
proposals).
    Bottom line respondent costs for proposal solicitation and 
development are estimated to range between $646,370 and $1,615,925 per 
year. Bottom line EPA costs for processing specific proposals and 
supporting proposal development are estimated at between $113,390 and 
$283,475 per year. It should be noted that these estimates are probably 
on the high end of the true average cost of proposal development and 
submission. As the RFF study notes, due to several efforts and steps 
undertaken by EPA to better facilitate and streamline the proposal 
development and submission process, proposal development costs may be 
lower now than when the respondents were surveyed for the 2000 report.
    No capital or start-up costs will be associated with this effort.
    Burden means total time, effort, or financial resources expended by 
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide 
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed 
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Dated: October 25, 2001.
Elizabeth A. Shaw,
Office Director, Office of Environmental Policy Innovation.
[FR Doc. 01-28194 Filed 11-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P