[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52674-52696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-20347]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 63, 262 and 403

[FRL-7255-8]
RIN 2090-AA13


National Environmental Performance Track Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Available only to members in EPA's National Environmental 
Performance Track program, this action proposes: a provision that would 
allow hazardous waste generators who are members in Performance Track 
up to 180 days to accumulate their hazardous waste without a RCRA 
permit or interim status; simplifications to reporting requirements for 
facilities governed by Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) 
provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA); and specific reporting 
modifications for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) regulated by 
the Clean Water Act (CWA). Additionally, this action solicits comments 
on a potential pilot of consolidated reporting that would allow 
Performance Track facilities to submit a single report that would 
contain data routinely required under the CAA, the CWA, the Emergency 
Planning and Community Right-to-know Act (EPCRA), and the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These provisions are intended to 
serve as incentives for facility membership in the National 
Environmental Performance Track, and as demonstrations of the concept 
for reporting streamlining.

DATES: Submit comments on or before November 12, 2002. A public hearing 
on this proposed rule will be held on September 27, 2002. Submit 
requests to present oral testimony on or before September 25, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit comments (in duplicate if possible) to: 
Docket No. A-2000-47, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 
6102, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    Public Hearing will be located at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
Washington, DC 20460.
    Electronic Access and Filing. Comments and data may be submitted by 
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected].
    Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the 
use of special characters and encryption problems and will also be 
accepted on disks in WordPerfect version 5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file 
format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must note 
the docket number: A-2000-47. No confidential business information 
(CBI) should be submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed 
online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
    Documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed at: U.S. EPA Air 
Docket, Room M-1500, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 (on the 
ground floor in Waterside Mall) from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except on government holidays. Submit electronic 
comments and other data to [email protected]. See SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION for file formats and other information about electronic 
filing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical information: Robert D. 
Sachs, 202-260-2765, [email protected]. Public Hearing information: 
Robert D. Sachs, 202-260-2765, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In addition to being available in the 
docket, an electronic copy of today's proposed rule will be available 
on the World Wide Web through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 
Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the rule will be 
posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or 
promulgated rules http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides 
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution 
control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN 
HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the 
information considered by us in the development of this rulemaking. The 
docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the 
rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to allow members 
of the public and industries involved to readily identify and locate 
documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking 
process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their 
preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the 
case of judicial review. The regulatory text and other materials 
related to this rulemaking are available for review in the Air Docket 
under Docket Number A-2000-47 (see ADDRESSES above) or copies may be 
mailed on request by calling the Air Docket at (202) 260-7548 or by 
facsimile at (202) 260-4400. We may charge a reasonable fee for copying 
docket materials, as provided in 40 CFR part 2.
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action include those listed in the following table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Examples of
                          Category                              NAICS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utilities..................................................          221
Textile mills..............................................          313
Wood product manufacturing.................................          321
Chemical manufacturing.....................................          325
Plastics and rubber products manufacturing.................          326
Primary metal manufacturing................................          331
Fabricated metal products..................................          332
Machinery manufacturing....................................          333
Computer and electronic product manufacturing..............          334

[[Page 52675]]

 
Transportation equipment manufacturing.....................          336
Miscellaneous manufacturing................................          339
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action.
    Outline. The information presented in the text that follows is 
organized as below:

I. Overview
    A. What is the history of this action?
    B. How have stakeholders been involved?
    C. What incentives for members are envisioned?
    D. What is EPA's rationale for this rule?
    1. What Environmental Benefits will the Performance Track 
Program Bring to Society?
    2. How will these Incentives Maximize the Benefits of the 
Performance Track Program?
    3. Will these incentives undercut existing environmental 
protections?
    4. How does the Program Design Limit Membership to a Uniquely 
Appropriate set of Facilities?
II. The proposed rulemaking changes
    A. Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
    1. Reduced frequency of required MACT reporting for all eligible 
Performance Track facilities
    2. Reporting reductions for Performance Track facilities that 
achieve MACT or better emission levels through pollution prevention 
methods such as process changes
    B. Alternative Environmental Performance-based Incentives for 
POTWs in the Performance Track
    1. Electronic Web Posting for SNC Notification
    2. Oversight of Significant Industrial Users
    3. Program Modifications
    4. Revisions to the Requirements for the Pretreatment Program 
Annual Report
    C. 180-Day Accumulation Time for Performance Track Hazardous 
Waste Generators
    1. Background
    2. What are the current Requirements for Large Quantity 
Generator Accumulation?
    3. What is in Today's Proposal?
    4. How will today's Proposal Affect Applicability of RCRA Rules 
in Authorized States?
III. Other potential incentives: consolidated reporting
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the cost and economic impacts?
    B. What are the health, environmental and energy impacts?
V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
VI. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    E. Executive Order 13211, Energy Effects
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. 601 et. seq.
    H. Paperwork Reduction Act
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

I. Overview

A. What Is the History of This Action?

    EPA announced the National Environmental Performance Track 
(Performance Track) program on June 26, 2000. The program is designed 
to recognize and encourage top environmental performers--those who go 
beyond compliance with regulatory requirements to attain levels of 
environmental performance and management that provide greater benefit 
to people, communities, and the environment. The program is based upon 
the experiences of EPA, states, businesses, and community and 
environmental groups with new approaches that achieve high levels of 
environmental protection with greater efficiency. This experience 
includes: EPA's Common Sense Initiative, designed to improve 
environmental results by tailoring strategies for six industry sectors; 
the national Environmental Leadership Program and EPA Region I's Star 
Track program, designed as new ways to encourage businesses to do 
better than required; and many performance track-type programs in 
states such as Oregon, Wisconsin, New Jersey and Virginia.
    EPA currently is implementing the National Environmental 
Performance Track (Performance Track), formerly known as the 
Achievement Track. The program is designed to recognize facilities that 
consistently meet their legal requirements, that have implemented 
management systems to monitor and improve performance, that have 
voluntarily achieved environmental improvements beyond compliance, and 
that publicly commit to specific environmental improvements and report 
on progress. A complete description of the Performance Track program, 
its requirements, and other program materials are available on EPA's 
Web site (www.epa.gov/performancetrack) or by calling the Performance 
Track Information Center toll free at 1-888-339-PTRK (7875).
    EPA has held three Performance Track application periods--between 
July 2000 and September 2000, between February 2001 and April 2001, and 
between August 2001 and October 2001. In the future, EPA plans to hold 
two entry periods each year. A total of 279 facilities have been 
accepted into the program. The National Environmental Performance Track 
is a voluntary program. Decisions to accept and remove facilities is 
wholly discretionary to EPA, and applicants or potential applicants 
have no legal right to challenge EPA's decision.
    Today's proposal creates several regulatory provisions that 
constitute enforceable legal requirements for facilities that are 
members of the Performance Track program and have taken all other 
necessary steps required for the applicability or implementation of the 
individual regulatory incentive provisions. Full eligibility and other 
program requirements can be found at the Performance Track Web site 
(www.epa.gov/performancetrack). The Agency believes that, because of 
the stringency of the program criteria, facilities in the Performance 
Track should receive the non-regulatory and regulatory benefits 
outlined in the Program Description (and summarized below). 
Specifically, for acceptance in the Performance Track, facilities must:
     Have adopted and implemented an environmental management 
system (EMS) that includes specific elements;
     Be able to demonstrate environmental achievements and 
commit to continued improvement in particular environmental categories;
     Engage the public and report publicly on their 
performance; and
     Have a record of sustained compliance with environmental 
requirements.
    In addition, the Performance Track is designed so that EPA and 
other stakeholders can monitor and track the implementation of the 
benefits currently being offered to program members, as well as those 
being considered. Member facilities commit to providing annual reports 
on the status of their efforts to achieve their commitments to 
improvements in specific environmental categories. This reporting plus 
additional activities to engage the public result in a high level of 
scrutiny that will aid in monitoring the activities of the Performance 
Track program. Lastly, facilities are accepted into the Performance 
Track for a period of three years. To continue receiving the benefits 
associated with the program, facilities will reapply, which will 
include developing additional, ongoing

[[Page 52676]]

commitments to environmental performance improvements.
    In its efforts to promote improved environmental performance 
through the National Environmental Performance Track, EPA is evaluating 
further regulatory incentives that could be applied to qualifying 
facilities. This rulemaking is the first in what are expected to be 
several steps in developing incentives that will promote participation 
in the program and the associated environmental benefits. These 
incentives will include both those that will be implemented through 
rulemaking (such as the regulatory changes proposed today) and those 
that may be accomplished through administrative action by EPA or the 
states. EPA encourages interested parties to submit comments on 
additional incentives that are consistent with the design and goals of 
the Performance Track.

B. How Have Stakeholders Been Involved?

    During the development of the Performance Track Program and 
subsequent to its announcement in June 2000, EPA has had many meetings 
with a wide array of stakeholders. Stakeholders included companies, 
non-governmental organizations, states, associations, and others. Over 
the course of these meetings, EPA has discussed many issues including 
any incentives that would reward Performance Track members, as well as 
those incentives that would motivate non Performance Track facilities 
to implement environmental improvements that would qualify them for 
membership in the program.
    This proposed rulemaking grew out of the stakeholders' collective 
interest in promoting incentives for participating facilities. Since 
the inception of the program, EPA has held three meetings with state 
regulators: May 2000 in Denver, February 2001 in Chicago, and November 
2001 in Charleston. At each of these meetings, break-out sessions were 
held to solicit feedback from state personnel on potential incentives 
to be offered to Performance Track members.
    On December 12, 2000, EPA held a ``Charter Event'' for the first 
round of Performance Track members. At this meeting EPA held a series 
of breakout discussions. During these sessions, ideas about incentives 
that could become part of the regulatory framework were discussed.
    Similarly, on October 30, 2001 EPA met with a variety stakeholders 
including associations, non-governmental organizations and states to 
discuss EPA's ``Innovations Strategy.'' During this meeting EPA held a 
specific breakout session on incentives that could be made available 
for performance track members.
    In addition, EPA has consulted regularly with individual 
Performance Track participants and the Performance Track Participants 
Association (PTPA), which is composed of 141 members. The PTPA is a 
nonprofit organization that provides a forum for corporations, trade 
associations and public entities dedicated to improving their 
environmental performance through the vehicle of the Performance Track 
program. The PTPA met twice, in June and November of 2001, and is 
convening its first annual conference in April, 2002. The PTPA also has 
an Incentives workgroup that focuses on identifying and advocating for 
incentives for Performance Track members.
    Furthermore, EPA is working with nine trade organizations through 
the Performance Track network to further enhance participation in the 
program. Network Partners include the following organizations: American 
Chemistry Council, American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Cement 
Kiln Recycling Coalition, National Association of Chemical 
Distributors, National Paint and Coatings Association, National Stone, 
Sand and Gravel Association, NORA (an Association of Responsible 
Recyclers), North American Die Casting Association, and Screenprinting 
and Graphic Imaging Association International.

C. What Incentives for Members Are Envisioned?

    The Performance Track Program Description provides a list of 
incentives the Agency intended to make available to member facilities. 
EPA currently offers several incentives that are available to members 
when they enter the program (e.g., recognition, networking 
opportunities, discretionary inspection benefits). EPA is also in the 
process of making other incentives available through taking 
administrative action (other than rulemaking) and by issuing or 
amending guidance documents (e.g., reduced reporting under Discharge 
Monitoring Reports). These incentives will be available when those 
steps have been completed. In some cases, other steps also must be 
taken before a facility may take advantage of an incentive. For 
example, states are responsible for implementing parts of many federal 
environmental programs. In such cases, states may need to revise 
regulations, seek EPA approval of a revised program, re-issue permits, 
or take other actions. EPA has made funds available to approximately 20 
states to identify where existing state laws may need to be revised to 
support the National Environmental Performance Track. See the National 
Environmental Performance Track Program Description for a fuller 
discussion of these incentives.
    In the Program Description, EPA also committed to propose specific 
regulatory changes as incentives for membership in the Performance 
Track. The proposed changes in this rulemaking follow up on this 
commitment. EPA believes the modest regulatory changes proposed here 
are appropriate for facilities that are members of the program.
    EPA is proposing the following regulatory changes to promote 
membership in the program and to realize the environmental and other 
benefits resulting from the actions of member facilities. EPA excluded 
incentives that would involve a relaxation of substantive standards of 
performance or that would require statutory change. EPA identified 
incentives that would apply broadly to different types of facilities; 
that reduce the reporting and other operating costs of the current 
system; and that can be implemented nationally.
    EPA believes it is important to offer the kinds of incentives 
described here for several reasons. First, the achievements of these 
facilities deserve public recognition. Second, some of the reporting 
and other administrative requirements that apply generally to 
facilities may not be needed for facilities that have met the entry 
criteria for the Performance Track because these facilities have 
implemented appropriate environmental management systems, have 
consistently met their regulatory commitments, and have agreed to make 
information regarding their performance publicly available. Third, 
these incentives may offer the opportunity for qualifying facilities to 
apply their resources to achieving even better environmental 
performance. And finally, the availability of these incentives should 
encourage other facilities to make environmental improvements that will 
enable them to qualify for membership.
    In this rulemaking, EPA is proposing changes to certain regulatory 
programs to offer incentives exclusively to Performance Track 
facilities. They include:
     Reducing the frequency of reports required under the air 
toxics provisions of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (air toxics 
standards promulgated under this section of the CAA are often referred 
to

[[Page 52677]]

as MACT Standards or Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards). 
In this incentive, EPA proposes to reduce the frequency of required 
MACT reporting for all eligible Performance Track facilities to an 
interval that is twice the length of the regular reporting period, but 
not less frequently than once every six months. Second, if Performance 
Track facilities reduce their emissions through pollution prevention or 
process changes to below MACT levels, and below the major source 
threshold, required reporting elements in the periodic report may be 
met through an annual certification. Performance Track facilities must 
continue to meet all relevant monitoring and recordkeeping 
requirements. For major sources, reports must still be submitted at 
least semi-annually in order to meet Title V permitting requirements.
     Reducing the reporting costs for POTWs in the Performance 
Track that must publish notices of violations by facilities that use 
their services. These POTWs would be allowed to use the Internet rather 
than paid newspaper notices. POTWs would also be allowed to reduce 
their oversight of some smaller industrial users; they would be allowed 
the discretion to determine that some of these users are 
``nonsignificant.'' Also proposed are other alternative environmental 
performance-based incentives for POTWs in the Performance Track.
     Allowing large quantity hazardous waste generators who are 
members of the Performance Track up to 180 days (and 270 days if the 
waste must be transported 200 miles or more) to accumulate hazardous 
waste without a RCRA permit or interim status, provided that these 
generators meet certain conditions. This incentive would also assist 
EPA in learning more about appropriate hazardous waste generator 
accumulation times.
    In this notice, EPA solicits comments on another potential 
incentive--the opportunity for Performance Track facilities to 
consolidate reporting under various environmental statutes into a 
single report. The incentives in this notice--both those for which we 
propose rulemaking changes and the opportunity for participating in a 
consolidated reporting pilot--are just a part of an overall package of 
incentives that EPA intends to provide for Performance Track members. 
We noted above that the National Environmental Performance Track 
Program Description lists several other incentives that EPA intends to 
make available through administrative action not requiring rulemaking 
changes. That same document notes that EPA is considering another 
potential incentive--the opportunity for expedited review for companies 
that submit Premanufacturing Notifications (PMNs) under the Toxic 
Substances Control Act, if the substance is manufactured in a 
Performance Track facility and the applicant uses EPA's Pollution 
Prevention Framework in preparing the PMN submission. If EPA decides to 
make the TSCA incentive a part of the Performance Track Program, we 
would propose rulemaking to do so at a later time.
    We solicit comments on whether EPA should add other incentives 
beyond the ones in this notice and in the Program Description, and what 
they might be. EPA will consider at least three criteria in devising 
and selecting additional incentives. One is the make-up of the current 
set of Performance Track facilities and the potential applicant pool. 
Another is the extent to which the characteristics of Performance Track 
facilities (including their use of effective EMSs and their commitment 
to public reporting beyond that required by regulations) may be 
appropriate substitutes for some aspects of existing regulatory and 
other requirements. The third criterion is that incentives do not 
represent a reduction in protectiveness when compared to current 
requirements. We solicit comments on these criteria and suggestions of 
others.

D. What Is EPA's Rationale for This Rule?

    EPA is proposing to modify reporting and other requirements that 
affect facilities that are subject to various environmental statutes 
and regulations. The proposed rulemaking would make these modifications 
available only to those facilities that successfully achieve the status 
of members in the National Environmental Performance Track Program and 
continue to meet the conditions of the program.
    The environmental benefits that will be generated by Performance 
Track member facilities are related to the criteria for membership in 
the Performance Track. These were enumerated and fully described in 
EPA's announcement of this program (www.epa.gov/performancetrack), and 
are summarized below:
    Facilities must satisfy the following four entry criteria to be 
accepted into the Performance Track:
    (1) Facilities must be in compliance with Federal, State, Local and 
Tribal environmental regulations.
    (2) They must operate a well-designed environmental management 
system (EMS) as part of their overall management system.
    (3) They must demonstrate a record of environmental improvements 
for the previous two years beyond the minimums required of them. They 
also must take additional future actions and commit to further 
improvements in the succeeding three years.
    (4) Facilities must engage the public and each year they must 
report publicly on their progress toward meeting the goals that they 
have chosen, as well as summarize their compliance and the performance 
of their EMS. EPA will also make the applications of each facility 
member available to the public.
    These criteria are the key to generating the incremental 
environmental improvements; they were designed to work together as an 
integrated approach. No single criterion, standing alone, would provide 
EPA with the necessary assurance that the changes proposed here would 
lead to increased compliance or performance. However, in combination 
the Agency believes that these criteria ensure that the facilities 
eligible for these proposed changes are both capable of and committed 
to maintaining beyond-compliance environmental performance and that any 
lapses will be rare and quickly corrected by facility management. 
Further, the Agency and the public will continue to receive information 
on facility compliance and performance. Nothing in this proposal would 
compromise the ability of the Agency to investigate and sanction 
suspected environmental violations.
    Compliance with environmental regulations: Although the first 
criterion merely re-iterates the existing obligation of all facilities 
to comply with relevant policies and regulations, the other criteria go 
beyond the environmental problems addressed under existing regulations 
and focus on the unique set of environmental challenges faced by each 
individual facility. EPA believes that a strong compliance history is 
an important factor in defining performance in the Performance Track. 
EPA, in cooperation with State and local authorities to the extent 
possible, reviews the compliance history of applicants.
    Environmental management systems: To satisfy the second program 
criterion, a Performance Track member facility must have a mature 
environmental management system. These systems integrate environmental 
considerations into routine decision-making at facilities, establish 
work practices that consistently reduce environmental risks and 
releases, evaluate environmental performance, and set management

[[Page 52678]]

priorities based on the environmental impacts of individual facilities. 
Because they organize and consolidate information on a facility's 
environmental obligations and potential weaknesses for management, an 
EMS often improves the facility's compliance record and reduces 
accidents. However, many EMS frameworks address unregulated 
environmental impacts as well as regulated impacts. Thus, an EMS 
provides a facility with the ability to assess and mitigate impacts 
that are most significant for the facility or that pose the most risk 
to the ecosystem and community surrounding the facility. An EMS allows 
a facility to take additional environmental mitigation actions that are 
highly effective and appropriate, providing better environmental 
results as well as more flexibility than the existing regulatory 
structure alone.
    EMSs are being used increasingly by organizations around the world 
to help integrate environmental considerations into day-to-day 
decisions and practices and to address environmental issues more 
consistently and effectively. The increasing use of EMSs has resulted 
in the development of an international EMS standard (ISO 14001). In 
light of their growing use and potential for improving environmental 
results, especially in the area of unregulated impacts, EPA has focused 
more attention on EMSs in recent years. The Agency has a research 
program underway with the States to pilot test and evaluate the 
effectiveness of EMSs in several industry settings. The Agency has 
developed and tested EMSs for specific sectors, including local 
governments and metal finishing and screen printing firms. We have 
promoted EMSs through several voluntary partnership programs, such as 
Design for the Environment (DfE), and we have incorporated EMS 
requirements in enforcement settlement agreements. In June 2000, the 
Administrator supported the North American Commission for Environmental 
Cooperation (CEC) document ``Improving Environmental Compliance: 10 
Elements of Effective Environmental Management Systems.''
    The EMS provisions in the Performance Track are designed to ensure 
that member facilities will continue to not only meet their regulatory 
obligations but also to perform better than required by regulation. The 
Performance Track specifies that a qualifying facility must have an EMS 
that includes detailed elements in the following categories: 
environmental policy (including compliance with both legal requirements 
and voluntary commitments), planning, implementation and operation, 
checking and corrective action, and management review. Additionally, 
the EMS must have been in full operation for at least one review cycle 
(generally one year) and must have been audited (may be a self-audit). 
The EMS requirements are described in more detail in EPA's National 
Environmental Performance Track Program description at www.epa.gov/performancetrack.
    Past and future environmental improvements: Facilities must 
demonstrate their commitment to continuous environmental performance. 
To do this, facilities must identify accomplishments in specific 
categories. The categories are: energy use, water use, materials use, 
air emissions (including greenhouse gases), waste, discharges to water, 
accidental releases, habitat preservation/restoration, and product 
performance. Past improvements must have been beyond regulatory 
requirements. In addition, Performance Track facilities must make use 
of their EMSs to set and commit to achieving environmental performance 
goals that go beyond regulatory requirements and that mitigate some 
facility-selected significant environmental impacts. These performance 
goals must be chosen among the specific categories identified above 
including both regulated and unregulated environmental impacts.
    Because these performance goals and accomplishments go beyond 
requirements and in some cases, well beyond areas covered by existing 
environmental regulations, EPA believes that facilities that qualify 
for the Performance Track have demonstrated a serious commitment to 
real environmental improvement. By their willingness to undertake 
greater environmental responsibilities, these facilities have earned 
the confidence that they will maintain compliance with regulatory 
requirements under the streamlined procedures proposed in this Notice.
    Public commitments: To satisfy the fourth program criterion, all 
Performance Track facilities publicly disclose progress toward their 
commitments and other performance information each year, including 
summary information regarding their EMS and compliance with legal 
requirements. Because these commitments and the performance reporting 
go beyond those required by current regulation, communities will have 
access to more information about the performance of local facilities. 
This public scrutiny also will provide an incentive for firms to make 
meaningful commitments and achieve them.
    We believe that facilities that make the choice to apply and to 
demonstrate their commitments to environmental improvements in the 
public spotlight will be imposing upon themselves a unique and 
particularly strong set of pressures to deliver this heightened level 
of performance.
    In time, we expect the Performance Track program to produce 
additional environmental gains as a result of the more efficient use of 
the resources of federal, state, and local environmental authorities. 
Because we expect the entry criteria to result in member facilities 
that are carrying out their environmental obligations in a manner 
beyond what is required of them, we believe that EPA and the other 
authorities will be able to shift enforcement and compliance activities 
to other facilities in the regulated community. We believe that this 
resource reallocation may bring further environmental improvements, as 
limited compliance resources are applied more effectively.
    Each of the regulatory changes we are proposing today would enable 
some Performance Track members to reduce their reporting or other 
compliance costs.
1. What Environmental Benefits Will the Performance Track Program Bring 
to Society?
    EPA believes that its refocus of resources may lead to additional 
environmental compliance. Public recognition and reporting requirement 
relief, to the extent that they affect companies bottom lines, may 
influence company decisions to undertake regulatory projects that go 
beyond regulatory requirements. The public will be able to judge the 
nature and magnitude of these environmental benefits by examining the 
annual reports that Performance Track facilities are required to 
prepare and make public.
2. How Will Incentives Maximize the Benefits of the Performance Track 
Program?
    Incentives play a crucial role in maximizing the environmental 
benefits of any voluntary program. Facilities must perceive a benefit 
to themselves that is at least equal to their perceived costs of 
membership in a voluntary program. These costs include the 
administrative burden of membership as well as any costs incurred in 
meeting the substantive requirements of the program. Facility members 
of the Performance Track Program also face

[[Page 52679]]

the additional risk of adverse public reaction if they fail to meet 
their environmental goals or if their internal audits of compliance or 
EMS performance reveal problems. These public risks are unique to 
Performance Track facilities. Facilities participating in other EPA 
voluntary programs as well as facilities that do not participate in any 
voluntary program may and do keep audit information confidential. 
Improved public information about the environmental performance of 
facilities is an important component and public benefit of the 
Performance Track program and it significantly raises the costs 
perceived by facility managers for internal oversights or lapses.
    The greater the benefits to facility members in the Performance 
Track program, the more facilities will participate. Increased program 
incentives may also generate environmental benefits from non-members. 
If facilities that do not currently meet the Performance Track program 
criteria believe that membership would benefit them, they may work to 
improve their management systems and environmental performance to 
become eligible.
3. Will These Incentives Undercut Existing Environmental Protections?
    EPA believes that the proposed 180-day accumulation period for 
hazardous waste and the changes proposed in reporting for MACT 
facilities and for POTWs will have no direct deleterious effects on the 
environmental performance of those facilities. We believe that, 
although EPA and other regulatory bodies will receive compliance 
information from these facilities less frequently, the facilities' 
demonstrated strong environmental performance and the presence of their 
EMSs more than compensate for reduced reporting. As a safeguard, EPA 
and the other governmental authorities will not be giving up their 
ability to take enforcement actions against any facility that fails to 
comply with permits or other obligations. The risk of a very public 
removal from this program for failure to comply adds an extra incentive 
to comply with program requirements. EPA believes that this, plus the 
incentives that facilities have to be perceived by the public and by 
governmental offices as better environment performers than their 
competitors, reduces the risk that any environmental damages will 
result from this program or the regulatory changes we are proposing.
    We believe that the changes proposed here for POTWs' public 
reporting will not decrease the public's ability to learn about 
violations by the POTWs' permittees. Rather, EPA believes that these 
changes may actually enhance the public's ability to learn about these 
violations and thus to participate in ensuring compliance by 
dischargers.
4. How Does the Program Design Limit Membership to a Uniquely 
Appropriate Set of Facilities?
    EPA designed the Performance Track program to generate improvements 
in environmental performance of facilities. EPA believes that the entry 
criteria and the ongoing obligations for continued membership in 
Performance Track as described above will bring about benefits to the 
environment such as decreased releases of pollutants to the air, water, 
and land, of greater efficiency in energy and raw material usage, and 
of decreased risks of accidental releases of hazardous substances. 
These incremental environmental benefits will flow from the facilities' 
activities that are tied to their membership in Performance Track, and 
this justifies making available to this category of facilities the 
benefits of the modified requirements that we propose today.
    Further, EPA believes that there are controls and safeguards built 
into the Performance Track program that reduce the possibility a 
facility would receive the benefits of the modified requirements we 
propose today without the facility delivering improved environmental 
performance.
    EPA's announcement of this program (www.epa.gov/performancetrack) 
describes how we review the applications and make selections of 
facilities that meet the entry criteria. It also summarizes other steps 
we will take to run the program, including conducting site visits at up 
to 20 percent of the member facilities and the possible removal of 
facilities if they are found not to be meeting the commitments they 
have taken on. We believe that this approach is generally capable of 
identifying those facilities, among the tens of thousands of facilities 
subject to environmental regulations, which have and will continue to 
comply with and exceed regulatory requirements. We also believe that 
the combination of the administrative controls of the Performance Track 
program and the public reporting voluntarily accepted by program 
members will, as a rule, be effective in limiting membership to only 
such facilities.

II. The Proposed Rulemaking Changes

A. Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)

1. Reduced Frequency of Required MACT Reporting for All Eligible 
Performance Track Facilities
    Facilities covered by the MACT provisions of the Clean Air Act must 
meet a variety of recordkeeping, monitoring, and reporting requirements 
as specified in 40 CFR part 63--National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories. For facility members in 
the Performance Track, EPA proposes to reduce the reporting frequency 
while assuring the availability of information required for compliance 
with MACT standards.
    Because of the high-level environmental performance of Performance 
Track facilities, EPA believes it is appropriate to provide these 
facilities the opportunity to reduce their reporting frequency under 
part 63. Since the underlying data required from these facilities would 
still be gathered, the Agency would still receive the information 
needed to ascertain any lapses in compliance.
    MACT reporting requirements differentiate between facilities, based 
on facility performance, with respect to reporting frequency. For 
example, reporting frequency may be increased from semi-annually to 
quarterly for some reports based on the frequency of excursions outside 
of required performance parameters. The approach the Agency is 
proposing today applies a similar concept by reducing reporting 
frequency for the best performers.
    EPA is proposing to reduce the frequency of certain required 
periodic MACT reports for eligible Performance Track facilities. 
Periodic reports include a range of reports that are required to be 
sent in to the Permit Authority on intervals that range from quarterly, 
or more frequently if required by special circumstances, to semi-
annually. The reports are different from records, which must be kept on 
site and incorporated into the periodic reports and other reports. 
There are general reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, 
and additional reporting requirements under subparts applying to 
specific categories of stationary sources that emit (or have the 
potential to emit) one or more hazardous air pollutants.
    EPA is proposing to double the reporting intervals for these 
reports by amending Secs. 63.2 and 63.10, and adding a new Sec. 63.16. 
For major sources, however, reports must still be submitted at least 
semi-annually to meet Title V

[[Page 52680]]

permitting requirements specified in section 504(a) of the Clean Air 
Act.
    This proposed rulemaking would not revise other requirements 
concerning event reporting, record keeping, and monitoring. EPA is 
seeking comment, however, on whether there are also opportunities to 
reduce these burdens for Performance Track facilities while still 
providing the information required to assure protection of health and 
the environment.
2. Reporting Reductions for Performance Track Facilities That Achieve 
MACT or Better Emission Levels Through Pollution Prevention Methods 
Such as Process Changes
    EPA is also proposing to reduce the level of detail of the required 
reporting, under some circumstances, for those facilities which reduce 
emissions below 25 tons per year of aggregate hazardous air pollutant 
(HAP) emissions and 10 tons per year of any individual HAP, and which 
have reduced emissions to a level which is fully in compliance with the 
applicable MACT standard.
    For those Performance Track facilities which are below the 
thresholds for major sources of HAPs (25 tons per year aggregate or 10 
tons per year for an individual HAP), and which have reduced the levels 
of all HAP emissions to at least the level required by full compliance 
with the applicable standard, additional reductions in reporting 
requirements would be available, depending on the nature of the 
requirement and the means the facility is using to meet the 
requirement. As above, however, for major sources, reports would still 
be submitted at least semi-annually to meet Title V permitting 
requirements.
    Once again, the objective is to reduce the reporting burden for the 
best performing facilities, without compromising the Agency's ability 
to ensure compliance.
    For those facilities using pollution prevention technologies or 
techniques to meet MACT standards, reductions in reporting burden would 
depend on the requirements of the Part 63 standard and facility 
performance. The term ``source reduction'' is defined in the Pollution 
Prevention Act (PPA) section 6603. Members in this program should refer 
to this statutory definition and any subsequent rulemakings and 
interpretations pursuant to PPA section 6607. The specific incentives 
are listed below:
    (1) If the standard calls for control technology and the facility 
complies using control technology: The facility can substitute a 
simplified annual report, to meet all required reporting elements in 
the applicable part 63 periodic report, certifying that they are 
continuing to use the control technology to meet the emission standard, 
and are running it properly. The facility would still have all 
monitoring and recordkeeping requirements.
    (2) If the standard calls for control technology and the facility 
complies using pollution prevention (P2):
    The facility can substitute a simplified annual report, to meet all 
required reporting elements in the applicable part 63 periodic report, 
certifying that they are continuing to use P2 to reduce HAP emissions 
to levels at or below the MACT standard requirements. The facility 
would have to maintain records demonstrating the veracity of the 
certification.
    (3) If the standard calls for pollution prevention and the facility 
complies using pollution prevention:
    There is no reduction in the requirements unless the facility is 
achieving performance 50% better than the standard. If the facility is 
achieving that level of performance or better, then the facility can 
substitute a simplified annual report, to meet all required reporting 
elements in the applicable part 63 periodic report, certifying that 
they are continuing to use P2 to reduce HAP emissions to levels below 
the MACT standard. The facility would have to maintain records 
demonstrating the veracity of the certification.
    For each of the above alternatives, EPA is proposing that if the 
facility no longer meets the criteria for continued membership in the 
program, the incentive would no longer apply. In addition, the facility 
may be removed from the program.
    EPA solicits comments on the proposed changes described above.

B. Alternative Environmental Performance-Based Incentives for POTWs in 
the Performance Track

    Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) regulated under the National 
Pretreatment Program (General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and 
New Sources of Pollution) are required to identify industrial users 
discharging to their systems, 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.
    In order to become a member in the National Environmental 
Performance Track program, a POTW must demonstrate a historical record 
of meeting legal requirements associated with its operation, implement 
an Environmental Management System, and achieve environmental 
improvements that go beyond compliance with their basic NPDES permit 
conditions. For those POTWs, EPA has concluded that it is reasonable to 
provide administrative relief from certain requirements. EPA considers 
that the proposed reporting and other programmatic and administrative 
changes proposed today are particularly appropriate for Performance 
Track POTWs. Such facilities, because of their EMSs and their 
commitment to continued environmental improvements, can implement these 
changes with less risk of adverse environmental effect.
1. Electronic Web posting for SNC notification.
a. What Are the Existing Requirements?
    POTWs are currently required to publish a list of industrial users 
which, at any time during the preceding 12 months, were in significant 
noncompliance. ``Significant Noncompliance'' (SNC) is defined in 40 CFR 
403.8(f)(2)(vii) to include violations that meet one or more of eight 
criteria. The criteria are: (1) Chronic violations of discharge limits 
(where 66 percent of all measurements taken during a six-month period 
exceed the daily maximum limit or the average limit for the same 
pollutant parameter); (2) technical review criteria (TRC) violations 
(where 33 percent or more of all measurements for each pollutant 
parameter taken during a six-month period equal or exceed the product 
of the daily maximum limit or the average limit multiplied by the 
applicable TRC (TRC equals 1.4 for Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), 
Total Suspended Solids (TSS), fats, oil and grease and 1.2 for all 
other pollutants except pH)); (3) any other violation of a pretreatment 
effluent limit that the Control Authority determines has caused, alone 
or in combination with other discharges, interference or pass through; 
(4) any discharge of a pollutant that has caused imminent endangerment 
to human health, welfare or to the environment or has resulted in the 
Control Authority's exercise of its emergency authority to halt or 
prevent such a discharge; (5) failure to meet, within 90 days after the 
schedule date, a compliance schedule milestone contained in a local 
control mechanism or enforcement order for certain activities; (6) 
failure to provide required reports within 30 days after the due date; 
(7) failure to accurately report noncompliance; and (8) any other 
violation or group of violations which the Control Authority determines 
will adversely affect the operation or

[[Page 52681]]

implementation of the local Pretreatment Program.
    On July 24, 1990, EPA modified 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii) to include 
the existing definition of SNC (55 FR 30082). The purpose of that 
modification was to provide some certainty and consistency among 
Control Authorities for publishing their lists of Industrial Users in 
noncompliance. Currently, Control Authorities are required to annually 
publish a list of Industrial Users (IUs) in SNC at any time during the 
previous twelve months. The Control Authority must publish this list in 
the largest daily newspaper published in the municipality in which the 
POTW is located. Independent of this publication requirement, Control 
Authorities are required to develop and implement Enforcement Response 
Plans, which describe the range of enforcement responses they will use 
in addressing various types of IU Noncompliance. Where an IU is 
identified as being in SNC, EPA guidance recommends that the Control 
Authority respond with some type of formal enforcement action such as 
an enforceable order (``Guidance for Developing Control Authority 
Enforcement Response Plans,'' EPA 832-B-89-102, September 1989.)
b. What Is in Today's Proposal?
    Under today's proposed rule, a Performance Track POTW would have 
the discretion to not publish certain instances of SNC in a newspaper. 
The POTW would be allowed, in lieu of a newspaper publication, to 
provide information on all instances of SNC on its Web site for a 
designated 30-day period. EPA believes that this change would provide 
faster public notice of SNC and would reserve additional newspaper 
publication of SNC for cases where this format is needed for its 
potentially greater effect. Importantly, the Performance Track POTW 
would continue to be required to provide newspaper publication of any 
violation which is not corrected within thirty (30) calendar days, or 
which results in pass through or interference. This would ensure that 
members of the community without access to a computer would still have 
notice of a subset of the significant and/or ongoing violations. The 
POTW must keep historic compliance data for each Industrial User in SNC 
as part of its web page beginning with the first web publication. 
Historic compliance data must be easy to access and well documented as 
part of the web page and must be continual. The POTW must certify as 
part of its annual report that it has posted the significant 
noncompliance information and historic compliance data on the web site. 
Furthermore, a hard copy of the web page listing the significant 
noncompliance data must be sent to the Approval Authority as part of 
the annual report and must be made available to EPA, State, and the 
public upon request. All SNC violations, whether published in a 
newspaper or not would be published as soon as is practicable or 
annually on a schedule determined by the Control Authority's permit on 
the Control Authority Web site. The Web site must contain an 
explanation of how SNC is determined, as well as a contact name and 
phone number for additional information. The SNC information will be 
added to the historic compliance data at the end of the 30 day notice 
period.
    The purpose of the current provision is to comply with the public 
participation requirements of 40 CFR part 25, while also serving as a 
deterrent to violators because of the public notification of 
noncompliance. Allowing POTWs to report such violators on their Web 
sites would reduce the printing costs incurred by municipalities to 
publish the list, while potentially providing increased public 
visibility and access to the information. Typically, newspaper notices 
are published once per week for two succeeding weeks; the Web site 
would include the information every day for at least 30 days. The 
Internet provides an entirely new mechanism for access to information, 
and provides for the information to be available on a longer-term basis 
than in a single edition of a newspaper. Moreover, posting on the 
POTW's Web site is likely to provide better and more focused access for 
members of the public particularly interested in the activities of the 
POTW. Given the wide availability of access to electronic information 
at public facilities, such as libraries, this information may be, in 
fact, more readily available to all members of the public than that 
obtained through newspaper publication. It is also likely that local 
newspapers would utilize this information in their reporting on 
environmental issues.
    The Agency solicits comment on whether it is necessary to require 
public notice of a subset of SNC, or for ongoing instances of SNC to be 
published in a newspaper. In particular, the Agency seeks comment on 
how it might dispense with newspaper publication of SNC in its entirety 
for Performance Track POTWs while still providing equal and permanent 
access to this important information to all members of the community, 
regardless of socioeconomic status, race, or physical ability. How 
would a substitution affect the availability of this information to the 
public? Is the publication of this information on the internet an 
adequate substitute for newspaper publication? Is a 30-day listing, 
followed by availability of a historic listing of all listed SNC 
violations on the Control Authority's Web site an adequate substitute 
for the current practice? What are the cost and other resource 
implications for the POTWs of taking advantage of this alternative 
approach? Is access to the Internet readily available in all 
communities, through the use of personal computers, libraries and 
schools? What would be adequate notice of this kind of a change in the 
public notice procedures?
2. Oversight of Significant Industrial Users
a. What Are the Existing Requirements?
    Why does it matter which industrial users are considered 
significant?
    POTWs with Approved Pretreatment Programs and States acting as 
Pretreatment Control Authorities are required to provide certain 
minimum oversight of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs). The required 
minimum oversight includes inspection and sampling of each SIU 
annually, reviewing the need for a slug control plan every two years, 
and issuing a permit or equivalent control mechanism every five years 
(40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii) and (f)(2)(v) and 403.10(f)(2)(i)).
    Control Authorities have expressed concern with the rigidity of the 
oversight requirements, especially with respect to smaller facilities 
that are subject to categorical Pretreatment Standards and facilities 
that have no potential to cause pass through or interference problems 
at their plants. If these facilities were excluded from the definition 
of SIU, Control Authorities could, on a case-by-case basis, determine 
adequate sampling and inspection frequencies and whether individual 
permits are necessary for the facilities.
    What facilities are currently defined as Significant Industrial 
Users?
    ``Significant Industrial User'' is defined in 40 CFR 403.3(t) to 
include two types of facilities. The first includes all industrial 
users that are subject to a Pretreatment Standard for New or Existing 
Sources. These standards are often referred to as national categorical 
pretreatment standards and facilities subject to the standards are 
referred to as categorical industrial users (CIUs).
    The second category of facilities included in the definition of SIU 
includes those which are not categorical

[[Page 52682]]

industrial users. All non-categorical facilities that discharge over 
25,000 gallons per day of process wastewater are considered SIUs unless 
a Control Authority excludes a facility based upon a finding that it 
does not have a reasonable potential of adversely affecting the 
operation of the plant or of causing a violation of any pretreatment 
standard or requirement. Control Authorities may also consider smaller 
facilities to be SIUs if the facilities have the potential to cause 
problems with a POTW's operations or violate pretreatment standards or 
requirements.
    What is the history of the definition of SIU?
    The definition of SIU and related requirements was established in 
July 1990 by the rule to implement the Domestic Sewage Study (``the DSS 
Rule''). 55 FR 30082, July 24, 1990. Before this regulatory revision, 
sampling and inspection frequency were only recommended in EPA 
guidance. Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Guidance 
(1986). The proposed DSS Rule would have required Control Authorities 
to inspect and sample SIUs at least once every two years. The DSS 
proposal requested comment on whether to require annual inspections and 
sampling. 53 FR 47649, November 23, 1988. The preambles to the proposed 
and final rule did not specifically address whether to adopt a 
different requirement for oversight of smaller SIUs.
    The proposed Metal Products and Machinery rule (60 FR 28269, May 
21, 1995) solicited comment on whether, as an alternative to exempting 
low discharge industrial users from the rule, EPA should revise part 
403 to reduce monitoring, reporting and inspection requirements 
applicable to small-flow facilities. Today's proposal elaborates on the 
issue of categorical industrial users that may be considered 
nonsignificant.
    What changes to the definition of Significant Industrial User has 
EPA considered in the past?
    In 1996, the Water Environment Federation (WEF) and the Association 
of Metropolitan Sewerage Authorities (AMSA) convened a workshop to 
discuss potential opportunities to streamline the pretreatment 
regulations. One of the recommendations from the Pretreatment 
Streamlining Workshop was to exclude facilities under 100 Gallons Per 
Day (GPD) from the definition of Significant Industrial User. The 
Workshop also presented recommendations for additional streamlining. 
One of the Workshop's recommendations was that Control Authorities be 
able to exempt from the definition of SIU any categorical industrial 
user that has no reasonable potential to adversely affect the POTW's 
operation.
    The Workshop also recommended that EPA allow Control Authorities 
more flexibility in the oversight of facilities that would continue to 
be defined as SIUs. Specifically, the Workshop recommended that EPA 
allow Control Authorities more flexibility in sampling SIUs, while 
perhaps keeping the annual inspection requirement.
    In 1997, EPA sent a letter to stakeholders that solicited comment 
on revising the current definition of Significant Industrial User to 
exclude certain ``de minimis'' (now referred to as ``nonsignificant'') 
facilities that are subject to national categorical pretreatment 
standards. The draft suggested a definition of nonsignificant that 
included (1) facilities that never discharge concentrated wastes such 
as solvents, spent plating baths, filter backwash, and sludges, or more 
than 100 GPD of other process wastewater, and (2) facilities subject 
only to certification requirements after having met Baseline Monitoring 
Report requirements (e.g., pharmaceutical manufacturers). EPA's letter 
sought comment on the recommendations from the WEF/AMSA Workshop and 
also on whether to allow POTWs more flexibility in sampling SIUs that 
had been in consistent compliance.
    In 1999, EPA proposed changes to the Pretreatment regulations in 
the Federal Register. Included in the proposed changes is a new 
definition for Significant Industrial User.
    Did the stakeholders agree with EPA's suggestion?
    Most of the commenters in the 1999 proposal supported the concept 
of allowing POTWs to reduce some oversight of nonsignificant 
categorical industrial users. However, no clear consensus exists for 
what the definition of nonsignificant should be.
    Several commenters thought that the definition of SIU should not be 
changed. Some commenters opposed a definition based on flow and 
preferred one based on total mass or on potential to impact the POTW. 
One made a specific recommendation that SIU status be determined by 
considering both the flow and its toxicity using the Toxic Weighting 
Factors used by EPA in guideline development.
    A few commenters addressed whether facilities that are in 
consistent compliance should be allowed to be excluded from oversight 
as SIUs. One commented that, regardless of consistent compliance, any 
SIU with the potential to adversely impact the POTW should be an SIU. 
Approval Authority commenters generally opposed and POTW commenters 
generally supported not requiring Control Authorities to regulate as an 
SIU any industrial user that did not present a potential to adversely 
impact the facility.
b. What Is in Today's Proposal?
    What changes to the SIU definition is EPA proposing today?
    EPA is proposing to authorize Control Authorities that have been 
approved as National Environmental Performance Track facilities to 
designate certain categorical industrial users as ``nonsignificant.'' 
Today's proposal would keep the existing definition of significant 
industrial user, but allow Control Authorities to exempt certain 
Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs) from the definition if the 
appropriate Control Authority determines the CIU is ``nonsignificant.'' 
In making the determination that a CIU is ``nonsignificant,'' the 
Control Authority will be required to consider the potential for the 
CIU to violate any pretreatment standard and the potential impact of 
the facility on the POTW, alone and in combination with other 
discharges. The Control Authority will be required to document the 
decision and demonstrate the CIU has no reasonable potential to 
adversely impact the POTW and no reasonable potential to violate any 
applicable Pretreatment Standard established by EPA, the State, or the 
local Control Authority. Additionally, the CIU must have been in 
compliance for 3 years preceding the determination.
    Regardless of whether they are considered SIUs, all CIUs would 
still be required to comply with applicable categorical pretreatment 
standards and the related reporting requirements in 40 CFR 403.12. 
Control Authorities would still be required to perform the same 
oversight of ``nonsignificant'' CIUs that is required for other 
facilities that are not SIUs, including notifying the CIU of its status 
and requirements (Sec. 403.8(f)(2)(iii)); receiving and reviewing 
required reports (Sec. 403.8(f)(2)(iv) and Sec. 403.12(b), (d), and 
(e)); random sampling and inspection (Sec. 403.8(f)(2)(v)) and taking 
enforcement action as necessary (Sec. 403.8(f)(2)(vi)).
    The POTW's annual Performance Track report to EPA would provide a 
list of the facilities that are being regulated as nonsignificant CIUs. 
After an initial list is provided, deletions and additions may be keyed 
to the previously submitted list.

[[Page 52683]]

    Will EPA consider other criteria for designating a CIU as 
``nonsignificant''?
    Yes. Various stakeholders in the past have suggested different flow 
cut-off criteria for ``nonsignificant'' CIUs. EPA recognizes that any 
numeric flow cut off is likely to be somewhat arbitrary. For instance, 
the 100 GPD criterion was supported by the stakeholders at the WEF/AMSA 
meeting, and EPA included this criterion in its 1999 proposal. EPA is 
interested in other ideas specific to Performance Track facilities, and 
therefore, is requesting comment on other criteria.
3. Program Modifications
a. What Are the Existing Requirements?
    What are the current requirements addressing Program Modifications?
    40 CFR 403.18 States, in part;
    (a) General. Either the Approval Authority or a POTW with an 
approved POTW Pretreatment Program may initiate program modification at 
any time to reflect changing conditions at the POTW. Program 
modification is necessary whenever there is a significant change in the 
operation of a POTW Pretreatment Program that differs from the 
information in the POTW's submission, as approved under Sec. 403.11.
    (b) Substantial modifications defined. Substantial modifications 
include:
    (1) Modifications that relax POTW legal authorities (as described 
in Sec. 403.8(f)(1)), except for modifications that directly reflect a 
revision to this Part 403 or to 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter N, and are 
reported pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section;
    (2) Modifications that relax local limits, except for the 
modifications to local limits for pH and reallocations of the Maximum 
Allowable Industrial Loading of a pollutant that do not increase the 
total industrial loadings for the pollutant, which are reported 
pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section. Maximum Allowable Industrial 
Loading means the total mass of a pollutant that all Industrial Users 
of a POTW (or a subgroup of Industrial Users identified by the POTW) 
may discharge pursuant to limits developed under Sec. 403.5(c);
    (3) Changes to the POTW's control mechanism, as described in 
Sec. 403.8(f)(1)(iii);
    (4) A decrease in the frequency of self-monitoring or reporting 
required of industrial users;
    (5) A decrease in the frequency of industrial user inspections or 
sampling by the POTW;
    (6) Changes to the POTW's confidentiality procedures; and
    (7) Other modifications designated as substantial modifications by 
the Approval Authority on the basis that the modification could have a 
significant impact on the operation of the POTW's Pretreatment Program; 
could result in an increase in pollutant loadings at the POTW; or could 
result in less stringent requirements being imposed on Industrial Users 
of the POTW.
    (c) Approval procedures for substantial modifications.
    (1) The POTW shall submit to the Approval Authority a statement of 
the basis for the desired program modification, a modified program 
description (see Sec. 403.9(b)), or such other documents the Approval 
Authority determines to be necessary under the circumstances.
    (2) The Approval Authority shall approve or disapprove the 
modification based on the requirements of Sec. 403.8(f) and using the 
procedures in Sec. 403.11(b) through (f), except as provided in 
paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) of this section. The modification shall 
become effective upon approval by the Approval Authority.
    (3) The Approval Authority need not publish a notice of decision 
under Sec. 403.11(e) provided: The notice of request for approval under 
Sec. 403.11(b)(1) states that the request will be approved if no 
comments are received by a date specified in the notice; no substantive 
comments are received; and the request is approved without change
    (4) Notices required by Sec. 403.11 may be performed by the POTW 
provided that the Approval Authority finds that the POTW notice 
otherwise satisfies the requirements of Sec. 403.11.
    (d) Approval procedures for non-substantial modifications.
    (1) The POTW shall notify the Approval Authority of any non-
substantial modification at least 45 days prior to implementation by 
the POTW, in a statement similar to that provided for in paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section.
    (2) Within 45 days after the submission of the POTW's statement, 
the Approval Authority shall notify the POTW of its decision to approve 
or disapprove the non-substantial modification.
    (3) If the Approval Authority does not notify the POTW within 45 
days of its decision to approve or deny the modification, or to treat 
the modification as substantial under paragraph (b)(7) of this section, 
the POTW may implement the modification.
    (e) Incorporation in permit. All modifications shall be 
incorporated into the POTW's NPDES permit upon approval. The permit 
will be modified to incorporate the approved modification in accordance 
with 40 CFR 122.63(g).
    Many of these requirements are a result of the revisions to the 
Program Modification regulations made in 1997. The 1997 revision 
streamlined the procedures for modifying approved POTW Pretreatment 
Programs in several ways. First, fewer categories of modifications are 
considered ``substantial'' and, therefore, automatically subject to the 
detailed public notice procedures. Modifications that will no longer 
automatically be considered ``substantial'' include: changes that 
result in more prescriptive POTW legal authority; changes to legal 
authority that reflect changes to the Federal regulations; changes to 
local limits for pH; reallocations of local limits that do not increase 
the authorized discharge of the pollutant from the POTW; and other 
changes discussed below. 40 CFR 403.18(b). Second, the rule no longer 
requires the Approval Authority to issue a public notice of its final 
approval of a modification if it received no comments on its proposed 
approval of the modification and the modification is approved as 
proposed. 403.18(c)(3). Third, public notice provided by a POTW will 
satisfy the Approval Authority's obligation to provide notice in 
certain circumstances. 40 CFR 403.18(c)(4). Fourth, the rule allows a 
POTW to report changes to its list of industrial users in the POTW's 
annual reports, rather than being required to obtain advance approval. 
40 CFR 403.8(f)(6) and 403.12(i)(1). Fifth, the period of notice that 
POTWs must provide for non-substantial modifications and the time for 
review by Approval Authorities will both be 45 days; POTWs may 
implement a non-substantial modification if the Approval Authority does 
not disapprove it within that time. 40 CFR 403.18(d). Sixth, the rule 
grants additional flexibility regarding the type of newspaper that may 
publish the notices and the government agencies that receive individual 
notice of all modifications. 40 CFR 403.11(b)(1) (A) and (B).
b. What Additional Flexibility Is Being Considered as Part of the 
National Environmental Performance Track Program?
    For POTWs with approved Pretreatment Programs that are part of the 
National Environmental Performance Track Program, EPA is proposing 
additional flexibility in the manner notice is provided of a request to 
modify the pretreatment program. This is similar to the flexibility 
being proposed for the publication of

[[Page 52684]]

industries in significant noncompliance (SNC).
    Under today's proposed rule, a Performance Track POTW would have 
the discretion to either provide public notice of their Program 
Modification request through newspaper publication or by posting the 
request on a Web site. Today's proposal does not change the substantive 
requirements of any modification notification requirements. EPA 
believes that public notice through use of a Web site would provide 
faster public notice of Program Modifications and allow a more open 
process with greater opportunity for stakeholders to be involved. 
Importantly, the Performance Track POTW would continue to be required 
to provide individual notice to stakeholders that have requested 
individual notice. This would ensure that members of the community 
without access to a computer would still have notice of substantial 
program modifications.
    The purpose of the current provision is to comply with the public 
participation requirements of the pretreatment program. Allowing POTWs 
to post modification requests on their Web sites would reduce the 
printing costs incurred by municipalities to publish the proposed 
change, while potentially providing increased public visibility and 
access to the information. Typically, newspaper notices are published 
once per week for two succeeding weeks; the Web site would include the 
information every day for the time necessary to finalize the 
modification. Also, the Web site will contain detailed information 
about the modification and the program in general. This will allow the 
public to more easily review and make decisions about the merit of the 
modification. As explained in the discussion of SNC, the internet 
provides an entirely new mechanism for access to information, and 
provides for the information to be available on a longer-term basis 
than in a single edition of a newspaper. It is also likely that local 
newspapers would utilize this information in their reporting on 
environmental issues.
    The Agency solicits comment on whether it is necessary to require 
certain program modifications to be published in a newspaper. In 
particular, the Agency seeks comment on how it might dispense with 
newspaper publication of Program Modifications entirely for Performance 
Track POTWs while still providing equal and permanent access to this 
important information to all members of the community, regardless of 
socioeconomic status, race, or physical ability.
    Under the existing rule, Approval Authorities may consider local 
notice by the POTW to constitute a program modification request and 
notice of decision under Sec. 403.11(b)-(f). This issue is also 
addressed under Sec. 403.18(c)(4). Under the existing rule, Approval 
Authorities also remain ultimately responsible for assuring the 
publication of the notice. POTWs are not required to provide the notice 
described in Sec. 403.11. The existing rule leaves POTWs and Approval 
Authorities free to negotiate arrangements for the publication of the 
required notice. In the absence of voluntary and adequate notice by the 
POTW, the Approval Authority would still be required to provide the 
notice. In order for a local POTW public notice to substitute for an 
Approval Authority notice, the local notice must meet the requirements 
of Sec. 403.11(b)(1). The existing rule acknowledges that Approval 
Authorities may find the notice provided by POTWs to be legally 
adequate. 40 CFR 403.18(c)(4).
    In the preamble to the 1997 revisions to the regulations, EPA noted 
that one industry trade association argued that local procedures were 
not adequate.

    The commenter noted that there was no record that most 
significant changes are worked out in advance at the local level. 
The commenter asserted that a more objective forum is needed than 
the local forums, where decisions are diverse and not always based 
on environmental considerations. Because local participation varies, 
the commenter asserted that Sec. 403.18 is needed to level the 
playing field. EPA agrees that Approval Authority review of 
modifications helps assure their consistency with state and federal 
regulations. State and EPA Approval Authorities retain the right to 
review modifications under today's rule regardless of who issues the 
notices. The lack of comments on State and EPA issued notices 
suggests that many issues are resolved at the local level. Approval 
Authorities must assure that notice provided at the local level is 
adequate and includes an opportunity to request a hearing from the 
Approval Authority.

    Also in the 1997 revisions, EPA solicited comment on how the public 
might be educated as to the importance of Pretreatment Program 
requirements, so that public input will occur in response to notice of 
program modifications.

    ``One industry commenter stated that the content of public 
notices is not adequate for business to know what is being proposed. 
The commenter recommended that POTWs be required to directly notify 
businesses and to hold seminars to educate the businesses. One POTW 
supported allowing POTWs to provide notice but specifically opposed 
requiring POTWs to educate the public on the importance of the 
program.'' Also, ``An environmental group commented that public 
participation would be improved if POTWs were required to maintain a 
mailing list, with annual solicitation to be on the list, of parties 
wanting notice of non-substantial modifications. A similar procedure 
is already in place for substantial modifications.''

    With today's action, EPA is soliciting comment on alternative 
methods for Public Notice to achieve the intent of Sec. 403.11(b).
    Today, EPA is proposing to allow approved Pretreatment Programs 
that are part of the National Environmental Performance Track Program 
to Public Notice all Program Modifications on a Web site in lieu of 
publication in the newspaper. Further, this Public Notice may be used 
by the Approval Authority to meet the requirements under 40 CFR 403.11. 
The information provided on the Web site would be more detailed than a 
notice of availability. The information would need to include an 
explanation of current requirements, a detailed description of the 
modification, and an explanation of the need for the modification.
    As with the SNC issue, EPA is interested in views on how a 
substitution would affect the availability of this information to the 
public. Is the publication of this information on the Internet an 
adequate substitute for newspaper publication? Is access to the 
Internet readily available to all communities, for example via personal 
computers, libraries and schools? What would be adequate notice of this 
kind of a change in the public notice procedures? For example, back 
issues of newspapers are commonly available in the library.
4. Revisions to the Requirements for the Pretreatment Program Annual 
Report
a. What Are the Current Requirements?
    For any POTW with an approved pretreatment program, a condition of 
the NPDES permit [see 40 CFR 403.12(i)] is that the POTW provide the 
Approval Authority (either the State or EPA, as applicable) with an 
annual report that briefly describes the POTW's program activities. 
These requirements must, at a minimum, include:
    A. An updated list of all Industrial Users discharging to the POTW 
and, more specifically, a list of those IUs that are classified as 
Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) that are subject to categorical 
pretreatment standards and a description of what standards apply to 
each facility;
    B. A summary of the status of each IU's compliance during the 
reporting period;

[[Page 52685]]

    C. A summary of the compliance and enforcement activities conducted 
by the POTW during the reporting period; and
    D. Any other specific information requested by the Approval 
Authority.
    This information is critical for the Approval Authority to oversee 
both the industrial users and the POTW. The annual report provides the 
Approval Authority with information on the compliance of the industrial 
users that discharge into the POTW. It also provides information on the 
enforcement responses and activities that the POTW has undertaken.
b. What Additional Flexibility Is Being Proposed as Part of the 
National Environmental Performance Track Program?
    EPA is proposing to modify the submission procedures for the annual 
report, as well as streamline one part of the annual report. Instead of 
annually submitting the report, the POTW must annually post the report 
on the POTW's website and provide written certification to the Approval 
Authority when the information has been posted. The information must 
remain accessible as part of the website for at least three years.
    The POTW will be required to submit written copies of the annual 
reports every two years to the Approval Authority. The written report 
no longer needs to include compliance data for all IUs, although the 
website posting must still contain compliance data for all IUs. The 
written report need only include specific information for only those 
SIUs found to be in significant noncompliance (SNC) during the 
reporting period (2 years) instead of a summary of the status of all IU 
compliance over the reporting period. The submission every two years 
will contain reports for each of the two preceding years. The POTW's 
permit will be modified to incorporate this requirement and will 
require that the POTW post the annual report on the website and that 
all information posted must be accurate and truthful. If the annual 
report is not posted annually, or if it contains inaccurate 
information, it will be a violation of the NPDES permit. The POTW must 
provide a copy of the annual report to EPA, the State, or the public 
upon request.
    EPA believes allowing a POTW to post the annual report on the 
website would reduce printing costs to the POTW and provide the public 
greater access to information about the POTW's program. The Agency is 
seeking comment on whether this is an appropriate option for the annual 
reports. There is no national database that tracks information on 
individual indirect dischargers, so the Agency relies upon the annual 
reports to oversee the compliance of these indirect dischargers. 
Furthermore, the States or EPA would still input summary information 
from the annual reports into EPA's national database (Permit Compliance 
System-PCS). EPA is seeking comment on how the extended time period for 
submitting the annual reports will impact programmatic and enforcement 
oversight overall.

C. 180-Day Accumulation Time for Performance Track Hazardous Waste 
Generators

1. Background
    EPA is proposing to allow large quantity hazardous waste generators 
who are members in the Performance Track program up to 180 days (or up 
to 270 days if the generator must transport its waste, or offer its 
waste for transportation, a distance of 200 miles or more) to 
accumulate hazardous waste without a RCRA permit or interim status. 
This RCRA regulatory flexibility is intended to provide an additional 
incentive for membership in the Performance Track program, and should 
provide the Agency with useful information on the environmental, 
economic and other implications of extended accumulation times for 
hazardous waste generators. As discussed below, we believe that the 
regulatory flexibility provided in this rulemaking will also serve to 
ensure protection of human health and the environment at Performance 
Track facilities.
    Including this RCRA incentive as part of the Performance Track 
program is consistent with the general objectives of the program, as 
discussed in Section IV of this preamble. In addition, this aspect of 
the proposal may assist EPA in learning more about how accumulation 
times for hazardous waste generators may affect the ultimate 
disposition of hazardous wastes (e.g., recycling vs. disposal), the 
economics of hazardous waste generation and accumulation, and the 
overall environmental performance of hazardous waste generator 
facilities. More specifically, EPA believes that additional 
accumulation time may allow generators to accumulate enough waste to 
make transportation to waste management facilities more cost-effective 
and efficient for the generator. In particular, EPA is interested in 
learning whether additional accumulation time may result in increased 
recycling of generator waste (EPA has found this to be the case with 
F006 (metal finishing) hazardous waste, see 65 FR 12377). EPA also 
believes that additional accumulation time may result in environmental 
benefits related to the reduction in the movement and handling of 
hazardous waste on-site, as well as reduced off-site shipments.
    The Performance Track program presents a good opportunity for EPA, 
the States and the regulated community to experiment with this type of 
regulatory flexibility in a way that should pose negligible incremental 
risks to human health or the environment. We believe that the criteria 
for membership in the Performance Track--strong past performance, 
effective EMSs, promised specific future improvements in environmental 
performance, and additional public reporting of environmental 
information--should ensure that this regulatory flexibility will be 
provided only to companies who will use it responsibly. This, combined 
with the safeguards built into the proposal and the relatively modest 
regulatory relief that the rule would provide (i.e., additional time to 
accumulate waste), should ensure that this rulemaking is fully 
protective of human health and the environment.
2. What Are the Current Requirements for Large Quantity Generator 
Accumulation?
    The current standards under 40 CFR part 262 for generators of 
hazardous waste who generate greater than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous 
waste per month (or one kilogram or more of acute hazardous waste), 
known as large quantity generators (LQGs), limit the amount of time 
hazardous waste can be accumulated at the generator's facility without 
a RCRA permit. According to Sec. 262.34, LQGs may accumulate hazardous 
waste on-site for up to 90 days without having to obtain a RCRA permit. 
The generator must comply with certain unit-specific standards (e.g., 
tank, container, containment building, and drip pad standards) for 
accumulation units, and certain general facility requirements such as 
for marking and labeling of containers, preparedness and prevention, 
and emergency response procedures. Generators may also petition the EPA 
Regional Administrator to grant an extension of up to 30 days to the 
90-day accumulation time limit due to unforeseen, temporary, and 
uncontrollable circumstances, on a case-by-case basis (see 
Sec. 262.34(b)).
    Today's proposed rule would not make any changes to the existing 
regulations that apply generally to 90-day accumulation by LQGs, and 
EPA is not soliciting comment on those provisions or any other existing

[[Page 52686]]

provision of Sec. 262.34. This includes the provisions for extended 
accumulation times for F006 wastes, which are specified at 
Sec. 262.34(g). Those provisions, which apply only to generators who 
accumulate F006 wastes, allow for extended accumulation times that are 
similar in many respects (including the time limits) to those being 
proposed today for Performance Track members. It is therefore possible 
that, once today's rule is promulgated, a generator of F006 waste who 
is also a member in Performance Track could take advantage of extended 
accumulation times under either regulatory scheme (i.e., under 
Sec. 262.34(g), (h) and (i), or under Sec. 262.34(j), (k) and (l)).
3. What is in Today's Proposal?
    Today's proposed rule would allow LQGs of hazardous waste that are 
members of the Performance Track program to accumulate hazardous waste 
at their facilities for longer than the 90 days currently specified in 
Sec. 262.34, subject to certain limitations and conditions. The 
proposal would not affect other existing generator requirements; for 
example, Performance Track members would still have to manifest their 
hazardous waste shipments (see Subpart B of part 262) and comply with 
other generator requirements in part 262 (e.g., packaging and labeling 
of waste shipments).
    The requirements for Performance Track extended accumulation times 
would be added as new paragraphs (j), (k) and (l) to subpart C of part 
262. The following is a discussion of each proposed provision.
    Time Limits. Proposed Sec. 262.34(j)(1) specifies that hazardous 
waste generators who are Performance Track members may accumulate 
hazardous wastes for an extended period of time--up to 180 days, or up 
to 270 days if the generator must transport waste, or offer waste for 
transportation, over a distance of 200 miles or more. Such generators 
would not need RCRA permits or interim status if they stay within these 
limits. Note that these extended accumulation time limits would be 
consistent with the current limits for generators of F006 wastes (see 
Sec. 262.34(g)).
    Initial Notice. Under proposed Sec. 262.34(j)(2), Performance Track 
generators would need to give prior notice to EPA or the authorized 
state agency of their intent to accumulate hazardous waste in excess of 
90 days in accordance with these regulations. These notices will assist 
EPA and state agencies in monitoring implementation of this element of 
the Performance Track program. Such notices would need to identify the 
generator and facility, specify when extended accumulation at the 
facility will begin, and include a description of the wastes that will 
be accumulated for extended time periods and the units that will be 
used for that purpose.
    The initial notice would also need to include a statement that the 
facility has made all changes to its operations, procedures and 
equipment necessary to accommodate extended time periods for 
accumulating hazardous wastes (Sec. 262.34(j)(2)(ii)). This is to 
address situations in which longer accumulation times may involve, for 
example, changing the design, location, or capacity of the unit(s) in 
which the wastes are accumulated. Such changes could affect how the 
facility addresses other generator requirements, such as those for 
personnel training or emergency response procedures. This statement in 
the notice should help ensure in advance that Performance Track members 
are aware of and have implemented any changes at the facility that may 
be needed to accommodate extended accumulation times.
    For generators who intend to accumulate hazardous waste for as long 
as 270 days (because the waste must be transported, or offered for 
transport, more than 200 miles from the generating facility), the 
notice submitted by the generator would also need to contain a 
certification that an appropriate off-site hazardous waste management 
facility for the waste is not available within 200 miles of the 
facility. The provision for accumulation up to 270 days is intended 
primarily to address situations where wastes must be transported for 
considerable distances to off-site facilities, and where extended 
accumulation time may enable the facility to more efficiently ship 
fewer (but larger) loads of wastes to those facilities.
    Today's proposal does not specify any particular criteria or 
restrictions as to what may be considered an ``appropriate'' hazardous 
waste management facility in this context. At a minimum, any such 
facility would need to be operating in compliance with applicable 
environmental regulations. However, EPA is concerned that the 270-day 
limit could conceivably be abused unless there is some further 
definition in the final rule as to what is meant by ``appropriate'' 
facility. The provision for accumulation of up to 270 days by 
Performance Track facilities is primarily intended by EPA to address 
situations where hazardous waste generators are located in areas remote 
from commercial hazardous waste facilities, or where the additional 
accumulation time is needed to facilitate beneficial, legitimate reuse 
or recycling of the wastes. The 270-day limit was not intended simply 
to provide additional convenience or cost savings for the generator. In 
any case, EPA requests comment as to whether the 270-day limit should 
be available under Performance Track only when the additional 
accumulation time allows the generator to achieve some specific 
environmental objective (e.g., increased recycling rates), or whether 
other types of restrictions or limits should be placed on its 
availability to Performance Track members.
    Standards for Accumulation Units. Another proposed condition 
((262.34(j)(3)) would require Performance Track generators to 
accumulate hazardous wastes in storage units (such as containers, 
tanks, drip pads and containment buildings) that meet the standards for 
storing hazardous wastes at RCRA interim status facilities (see 
subparts I, J, W and DD of 40 CFR part 265, respectively). These are 
standard requirements for large quantity generators.
    If Performance Track facilities use containers for extended 
accumulation of hazardous wastes, today's proposal would additionally 
require secondary containment systems for containers to prevent 
releases into the environment that might be caused by handling 
accidents, deterioration, or other circumstances. Secondary containment 
is a standard requirement for RCRA permitted facilities that use 
containers to store hazardous wastes containing free liquids and 
certain listed hazardous wastes (i.e., F020, F021, F023, F026, and 
F027). It is not, however, typically required for hazardous waste 
generators or interim status facilities. We believe that requiring 
secondary containment in the context of this rulemaking is a 
reasonable, common-sense precaution to take in exchange for extending 
accumulation time limits.
    EPA is also requesting comment on an option that would not require 
secondary containment for accumulation of hazardous wastes in 
containers. Specifically, we seek comment as to what type of 
containment is appropriate for Performance Track facilities, given that 
the containment requirements for permitted RCRA facilities are intended 
to ensure protections for what may essentially be indefinite storage of 
hazardous wastes, while accumulation at Performance Track generator 
facilities will be limited to 180 (or in some cases 270) days.
    Because secondary containment involves the use of devices such as

[[Page 52687]]

berms or walls to prevent releases (see Sec. 264.175), which are 
generally consistent with normal industry practices for handling and 
storage of hazardous materials, we believe that this secondary 
containment requirement will impose only minimal costs on Performance 
Track facilities. EPA solicits information regarding incremental 
compliance costs and benefits associated with the secondary containment 
requirement in this proposed rule.
    There is currently an upper bound estimate of 43 facilities in the 
Performance Track program to which secondary containment provisions 
could apply. Cost estimates for installing secondary containment, if 
necessary, are based on the costs of installing secondary containment 
for tanks. Estimated installation costs range from $1,200 for 275-
gallon tanks to $55,000 for 125,000 gallon tanks.\1\ These estimates, 
however, are likely to represent an upper bound cost for containers, 
since construction of a secondary containment system for containers, 
such as a berm, is likely to be less than that required for tanks. The 
extent of total costs depends on how many Performance Track generators 
use containers holding solid hazardous wastes that would not presently 
have secondary containment units. Notable however, is anecdotal 
information that many of these facilities already have secondary 
containment installed at their facilities. EPA solicits comment on how 
many Performance Track facilities currently have secondary containment 
installed for containers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ DPRA, Incorporated, ``Unit Cost Compendium'' prepared for 
U.S. EPA's Office of Solid Waste, Economics, Methods, and Risk 
Analysis Division, September 30, 2000 presents formulas for 
estimating the capital costs of installing secondary containment 
units for above ground storage tanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Volume Limit. Under proposed Sec. 262.34(j)(4), member generators 
would be allowed to accumulate no more than 30,000 kilograms of 
hazardous waste at the facility at any one time. The Agency has 
information that the typical capacity for a hazardous waste truck 
transport vehicle ranges from an average of approximately 16,400 kg to 
a maximum of approximately 27,300 kg.\2\ In addition, generators 
shipping hazardous waste by rail may have capacities of approximately 
50,000 kg.\3\ Based on this preliminary information, EPA believes that 
a 30,000 kg waste accumulation limit is reasonable and appropriate in 
ensuring economical shipments of wastes in a wide range of transport 
vehicle sizes. We seek comment on this provision of today's proposal, 
as well as relevant information on: (a) The capacities of vehicles 
involved in hazardous waste shipping; (b) the likely impacts of less 
frequent shipments on the risks of spills and leaks at hazardous waste 
generating facilities and in the transport process; (c) the cost 
impacts of such changes--both transportation-related and other 
operational costs; and (d) other pros and cons of quantity limits 
larger or smaller than the 30,000 kilograms that we are proposing 
today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Unit Cost Compendium, prepared by DPRA Incorporated, for 
USEPA, Office of Solid Waste, September 30, 2000 and personal 
communication with DPRA.
    \3\ Rail car capacities vary depending on whether the transport 
unit is a rail box car (from 160 cubic yards to 370-cubic yards), a 
rail gondola (from 15 cubic yards to 262 cubic yards), or a rail 
tanker (22,000 gallons), R.S. Means, Environmental Remediation 
Estimating Methods, 1997. In general, one cubic yard of solid equals 
1.5 tons and one cubic yard of liquid equals 1 ton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recordkeeping, Labeling and Marking. Proposed Sec. 262.34(j)(5) 
specifies the types of records that program members would need to 
maintain at their facilities as a condition for extended accumulation 
times. These records are primarily intended to document that the 
accumulation time limits are not exceeded. Retaining these records is a 
standard requirement for all LQGs of hazardous waste.
    Similarly, Sec. 262.24(j)(6) would require that tanks and container 
units used for extended accumulation be marked or labeled with the 
words ``Hazardous Waste'', and containers would have to be marked to 
indicate when the accumulation period began. These are also standard 
conditions for hazardous waste generators, and are specified in this 
rule mainly for the sake of clarity.
    General Facility Standards. Under current regulations, all 
hazardous waste generators are subject to certain general facility 
standards relating to personnel training, preparedness and prevention, 
and contingency plans and emergency procedures. These general facility 
requirements would also apply to Performance Track generators, and have 
been included in this rule for the sake of clarity.
    Pollution Prevention. Under today's proposal Performance Track 
facilities would have to implement pollution prevention practices as a 
condition for using extended accumulation times. This condition is 
consistent with the Agency's general policy of encouraging waste 
minimization and pollution prevention as alternatives to disposal. It 
is also consistent with our goal of using Performance Track to 
recognize and encourage outstanding environmental performance. We seek 
comment on this condition. We also request comments on whether extended 
accumulation times for Performance Track generators should in some way 
be linked to achieving reductions of certain types of high-risk 
chemicals (e.g., RCRA Waste Minimization Priority Chemicals that are 
known to be highly persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic). For a list 
of these priority chemicals, see http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/chemlist/pdt-fact.pdf.
    Annual Report. Under proposed Sec. 262.34(j)(9), Performance Track 
generators accumulating their hazardous waste for more than 90 days 
would be required to provide information regarding the impact of the 
additional accumulation time. This information would be submitted in 
the Annual Performance Report which is required of all Performance 
Track members (see www.epa.gov/performancetrack, or the document 
entitled ``National Environmental Performance Track Program Guide,'' 
EPA 240-F-01-002). Specifically, the report would need to include for 
the previous year information on the quantity of each hazardous waste 
that was accumulated for extended time periods, the number of off-site 
waste shipments, identification of destination facilities and how the 
wastes were managed at those facilities, information on the impact of 
extended accumulation time limits on the facility's operations 
(including any cost savings that may have occurred), and information on 
any on-site or off-site spills or other environmental problems 
associated with handling these wastes. The information submitted in 
these reports will assist the Agency in evaluating the success of this 
Performance Track program incentive, and may inform future Agency 
decisions pertaining to hazardous waste accumulation.
    In accordance with today's rule, if in the past year a Performance 
Track generator accumulated hazardous waste for more than 180 days (but 
no more than 270 days), the generator would have to include in its 
Annual Performance Report a statement affirming that an appropriate 
off-site hazardous waste management facility was at the time (or is 
still) not available within 200 miles of the generating facility. This 
condition is intended to help ensure against any potential abuse of the 
provision that allows accumulation beyond 180 days under certain 
circumstances.
    EPA believes that these annual reporting requirements are 
reasonable, and should not create undue burdens for Performance Track 
members. We solicit comments on these requirements of the proposed 
rule, including

[[Page 52688]]

comments on how burdensome such reporting might be to program members, 
and whether there may be other means of obtaining the information EPA 
will need for monitoring the success of the Performance Track program.
    Accumulation Time Extensions. Today's proposal would also add a new 
paragraph (k) to Sec. 262.34, to address extensions of accumulation 
time limits in certain situations. This provision is consistent with 
the current regulations that apply generally to LQGs (see 
Sec. 262.34(b)), and has been included in today's proposal for the sake 
of clarity. Specifically, it would allow the overseeing agency the 
option of granting a Performance Track generator an additional 30 days 
of accumulation time, if such extra time is needed due to unforseen, 
temporary and uncontrollable circumstances. We expect that requests for 
such time extensions would be reviewed and approved (or disapproved) in 
the same manner as they currently are for non-Performance Track LQGs.
    Withdrawal/Termination from Program. Proposed Sec. 262.34(l) would 
address situations in which a Performance Track facility that has been 
accumulating hazardous wastes for extended periods of time under these 
regulations decides to withdraw from the program, or when the 
overseeing agency has for some reason decided to terminate the 
generator's membership in the program. In such cases the generator 
would need to return to compliance as soon as possible, but no later 
than six months after withdrawal or termination, with the standard 
requirements for less-than-90-day accumulation by large quantity 
generators.
4. How Will Today's Proposal Affect Applicability of RCRA Rules in 
Authorized States?
    Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize a qualified State to 
administer and enforce a hazardous waste program within the State in 
lieu of the federal program, and to issue and enforce permits in the 
State. (See 40 CFR part 271 for the standards and requirements for 
authorization.) Following authorization, a State continues to have 
enforcement responsibilities under its law to pursue violations of its 
hazardous waste program. EPA continues to have independent authority 
under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003.
    After authorization, Federal rules written under RCRA provisions 
that predate the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 
no longer apply in the authorized state. New Federal requirements 
imposed by those rules that predate HSWA do not take effect in an 
authorized State until the State adopts the requirements as State law.
    In contrast, under section 3006(g) of RCRA, new requirements and 
prohibitions imposed by HSWA take effect in authorized States at the 
same time they take effect in non-authorized States. EPA is directed to 
carry out HSWA requirements and prohibitions in authorized States until 
the State is granted authorization to do so.
    Today's proposed rule would not be promulgated under HSWA 
authorities. Consequently, the final rule would not amend the 
authorized program for states upon promulgation, and EPA would not 
implement the rule. The authorized RCRA program would change when EPA 
approves a State's application for a revision to its RCRA program.
    For the proposed Performance Track Rule, EPA would encourage States 
to expeditiously adopt Performance Track regulations and begin program 
implementation. To revise the federally-authorized RCRA program, States 
would need to seek formal authorization for the Performance Track Rule 
after program implementation. EPA encourages states to begin 
implementing this incentive as soon as it is allowable under state law, 
while the RCRA authorization process proceeds.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA encourages states to take this approach for less 
stringent federal requirements where rapid implementation is 
important. For example, EPA encouraged states to implement state 
Corrective Action Management Unit Regulations, once adopted as a 
matter of state law, prior to authorization (see 58 FR 8677, 
February 16, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Other Potential Incentives: Consolidated Reporting

    The program description for Performance Track (www.epa.gov/performancetrack) announces EPA's intention to initiate a pilot test of 
consolidated reporting, to be available for Performance Track 
facilities, as an incentive to encourage membership. Consolidated 
reporting would allow facilities to reduce the number or scope of 
reports submitted to EPA or its delegated authority under current 
regulations. It could provide for reductions or revisions in reporting 
elements or the submission of a single report in lieu of several 
reports now required by regulation. In addition, consolidated reporting 
could be designed to increase the extent to which environmental 
reporting could be integrated with the data systems facilities use to 
manage their manufacturing operations, thus reducing to some extent the 
need for environmental reporting data systems entirely separate from 
other data systems at the facility. From the public's perspective, such 
a revision of reporting requirements could also provide for more 
effective and transparent communication of information about a 
facility's environmental performance, within the constraints necessary 
for protecting confidential business information.
    EPA has explored approaches to consolidated reporting with a 
variety of stakeholders. For example, under the Common Sense Initiative 
(CSI), the Agency made considerable progress in developing options for 
consolidated reporting on a multimedia basis for the computer and 
electronics industry. Since the Common Sense Initiative, EPA has 
continued to work with the petroleum refining industry to develop a 
consolidated reporting model focused on air reporting, with the long-
term objective of expanding the approach on a multi-media basis.
    EPA believes that the Performance Track provides a special 
opportunity to further explore the potential benefits of consolidated 
reporting. EPA believes that the Performance Track facilities would be 
an appropriate group for piloting an approach to consolidated reporting 
because these facilities are required to have well-developed 
environmental management systems and excellent compliance records. 
These qualifications indicate that a facility has a high level of 
organizational competence and a capacity to manage environmental data. 
Both of these factors are important because a consolidated reporting 
project will touch on several areas of regulation. In addition, a 
Performance Track facility's commitment to public reporting indicates 
an openness with regard to information sharing that can be expected to 
support the extensive EPA-facility coordination that this pilot would 
require. A Performance Track facility's commitment to going beyond 
regulatory requirements also gives evidence of the facility's ability 
to innovate, which is also a necessary quality in pilot projects.
    One possible model for a Performance Track consolidated reporting 
pilot is the multimedia Consolidated Uniform Report for the Environment 
(CURE) initiative developed by the CSI consumer and electronics 
subcommittee. Over the course of more than three years, the 
subcommittee developed a consolidated reporting approach which would 
consolidate twelve federal and state reports in a single reporting 
system. The project was a joint effort of EPA and the Texas Natural 
Resource Conservation

[[Page 52689]]

Commission (TNRCC). As CSI concluded in 1998, the subcommittee and the 
CSI Council recommended that EPA continue the development of CURE. 
While CURE specifically focuses on the reports which are required for 
facilities in the computer and electronics sector, the stakeholders who 
participated saw the application to this sector as a pilot which would 
provide the opportunity to test a concept which could be applied more 
broadly. They also focused initially on some of the most generally 
applicable and broadest types of environmental reports, but the final 
report points out the potential--once a CURE pilot is underway--for 
exploring consolidation of a far wider array of data than is captured 
under the final draft report on CURE. Nonetheless, a system modeled on 
CURE would be a dramatic step towards a consolidated multi-media 
reporting system. It could potentially both substantially reduce the 
reporting burden for member facilities and increase both the 
accessibility and comprehensibility of facility information available 
to the public.
    CURE tried to eliminate redundancies, to use ``smart'' programs to 
guide data submission, to create greater context for understanding of 
the data, and to provide for electronic submission to reduce and 
improve reporting. It reduced more than 800 data elements in current 
reports to approximately 400--including new data elements agreed to by 
stakeholders to facilitate better interpretation of the data. Five 
facilities tested a partial prototype of CURE in 1998. The CURE study 
estimated annual total savings of $250,000-$290,000 would be realized 
if most of the computer and electronics facilities in Texas could take 
advantage of such consolidated reporting.
    There are, however, some limitations to the use of CURE as the 
model for a consolidated reporting pilot for Performance Track 
facilities:
     CURE focuses only on those reports of specific interest to 
computer and electronics facilities. To expand the CURE model for 
applicability to other sectors would require extensive additional 
effort, both by EPA and the states.
     Since CURE was developed in the context of Texas rules, 
additional work would need to be done both by EPA and the states, even 
for reports for the computer and electronics industry, to develop the 
model more fully for other states.
     There were a number of areas in which the CURE working 
group failed to reach consensus, which would require additional 
decisions. For example, the working group failed to reach agreement as 
to whether materials accounting data elements should be included, even 
on a voluntary reporting basis, within the CURE reporting system.
     While the CURE model covers many environmental reports 
commonly required of industrial facilities, it does not cover all 
reports. Many facilities would find that the CURE report model would 
substitute for several separate standard reports, but that they would 
still need to file additional reports to state or EPA offices for 
reporting obligations that are not covered by this consolidated report.
    We have included additional information in the docket on the CURE 
study and how it might function as a pilot program.
    EPA seeks comment on how best to establish a pilot consolidated 
reporting program for the Performance Track. EPA is particularly 
interested in which Performance Track applicants (and the States where 
they are located) would be interested in participating in a 
Consolidated Reporting Pilot. This would help EPA further define the 
scope for such a pilot program and the need for regulatory changes 
(both at the Federal and the State levels) necessary to implement 
consolidated reporting. In addition, EPA is interested in suggestions 
on the elements of a consolidated reporting system that would be most 
critical to Performance Track members, and how comprehensive the scope 
of such a pilot should be for facilities to benefit from participating 
in the pilot.
    In order to meet the requirement that the party submitting the 
report be in a position to attest to the accuracy of the information 
reported, EPA expects that the person submitting the report will be 
required to be in a position to have such knowledge, and/ or would be 
required to attest to such knowledge in making the report. EPA solicits 
comment on how best to accomplish this goal.
    EPA believes that it must promulgate at least some regulatory 
changes to make it possible for such a pilot program to take place. The 
scope and content of such changes would depend on the particular 
reports that would be included in such a pilot. We solicit comments on 
this. Commenters should also be aware that some States may have to 
modify existing regulations to permit facilities to use the 
consolidated reporting option. In some jurisdictions, permits may have 
to be amended before facilities may take advantage of this option. EPA 
is committed to consulting with the States on ways to tailor the 
consolidated reports to their needs and requirements. Potential members 
should consider how the pilot program would benefit them in spite of 
the existence of conflicting statutory or regulatory reporting due 
dates. EPA invites comments on this issue.

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts

A. What Are the Cost and Economic Impacts?

    The rulemaking changes being proposed today will reduce some 
reporting and other compliance costs for the covered facilities. Most 
of these cost reductions result from reduced waste management costs or 
reduced respondent reporting burden hours, so these proposed changes 
also reduce the total number of such hours resulting from EPA's 
regulatory programs.
    EPA has completed the first three open enrollment periods for the 
Performance Track program. This resulted in a total of 281 facilities 
(mostly industrial facilities, but also a number of facilities in the 
service sector, several federal facilities and POTWs). Because EPA 
plans to solicit and to accept additional facilities into the program, 
it is not possible to project the cost and burden hour reductions with 
complete accuracy. Another factor that hinders such projections is 
that, just as membership in Performance Track is voluntary, it is up to 
the facilities themselves to decide which incentives apply to them and 
which to avail themselves of.
    Maximum Achievable Control Technology: We estimate that there are 
approximately 12 current Performance Track facilities that may be 
eligible for the rule change. For these facilities with emissions of 
HAPs that are lower than the 25 ton per year aggregate or the 10 ton 
per year limit for an individual HAP, they may be able to submit a 
simplified annual report rather than multiple periodic reports. If we 
assume an average reduction of one periodic report per year (estimated 
to require an average of 25.5 labor hours), the cost savings per 
facility equals $1307. In the aggregate, we estimate a total cost 
savings for the 12 Performance Track facilities of $15,680 annually and 
a total reduction of 306 labor hours.
    Alternative Environmental Performance-Based Incentives for POTWs in 
the Performance Track: Currently there is one POTW in the Performance 
Track program. To implement this incentive, it is estimated that a POTW 
would incur, on a one-time basis, 47 hours and $1837 in costs to 
request the pretreatment program modification required to use this 
incentive, publish the public notification of a change in the public

[[Page 52690]]

notice procedures to website posting, and a certification to the 
Approving Authority that the pretreatment annual report had been posted 
on its website. No net savings or costs are anticipated from the rule 
revision that allows POTWs to publish the list of SIUs in SNC annually 
on a website instead of in the newspaper, in part because any SNC that 
continues past 30 days will still need to be published in the 
newspaper. Any cost savings resulting from less newspaper text may be 
netted out by the additional costs of preparing the list for website 
publication. Similarly, the rule revisions that allow publication of 
the annual POTW report on the web and submitting the written report 
every other year to EPA or the state agency and the publication of 
modifications to pretreatment programs on the web are not likely to 
result in any cost savings. Lastly, it is difficult at this point to 
quantify the potential cost savings that could result by allowing POTWs 
to reclassify as ``nonsignificant'' CIUs which have no reasonable 
potential to adversely affect the POTW or to violate any applicable EPA 
pretreatment standard, and that have not been in noncompliance for the 
past three years. The net effect of this provision depends to a 
significant degree on the number and type of CIUs served by the POTW. 
We estimate that, for State and local authorities, some such 
authorities will need to spend time and money adopting revisions to 
their regulations to conform with the rulemaking changes we propose 
today and to re-open and re-issue permits to Performance Track 
facilities earlier than they would otherwise. However, these are 
primarily one-time costs, and we estimate that there will be long-term 
benefits from the simplifications we propose for reporting by POTWs and 
the reclassification of CIUs determined to be ``nonsignificant.''
    180-Day Accumulation Time for Performance Track Hazardous Waste 
Generators: Potential aggregate transport cost savings for Performance 
Track member facilities that accumulate hazardous waste up to 180 days 
range from $14,900 to $77,100 per year, depending on the type of waste 
(i.e., liquid or solid) and the distance the waste is transported.\5\ 
The extent of savings depends on how many Performance Track generators 
are likely to take advantage of the provision. It is expected that 
Performance Track generators would only take advantage of this 
provision if it enables them to accumulate their wastes more 
efficiently and at a reduced cost. Although there is likely to be some 
reduction in labor hours for the Performance Track facilities, we do 
not anticipate it to be significant as most of the labor is included in 
the transporter's fees. Additional cost savings that have not been 
quantified are likely to result from costs associated with the handling 
and/or storage of hazardous waste, reduced pick-up costs, the reduced 
need for rush procurements, and a reduction in mobilization fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Memorandum dated March 6, 2002 from Industrial Economics, 
Incorporated to EPA's Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There may be additional costs for installation of secondary 
containment. There is currently an upper bound estimate of 43 
facilities in the Performance Track program to which secondary 
containment provisions could apply. Cost estimates for installing 
secondary containment, if necessary, are based on the costs of 
installing secondary containment for tanks. Such costs range from 
$1,200 for 275-gallon tanks to $55,000 for 125,000 gallon tanks. The 
extent of costs depends on how many Performance Track generators use 
containers holding solid hazardous wastes that would not presently have 
secondary containment units. These estimates, however, are likely to 
represent an upper bound cost for containers, since construction of a 
secondary containment area for containers, such as a berm, is likely to 
be less than that required for tanks.\6\ The extent of total costs 
depends on how many Performance Track generators use containers holding 
solid hazardous wastes that would not presently have secondary 
containment units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ DPRA, Incorporated, ``Unit Cost Compendium'' prepared for 
U.S. EPA's Office of Solid Waste, Economics, Methods, and Risk 
Analysis Division, September 30, 2000 presents formulas for 
estimating the capital costs of installing secondary containment 
units for above ground storage tanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Impact of Proposed Rule on Costs and Labor Hours
    The total economic impact of the proposed rule for Performance 
Track facilities is estimated to range between a savings of $18,170 to 
$73,780, and between 40 and 119 labor hours on an annual basis 
depending on the number of facilities eligible for the rule and whether 
such facilities elect to avail themselves of the incentives. This 
estimate excludes the cost of secondary containment units because of 
the uncertainty associated with how many Performance Track facilities 
will need to install such units. Not all of these savings will be 
available immediately upon promulgation of this rulemaking because of 
the other actions necessary to make these incentives available to 
facilities. We estimate that the full resource savings described above 
will begin to be realized about two years after this rulemaking's 
promulgation or after the relevant state rule revisions are 
promulgated. Finally, these rulemaking changes will result in some 
increased costs for State/local agencies and EPA.

B. What Are the Health, Environmental and Energy Impacts?

    We expect that there will be no adverse effects on the environment 
from the direct impacts of these rulemaking changes. As we discussed 
above, most of these changes relate to reporting, and do not in any way 
loosen the underlying environmental obligations of the Performance 
Track facilities. We expect that the reporting changes will not result 
in any of these facilities becoming more lax in their diligence.
    EPA believes that its refocus of resources may lead to additional 
environmental compliance. Public recognition and reporting requirement 
relief, to the extent that they affect companies' bottom lines, may 
influence company decisions to undertake regulatory projects that go 
beyond regulatory requirements. The public will be able to judge the 
nature and magnitude of these environmental benefits by examining the 
annual reports that Performance Track facilities are required to 
prepare and make public.

V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation

    We would like to have full public participation in arriving at our 
final decisions, and we encourage comment on all aspects of this 
proposal from all interested parties. Interested parties should submit 
supporting data and detailed analyses with their comments so we can 
make maximum use of them. Information on where and when to submit 
comments is listed in ``Comments'' under the ADDRESSES and DATES 
sections. Information on procedures for submitting proprietary 
information in the comments is listed in ``Comments'' under the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The total economic impact of the proposed rule for Performance 
Track facilities is estimated to range between a savings of $18,170 to 
$73,780, and between 40 and 119 labor hours on an annual basis 
depending on the number of facilities eligible for the rule and whether 
such facilities elect to avail themselves of the incentives. Not all of 
these savings will be available

[[Page 52691]]

immediately upon promulgation of this rulemaking because of the other 
actions necessary to make these incentives available to facilities. The 
cost savings estimated for this proposed rulemaking could potentially 
be impacted (and result in total costs, not savings for the rulemaking) 
by any installation costs associated with installation of secondary 
containment. As noted in section IV A, secondary containment costs are 
not included in total rule cost savings estimate because of the 
uncertainty associated with how many Performance Track facilities will 
need to install such units.
    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51,735 (October 4, 1993)) the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    This action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in 
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in 
the public record.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule provides incentives 
that states can adopt to provide benefits to their state member 
facilities in the National Performance Track program. As a voluntary 
program, Performance Track allows states the option to adopt the 
provisions in this rule. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to 
this rule.
    Stakeholders, including many states, were consulted during the 
development of the Performance Track Program. Many suggestions and 
ideas generated by states and other stakeholders provided the basis for 
some of the provisions in this rule. The stakeholder involvement 
process undertaken is fully discussed in Section I B of this document. 
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy 
to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, 
EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and 
local officials.

C. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments)

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Any effects that Tribes may accrue from this rule will result in cost 
savings. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. 
Stakeholder involvement is discussed in Section I B of this document. 
In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy 
to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA 
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from 
tribal officials.

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it 
is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, 
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the 
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children. The public is invited to submit or 
identify peer-reviewed studies and data, of which the agency may not be 
aware, that assessed results of early life exposure to the provisions 
of this rulemaking.

E. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse 
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have 
concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy 
effects.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 04-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may

[[Page 52692]]

result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one 
year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is 
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and 
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the 
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do 
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. Participation by facilities in the Performance 
Track is voluntary, and so is participation by state or local 
government agencies. There are no significant or unique effects on 
State, local, or tribal governments, however there may be some minor 
effects incurred by these entities. EPA projects these costs to be very 
low. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 
202 and 205 of the UMRA. Nevertheless, as discussed in section I B and 
elsewhere, EPA did engage these stakeholders in the process of 
developing the National Environmental Performance Track Program.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business 
according to the Small Business Administration definition for the 
business's NAICS code; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district 
with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization 
that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and 
operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In 
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any 
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the 
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify 
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 
Sections 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a 
positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the 
rule. Today's rule will relieve regulatory burden and result in cost 
savings to entities, including any small entities, that are members of 
the Performance Track Program, so there will be no adverse impacts on 
small entities. Many small entities (both businesses and governments) 
and their association representatives were invited to, and attended, 
the public hearings we conducted early in 2000 on the design of the 
Performance Track program. We continue to be interested in the 
potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome 
comments on issues related to such impacts.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule 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 (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA 
(ICR No. 1922.01), and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail 
at Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, by email 
at [email protected], or by calling (202) 566-1672. You may also 
download a copy from the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    The total economic impact of the proposed rule for Performance 
Track facilities is estimated to range between a savings of $18,170 to 
$73,780, and between 40 and 119 labor hours on an annual basis 
depending on the number of facilities eligible for the rule and whether 
such facilities elect to avail themselves of the incentives. Not all of 
these savings will be available immediately upon promulgation of this 
rulemaking because of the other actions necessary to make these 
incentives available to facilities. Burden means the 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: (1) Review 
instructions; (2) 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; (3) adjust the existing ways to comply with any 
previously applicable instructions and requirements; (4) train 
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; (5) 
search data sources; (6) complete and review the collection of 
information; and (7) transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    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.
    Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, 
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the 
Director, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; and 
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked 
``Attention: Desk Officer for

[[Page 52693]]

EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Submit requests to 
present oral testimony on or before September 25, 2002. Since OMB is 
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days 
after August 13, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its 
full effect if OMB receives it by September 12, 2002. The final rule 
will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 
collection requirements contained in this proposal.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note), directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus 
standards instead of government-unique standards in their regulatory 
and procurement activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (such as materials specifications, test 
methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted 
by one or more voluntary consensus standards bodies. Examples of 
organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards 
bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 
the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and the Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal agencies to 
provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when 
an agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 
Thus, the provisions of NTTAA do not apply to this rulemaking and EPA 
is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. We 
welcome comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 
specifically, invite the public to identify potentially-applicable 
voluntary consensus standards and to explain why EPA should use such 
standards in this regulation.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 262

    Environmental protection, Exports, Hazardous materials 
transportation, Hazardous waste, Imports, Labeling, Packaging and 
containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 403

    Environmental protection, Confidential business information, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal, 
Water pollution control.

    Dated: July 30, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 63, 262 and 403 of 
title 40, chapter I of the Code of the Federal Regulations are proposed 
to be amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart A--[Amended]

    2. Section 63.2 is amended by adding in alphabetical order 
definitions of ``Periodic report,'' ``Pollution prevention,'' ``Source 
in the performance track'' and ``Source reduction'' to read as follows:


Sec. 63.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Periodic report means the report of all information which is 
required to be reported on a periodic basis, including, but not limited 
to, monitoring information and required recordkeeping, as well as 
summaries of event-related reports.
* * * * *
    Pollution prevention means ``source reduction,'' as defined under 
the Pollution Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 13102), and other practices 
that reduce or eliminate the creation of pollutants through: increased 
efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy, water, or other 
resources, or protection of natural resources by conservation.
    Source reduction, as defined in the Pollution Prevention Act means 
any practice which: reduces the amount of any hazardous substance, 
pollutant, or contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise 
released into the environment (including fugitive emissions) prior to 
recycling, treatment, or disposal; and reduces the hazards to public 
health and the environment associated with the release of such 
substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The term includes: equipment 
or technology modifications, process or procedure modifications, 
reformulation or redesign or products, substitution of raw materials, 
and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory 
control.
* * * * *
    Source in the Performance Track means a source which has been 
accepted by EPA for membership in the Performance Track Program (as 
described in www.epa.gov/performancetrack, formerly known as the 
Achievement Track Program) and is still a member of the program. The 
Performance Track program is a voluntary public-private partnership 
that encourages continuous environmental improvement through the use of 
environmental management systems, local community outreach, and 
measurable results.
* * * * *
    3. Section 63.10 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (d)(1); and
    b. Adding paragraph (e)(3)(i)(D).
    The revision and addition read as follows:
    Sec. 63.10 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Notwithstanding the requirements in this paragraph or paragraph 
(e) of this section, and except as provided in Sec. 63.16, the owner or 
operator of an affected source subject to reporting requirements under 
this part shall submit reports to the Administrator in accordance with 
the reporting requirements in the relevant standard(s).
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) The affected source is complying with the Performance Track 
provisions of Sec. 63.16, which allows less frequent reporting.
* * * * *
    4. Section 63.16 is added to Subpart A and reads as follows:
    Sec. 63.16 Performance track provisions.
    (a) Notwithstanding any other requirements in this part, an 
affected source at any major source or any area source that is a member 
of the Performance Track, which is subject to regular periodic 
reporting under any subpart of this part, may submit such periodic 
reports at an interval that is twice the length of the regular period 
specified in the applicable subparts; provided, that for sources 
subject to permits under 40 CFR part 70 or 71 no interval so calculated 
for any report of the results of any required monitoring may be less 
frequent than once in every

[[Page 52694]]

six months. (b) Notwithstanding any other requirements in this part, 
the following modifications of reporting requirements apply to any 
major source that is a member of Performance Track which is subject to 
requirements under any of the subparts of this part and which has: (1) 
Reduced its total HAP emissions to less than 25 tons per year;
    (2) Reduced its emissions of any individual HAP to less than 10 
tons per year; and (3) Reduced emissions of all HAPs covered by each 
MACT standard to at least the level required by full compliance with 
the applicable emission standard. (c) For affected sources at any area 
source member of Performance Track and which meet the requirements of 
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, or for affected sources at any major 
source that meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section:
    (1) If the emission standard to which the affected source is 
subject is based on add-on control technology, and the affected source 
complies by using add-on control technology, then all required 
reporting elements in the periodic report may be met through an annual 
certification that the affected source is meeting the emission standard 
by continuing to use that control technology. The affected source must 
continue to meet all relevant monitoring and recordkeeping 
requirements. The compliance certification must meet the requirements 
delineated in Clean Air Act Section 114(a)(3).
    (2) If the emission standard to which the affected source is 
subject is based on add-on control technology, and the affected source 
complies by using pollution prevention, then all required reporting 
elements in the periodic report may be met through an annual 
certification that the affected source is continuing to use pollution 
prevention to reduce HAP emissions to levels at or below those required 
by the applicable emission standard. The affected source must maintain 
records of all calculations that demonstrate the level of HAP emissions 
required by the emission standard as well as the level of HAP emissions 
achieved by the affected source. The affected source must continue to 
meet all relevant monitoring and recordkeeping requirements. The 
compliance certification must meet the requirements delineated in Clean 
Air Act Section 114(a)(3).
    (3) If the emission standard to which the affected source is 
subject is based on pollution prevention, and the affected source 
complies by using pollution prevention and reduces emissions by an 
additional 50 percent or greater than required by the applicable 
emission standard, then all required reporting elements in the periodic 
report may be met through an annual certification that the affected 
source is continuing to use pollution prevention to reduce HAP 
emissions by an additional 50 percent or greater than required by the 
applicable emission standard. The affected source must maintain records 
of all calculations that demonstrate the level of HAP emissions 
required by the emission standard as well as the level of HAP emissions 
achieved by the affected source. The affected source must continue to 
meet all relevant monitoring and recordkeeping requirements. The 
compliance certification must meet the requirements delineated in Clean 
Air Act Section 114(a)(3).
    (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (c)(1) through 
(3), of this section, for sources subject to permits under 40 CFR part 
70 or 71, the results of any required monitoring and recordkeeping must 
be reported not less frequently than once in every six months.

PART 262--STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

    1. The authority citation for part 262 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906, 6912, 6922-6925, 6937, and 6938.

    2. Section 262.34 is amended by adding paragraphs (j), (k), and (l) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 262.34  Accumulation time.

* * * * *
    (j) A generator member of the Performance Track Program, a 
voluntary public-private partnership that encourages continuous 
environmental improvement through the use of environmental management 
systems, local community outreach, and measurable results (as described 
at www.epa.gov/performancetrack, formerly known as the Achievement 
Track Program), who generates 1000 kg or greater of hazardous waste per 
month (or one kilogram or more of acute hazardous waste) may accumulate 
hazardous waste on-site without a permit or interim status for an 
extended period of time, provided that:
    (1) The generator accumulates the hazardous waste for no more than 
180 days, or for no more than 270 days if the generator must transport 
the waste (or offer the waste for transport) more than 200 miles from 
the generating facility; and
    (2) The generator first notifies the Regional Administrator and the 
Director of the authorized State in writing of its intent to begin 
accumulation of hazardous waste for extended time periods under the 
provisions of this section. Such advance notice must include:
    (i) Name and EPA ID number of the facility, and specification of 
when the facility will begin accumulation of hazardous wastes for 
extended periods of time in accordance with this section; and
    (ii) A description of the types of hazardous wastes that will be 
accumulated for extended periods of time, and the units that will be 
used for such extended accumulation; and
    (iii) A statement that the facility has made all changes to its 
operations, procedures, including emergency preparedness procedures, 
and equipment, including equipment needed for emergency preparedness, 
that will be necessary to accommodate extended time periods for 
accumulating hazardous wastes; and
    (iv) If the generator intends to accumulate hazardous wastes on-
site for up to 270 days, a certification that an appropriate off-site 
hazardous waste management facility is not available within 200 miles 
of the generating facility; and
    (3) The waste is managed in:
    (i) Containers, in accordance with the applicable requirements of 
subparts I, AA, BB, and CC of 40 CFR part 265 and 40 CFR 264.175; or
    (ii) Tanks, in accordance with the applicable requirements of 
subparts J, AA, BB, and CC of 40 CFR part 265, except for 
Secs. 265.197(c) and 265.200; or
    (iii) Drip pads, in accordance with subpart W of 40 CFR part 265; 
or
    (iv) Containment buildings, in accordance with subpart DD of 40 CFR 
part 265; and
    (4) The volume of hazardous waste that is accumulated for extended 
time periods at the facility does not exceed 30,000 kg; and
    (5) The generator maintains the following records at the facility 
for each unit used for extended accumulation times:
    (i) A written description of procedures to ensure that each waste 
volume remains in the unit for no more than 180 days (or 270 days, as 
applicable), a description of the waste generation and management 
practices at the facility showing that they are consistent with 
respecting the extended accumulation time limit, and documentation that 
the procedures are complied with; or
    (ii) Documentation that the unit is emptied at least once every 180 
days (or 270 days, if applicable); and
    (6) Each container or tank that is used for extended accumulation 
time periods

[[Page 52695]]

is labeled or marked clearly with the words ``Hazardous Waste'', and 
for each container the date upon which each period of accumulation 
begins is clearly marked and visible for inspection; and
    (7) The generator complies with the requirements for owners and 
operators in subparts C and D in 40 CFR part 265, with Sec. 265.16, and 
with Sec. 268.7(a)(5). In addition, such a generator is exempt from all 
the requirements in subparts G and H of part 265 of this chapter, 
except for Sec. 265.111 and Sec. 265.114; and
    (8) The generator has implemented pollution prevention practices 
that reduce the amount of any hazardous substances, pollutants or 
contaminants released to the environment prior to its recycling, 
treatment or disposal; and
    (9) The generator includes the following in its Performance Track 
Annual Performance Report, which must be submitted to the Regional 
Administrator and the Director of the authorized State:
    (i) Information on the total quantity of each hazardous waste 
generated at the facility that has been managed in the previous year 
according to extended accumulation time periods; and
    (ii) Information for the previous year on the number of off-site 
shipments of hazardous wastes generated at the facility, the types and 
locations of destination facilities, how the wastes were managed at the 
destination facilities (e.g., recycling, treatment, storage or 
disposal), and what changes in on-site or off-site waste management 
practices have occurred as a result of extended accumulation times or 
other pollution prevention provisions of this section; and
    (iii) Information for the previous year on any hazardous waste 
spills or accidents occurring at or from extended accumulation units at 
the facility, or during off-site transport of accumulated wastes; and
    (iv) If the generator has accumulated hazardous wastes on-site for 
more than 180 days but less than 270 days, a certification affirming 
that an appropriate off-site hazardous waste management facility is not 
available within 200 miles of the generating facility; and
    (k) If hazardous wastes must remain on-site at a Performance Track 
member facility for longer than 180 days (or 270 days, if applicable) 
due to unforseen, temporary and uncontrollable circumstances, an 
extension to the extended accumulation time period of up to 30 days may 
be granted at the discretion of the Regional Administrator on a case-
by-case basis.
    (l) If a generator who is a member of the Performance Track Program 
withdraws from the Performance Track Program, or if the Regional 
Administrator terminates a generator's membership, the generator must 
return to compliance with all otherwise applicable hazardous waste 
regulations as soon as possible, but no later than six months after the 
date of withdrawal or termination.

PART 403--GENERAL PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS FOR EXISTING AND NEW 
SOURCES OF POLLUTION

    1. The authority for part 403 continues to read as follows:

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

    2. Section 403.3 is amended by revising paragraph (t)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 403.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (t) * * *
    (2) Upon a finding that an industrial user meeting the criteria in 
paragraph (t)(1)(i) or (t)(1)(ii) of this section has no reasonable 
potential for adversely affecting the POTW's operation or for violating 
any pretreatment standard or requirement, the Control Authority (as 
defined in Sec. 403.12(a)) may at any time, on its own initiative or in 
response to a petition received from an industrial user or POTW, and in 
accordance with Sec. 403.8(f)(6), determine that such industrial user 
is not a significant industrial user. The Control Authority may not 
determine that any industrial user meeting the criteria in paragraph 
(t)(1)(i) of this section is not a significant industrial user if the 
industrial user has been in noncompliance at any point during the 3 
years preceding a potential determination.
* * * * *
    3. Section 403.21 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 403.21  Pretreatment Program Under National Environmental 
Performance Track Program.

    The Approval Authority may authorize a POTW that is a member of the 
National Environmental Performance Track Program, a voluntary public-
private partnership that encourages continuous environmental 
improvement through the use of environmental management systems, local 
community outreach, and measurable results (as described at 
www.epa.gov/performancetrack, formerly known as the Achievement Track 
Program), to adopt legal authorities and requirements that are 
different from the requirements otherwise applicable under this part. 
The POTW must submit any such alternative requirements as a substantial 
program modification for approval by the Approval Authority in 
accordance with the procedures outlined in Sec. 403.18. The Approval 
Authority must approve the modified program and include it as an 
enforceable provision of the POTW's NPDES permit before the POTW can 
implement any such modification. The Approval Authority must include a 
reopener clause in the POTW's NPDES permit that directs the POTW to 
discontinue implementing the approved alternative requirements and 
resume implementation of its previously approved pretreatment program, 
if the POTW no longer meets the eligibility criteria for the National 
Environmental Performance Track Program. The Approval Authority may 
authorize adoption of the following alternative requirements:
    (a) A POTW that is a member of the National Environmental 
Performance Track Program may adopt an alternative approach to the 
requirement of Sec. 403.8(f)(2)(vii) for a POTW to publish at least 
annually notification of Industrial Users (IUS) which were in 
significant noncompliance with pretreatment requirements (SNC) at any 
time during the previous twelve months. Under this alternative 
approach, the following is required:
    (1) The POTW must adequately notify the public of the change in the 
public notice procedures;
    (2) The POTW must annually public notice all IUS in SNC (as 
determined under Sec. 403.8(f)(2)(vii)) on a website maintained and 
managed by the Control Authority. Notice of the violation must remain 
posted at this site for a period of no less than thirty days. The POTW 
must post an explanation of how SNC is determined, along with a contact 
name and phone number for information;
    (3) The POTW must keep historic compliance data for all IUS on the 
website beginning with the first website publication. This historic 
compliance data must be easy to access, well-documented, and continual;
    (4) If a violation is not corrected within thirty (30) calendar 
days, or if a violation results in pass through or interference, the 
POTW must also annually provide the newspaper public notice for these 
violations in the format specified in Sec. 403.8(f)(2)(vii);
    (5) The POTW must certify as part of its annual report required by 
Sec. 403.12(i) that it posted the SNC data and the historic compliance 
data on the website; and

[[Page 52696]]

    (6) The POTW must provide a hard copy of the public notice to the 
EPA, State, or public upon request.
    (b) A POTW that is a member of the National Environmental 
Performance Track Program may take an alternative approach to the 
requirements of Secs. 403.11 and 403.18 for public notification of 
modifications to approved pretreatment programs. Under this alternative 
approach, the following is required:
    (1) The POTW must adequately notify the public of the change in 
public notice procedures;
    (2) The POTW must post its public notice of program modifications 
under Secs. 403.11 and 403.18 on a website maintained and managed by 
the Control Authority; and
    (3) The POTW must provide a hard copy of the public notice to the 
EPA, State, or public upon request.
    (c) A POTW that is a member of the National Environmental 
Performance Track Program may take an alternative approach to 
submitting its annual report under Sec. 403.12 (i). Under this 
alternative approach, the following is required:
    (1) The POTW must annually post their annual report 
(Sec. 403.12(i)) on a website maintained and managed by the Control 
Authority;
    (2) The information must remain accessible as part of the website 
for at least three years;
    (3) The POTW must provide written notice to the Approval Authority 
within five days of posting the annual report on the website. This 
notice must include a certification consistent with the certification 
language provided in 40 CFR 122.22(d) by an official attesting to the 
accuracy of the submitted information;
    (4) Every other year, the POTW must submit a written report to the 
Approval Authority. The report must include specific information for 
only those SIUs found to be in significant noncompliance (SNC) during 
the reporting period instead of a summary of the status of all IU 
compliance over the reporting period; and
    (5) The POTW must provide a written copy of the annual report 
containing all information currently required under Sec. 403.12(i) to 
the EPA, State, or public upon request.
    (d) A POTW that is a member of the National Environmental 
Performance Track Program shall prepare and maintain a list of its 
industrial users meeting the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section. 
The list shall identify the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section 
applicable to each industrial user and, where applicable, shall also 
indicate whether the POTW has made a determination pursuant to 
Sec. 403.3 (t)(2) that such industrial user should not be considered a 
significant industrial user. The initial list shall be submitted to the 
Approval Authority pursuant to Sec. 403.9 or as a non-substantial 
modification pursuant to Sec. 403.18(b)(2). Modifications to the list 
shall be submitted to the Approval Authority pursuant to 
Sec. 403.12(i)(1).

[FR Doc. 02-20347 Filed 8-12-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P