Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Regulatory Pilot Projects (Project XL); EPA ICR Number 1755.06, OMB Control Number 2010-0026, 33472-33474 [05-11383]
Download as PDF
33472
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 8, 2005 / Notices
formal issuances and submittals in
specific dockets. This can reduce the
amount of time you spend researching
proceedings by automatically providing
you with notification of these filings,
document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to https://
www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
Linda Mitry,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5–2921 Filed 6–7–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Project No. 7758–004]
City of Holyoke Gas & Electric; Notice
of Application Accepted for Filing and
Soliciting Motions To Intervene and
Protest
June 2, 2005.
Take notice that the following
hydroelectric application has been filed
with the Commission and is available
for public inspection.
a. Type of Application: Subsequent
License.
b. Project No.: P–7758–004.
c. Date Filed: February 25, 2005.
d. Applicant: City of Holyoke Gas &
Electric Department.
e. Name of Project: Holyoke Canal No.
4 Project.
f. Location: Adjacent to the
Connecticut River in Hampden County,
Massachusetts. The project does not
occupy any federal lands.
g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power
Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r).
h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Paul
Ducheney, Superintendent-Hydro,
Holyoke Gas & Electric Department, One
Canal Street, Holyoke, MA 01040, (413)
536–9340 or ducheney@hged.com.
i. FERC Contact: Jack Hannula,
john.hannula@ferc.gov, or call (202)
502–8917.
j. Deadline for filing motions to
intervene and protest: 60 days from the
issuance date of this notice.
All documents (original and eight
copies) should be filed with: Magalie R.
Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The Commissions Rules of Practice
and Procedure require all intervenors
filing documents with the Commission
to serve a copy of that document on
each person whose name appears on the
official service list for the project.
Further, if an intervenor files comments
or documents with the Commission
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:08 Jun 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must
also serve a copy of the document on
that resource agency.
Motions to intervene and protests may
be filed electronically via the Internet in
lieu of paper. The Commission strongly
encourages electronic filings. See CFR
385.200 (a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission’s Web site (https://
www.ferc.gov) under the ‘‘eFiling’’ link.
k. This application has been accepted,
but is not ready for environmental
analysis at this time.
l. The Holyoke No. 4 Canal Hydro
Project consists of the following existing
facilities: (a) Two 7-foot-diameter, 76foot-long penstocks drawing water from
the first level canal of the Holyoke Canal
System; (b) a powerhouse with two 375
kW generating units with a total
installed capacity of 750 kW; (c) two 13foot-wide, 300-foot-long tailraces
discharging into the second level canal;
(d) a 25-foot-long, 4.8-kV transmission
line; and (e) appurtenant facilities. One
of the generating units was destroyed in
an October 2004 fire; unit rehabilitation
has yet to be determined.
m. A copy of the application is
available for review at the Commission
in the Public Reference Room or may be
viewed on the Commission’s Web site at
https://www.ferc.gov using the
‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in
the docket number field to access the
document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support at
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or tollfree at 1–866–208–3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502–8659. A copy is also available
for inspection and reproduction at the
address in item h. above.
You may also register online at
https://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm
to be notified via email of new filings
and issuances related to this or other
pending projects. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support.
n. Anyone may submit a protest or a
motion to intervene in accordance with
the requirements of Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, and 385.214. In determining
the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests
filed, but only those who file a motion
to intervene in accordance with the
Commission’s Rules may become a
party to the proceeding. Any protests or
motions to intervene must be received
on or before the specified deadline date
for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital
letters the title ‘‘PROTEST’’ or
‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE’’; (2) set
forth in the heading the name of the
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
applicant and the project number of the
application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address,
and telephone number of the person
protesting or intervening; and (4)
otherwise comply with the requirements
of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005.
Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant.
A copy of any protest or motion to
intervene must be served upon each
representative of the applicant specified
in the particular application.
o. Procedural schedule and final
amendments: The application will be
processed according to the following
Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to
the schedule will be made as
appropriate. The Commission staff
proposes to issue one environmental
assessment rather than issue a draft and
final EA. Comments, terms and
conditions, recommendations,
prescriptions, and reply comments, if
any, will be addressed in the EA. Staff
intends to give at least 30 days for
entities to comment on the EA before
final action is taken on the license
application.
Issue Scoping Document for Comments:
June 2005.
Notice application ready for
environmental analysis: September
2005.
Notice of the availability of the EA:
March 2006.
Ready for Commission’s decision on the
Application: April 2006.
Final amendments to the application
must be filed with the Commission no
later than 30 days from the issuance
date of the notice of ready for
environmental analysis.
Linda Mitry,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5–2924 Filed 6–7–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–7922–3]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Regulatory Pilot
Projects (Project XL); EPA ICR Number
1755.06, OMB Control Number 2010–
0026
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces
that EPA is planning to submit for
E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM
08JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 8, 2005 / Notices
renewal the following continuing
Information Collection Request (ICR) to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB): Regulatory Pilot Projects (Project
XL) (EPA ICR No. 1755.06) (OMB
Control No. 2010–0026, current ICR
expires August 31, 2005). Before
submitting the ICR to OMB for review
and approval, EPA is soliciting
comments on specific aspects of the
proposed information collection as
described below.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before August 8, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The public may contact Mr.
Douglas Heimlich in EPA’s Office of
Environmental Policy Innovation for a
paper copy of the ICR (free of charge).
Mr. Heimlich may be reached by mail at
the U.S. EPA Office of Environmental
Policy Innovation (Mail Code 1807T),
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at
(202) 566–2234, by e-mail at
heimlich.douglas@epa.gov, or by FAX at
202–566–2220.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Douglas Heimlich in the Office of
Environmental Policy Innovation. Mr.
Heimlich may be reached by phone at
(202) 566–2234, by e-mail at
heimlich.douglas@epa.gov, or by FAX at
202–560–2220. Or, contact Dr. Gerald
Filbin in the Office of Environmental
Policy Innovation. Dr. Filbin may be
reached by phone at (202) 566–2182, by
e-mail at filbin.gerald@epa.gov, or by
FAX at 202–566–2211.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Affected
entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action include XL project sponsors,
XL project stakeholders, state, tribal and
local regulatory agencies, select
members of the business industry,
environmental organizations, industry
trade associations, academics, and
community members.
Title: Regulatory Pilot Projects (EPA
ICR No.1755.06) (OMB Control No.
2010–0026, current ICR expires August
31, 2005).
Abstract: In March 1995, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
initiated Project XL in response to a
challenge to transform the
environmental regulatory system to
better meet the needs of a rapidly
changing society while maintaining the
nation’s commitment to protect human
health and safeguard the natural
environment. Project XL, or eXcellence
and Leadership (https://www.epa.gov/
ProjectXL/), was one approach to
innovation piloting designed to test
innovative ideas by those who must
comply with EPA regulations and
policies. Through innovation pilots EPA
is gathering data and project experience
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:08 Jun 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
that will help the Agency redesign
current approaches to public health and
environmental protection. Through sitespecific agreements with project
sponsors, Project XL gives companies,
communities, local governments,
military bases, and universities
flexibility from certain environmental
regulations in exchange for
commitments to achieve superior
environmental performance at less cost.
Since 1995, under Project XL,
sponsors—private facilities, multiple
facilities, industry sectors, Federal
facilities, communities, universities,
and states—have implemented
innovative strategies that produce
superior environmental performance,
provide flexibility, cost savings,
paperwork reduction or other benefits to
sponsors, and promote greater
accountability to stakeholders. In
addition to Project XL, EPA provides
other mechanisms for piloting new
ideas such as the EPA State Innovation
Grant Program (https://www.epa.gov/
innovation/stategrants/) and the EPA/
ECOS Joint Agreement to Pursue
Regulatory Innovation (https://
www.ecos.org/files/
1426_file_Agreement.pdf) as
opportunities for collaborative
innovation with a variety of
stakeholders. EPA is completing the
earlier projects submitted under Project
XL, and is continuing piloting under the
other mechanisms.
The intent of Project XL was to allow
the EPA to experiment with untried,
potentially promising regulatory
approaches, both to assess whether they
provide superior environmental
performance and other benefits at the
specific facility affected, and whether
they should be considered for wider
application. Such pilot projects allow
the EPA to proceed more quickly than
would be possible when undertaking
changes on a nationwide basis. EPA
may modify rules, on a site- or statespecific basis, that represent one of
several possible policy approaches
within a more general statutory
directive, so long as the alternative
being used is permissible under the
statute. Similarly, the other mechanisms
for innovation, the EPA State Innovation
Grant Program and the EPA/ECOS Joint
Agreement to Pursue Regulatory
Innovation provide a process for States,
Tribes, municipalities, and whole
business sectors to test regulatory
innovation at a broad, systemic scale.
The adoption of such alternative
approaches or interpretations in the
context of a given project does not,
however, signal EPA’s willingness to
adopt that interpretation as a general
matter, or even in the context of other
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33473
innovation projects. It would be
inconsistent with the forward-looking
nature of these pilot projects to adopt
such innovative approaches
prematurely on a widespread basis
without first determining whether or not
they are viable in practice and
successful for the particular projects
that embody them. These pilot projects
are not intended to be a means for
piecemeal revision of entire programs.
Depending on the results in these
projects, EPA may or may not be willing
to consider adopting the alternative
approach or interpretation again, either
generally or for other specific facilities.
EPA believes that adopting alternative
policy approaches and/or
interpretations, on a limited, site- or
state-specific basis and in connection
with a carefully selected pilot project is
consistent with the expectations of
Congress about EPA’s role in
implementing the environmental
statutes (so long as EPA acts within the
discretion allowed by the statute).
Congress’ recognition that there is a
need for experimentation and research,
as well as ongoing reevaluation of
environmental programs, is reflected in
a variety of statutory provisions. Also,
consistent with the President’s
Management Agenda, these pilot
projects are designed to demonstrate the
performance of new approaches through
environmental outcomes.
Before submitting an official Project
XL proposal to EPA, the project sponsor
typically engaged in informal
discussions with EPA about proposal
design. Once a formal proposal was
submitted, EPA along with the
corresponding state environmental
agency reviewed the proposal. EPA
based acceptance of proposals on the
extent to which proposals met the
following eight criteria: (1) Superior
environmental performance, (2) cost
savings and reduced paperwork, (3)
stakeholder involvement, (4) innovation
or pollution prevention, (5)
transferability, (6) feasibility, (7)
monitoring, reporting and evaluation,
and (8) no shifting of risk burden. If the
proposal was accepted, EPA and the
partnering state agency negotiated the
conditions of the proposal with the
project sponsor along with other
interested stakeholders, including local
and national environmental groups and
nearby community residents. Once an
agreement was reached regarding the
conditions of the proposal and the
necessary regulatory flexibility, the
Final Project Agreement (FPA) was
signed and the project sponsor began
implementation.
XL project proposals were collected
by EPA’s Office of Environmental Policy
E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM
08JNN1
33474
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 8, 2005 / Notices
Innovation (OEPI) which has been given
responsibility for implementation of this
program. Since its inception in 1995,
over 100 Project XL proposals have been
received and reviewed, and over 50
pilot projects have been implemented.
Of these approximately nine (9) have
been completed, thirteen (13) have been
terminated prior to completion and
thirty (30) remain to be completed. The
program itself includes other offices
within EPA headquarters, EPA regions,
federal, state, tribal and local
government agencies. The renewal of
this ICR is important as it will allow the
Agency to continue to work with
sponsors of these innovation pilots, and
to respond to additional regulated
entities who are interested in innovation
pilot projects.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed
in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter
15.
The EPA would like to solicit
comments to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of information to be collected:
and
(iv) Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; e.g., permitting
electronic submissions of responses.
Burden Statement: This section
presents EPA’s estimates of the burden
and cost to complete the information
collection activities associated with this
collection. In using this analysis,
however, it should be remembered not
only that all responses to this
solicitation are voluntary, but also that
respondents have some expected value
attached with their participation.
Fundamental to projects in this program
will be reduced cost of compliance due
to increased regulatory flexibility. Not
unlike a contracts-based Request For
Proposals, one would not expect a
response from any entity where the
burdens associated with preparing the
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:08 Jun 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
response outweigh the expected benefits
to the respondent.
Information requests are expected for
approximately 40 XL projects over the
lifetime of this ICR as well as
approximately 30 other projects that
have been developed under the State
Innovation Grants and other
mechanisms. The State Grants Program
uses a competition process established
under 40 CFR 31 and compliant with
the requirements established in the
Agency’s Assistance Agreement
Competition Policy (EPA E.O.
5700.5A1). Under that policy, States
compete for funds by responding to an
annual solicitation with a brief initial
proposal. States that are selected based
upon an evaluation using published
criteria are asked to submit a more
detailed proposal leading to award. The
average number of annual awards is
eight (8).
Information will also be requested for
implemented projects as part of periodic
reporting required for grants
management and for projects that are
approaching completion, or have
reached completion and for which
information is requested to document
the outcome of each project. In the ten
years since the March 16, 1995
announcement of the program, EPA
received over 100 Project XL proposals.
In the tenth year of the program, EPA
continues to receive inquiries about the
program.
During the lifetime of this ICR, EPA
will solicit information from project
sponsors regarding the process and
outcomes for projects at completion.
This addresses the commitment of each
project sponsor established in the
project FPA to report on the final
outcomes of the project and to provide
relevant information to allow EPA to
assess the degree of success for each of
these projects and examine the
impediments to implementation that are
relevant to potential future attempts to
scale up successful innovations
demonstrated in Project XL or other
families of innovation to broader scale
application. To complete a project final
report and respond to a follow-up
questionnaire, EPA estimates that each
project sponsor will use forty (40) hours
of time, and further estimates the thirty
(40) XL projects at or approaching
completion will require a total of 1600
hours (40 hours x 40 projects). Further,
EPA estimates that its own analysts will
require an additional twenty (20) hours
of time per project to read and extract
information on project measures and
outcomes, or a total of 600 hours. EPA
estimates that eighteen hundred (2200)
hours of time may reflect a cost of
$660,000. Similarly, EPA anticipates
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
that State Innovation Grants Projects
may require States to expend up to 40
hours in preparation for each preproposal for a total of 1000 hours as an
annual average (40x25). The small
number of States selected and asked to
provide a more detailed proposal may
expend up to 100 hours per proposal for
a total of 800 hours (8x100) annually
(1800 hours annually). Over the period
of this ICR, States may expend up to
5400 hours (1800x3) preparing
proposals for State Innovation Grants;
EPA anticipates expending up to 2000
hours for analysis of this information. In
addition, quarterly reporting on
projects, now required under assistance
agreement policy may account for 64
hours of time annually for recipient
States and 100 hours annually for EPA
to complete analysis. The anticipated
total cost of this reporting is estimated
at $2,400,000.
No capital or start-up costs will be
associated with this effort.
Burden means total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
Dated: May 23, 2005.
Gregory Ondich,
Acting Office Director, Office of
Environmental Policy Innovation.
[FR Doc. 05–11383 Filed 6–7–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[OPP–2005–0131; FRL–7715–5]
Ferric Sodium EDTA; Notice of Filing a
Pesticide Petition to Establish a
Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide
Chemical in or on Food
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice announces the
initial filing of a pesticide petition
E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM
08JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33472-33474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11383]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-7922-3]
Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Regulatory Pilot Projects (Project XL); EPA ICR Number
1755.06, OMB Control Number 2010-0026
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit for
[[Page 33473]]
renewal the following continuing Information Collection Request (ICR)
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): Regulatory Pilot Projects
(Project XL) (EPA ICR No. 1755.06) (OMB Control No. 2010-0026, current
ICR expires August 31, 2005). Before submitting the ICR to OMB for
review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of
the proposed information collection as described below.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 8, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The public may contact Mr. Douglas Heimlich in EPA's Office
of Environmental Policy Innovation for a paper copy of the ICR (free of
charge). Mr. Heimlich may be reached by mail at the U.S. EPA Office of
Environmental Policy Innovation (Mail Code 1807T), 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at (202) 566-2234, by
e-mail at heimlich.douglas@epa.gov, or by FAX at 202-566-2220.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Douglas Heimlich in the Office of
Environmental Policy Innovation. Mr. Heimlich may be reached by phone
at (202) 566-2234, by e-mail at heimlich.douglas@epa.gov, or by FAX at
202-560-2220. Or, contact Dr. Gerald Filbin in the Office of
Environmental Policy Innovation. Dr. Filbin may be reached by phone at
(202) 566-2182, by e-mail at filbin.gerald@epa.gov, or by FAX at 202-
566-2211.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Affected entities: Entities potentially
affected by this action include XL project sponsors, XL project
stakeholders, state, tribal and local regulatory agencies, select
members of the business industry, environmental organizations, industry
trade associations, academics, and community members.
Title: Regulatory Pilot Projects (EPA ICR No.1755.06) (OMB Control
No. 2010-0026, current ICR expires August 31, 2005).
Abstract: In March 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
initiated Project XL in response to a challenge to transform the
environmental regulatory system to better meet the needs of a rapidly
changing society while maintaining the nation's commitment to protect
human health and safeguard the natural environment. Project XL, or
eXcellence and Leadership (https://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL/), was one
approach to innovation piloting designed to test innovative ideas by
those who must comply with EPA regulations and policies. Through
innovation pilots EPA is gathering data and project experience that
will help the Agency redesign current approaches to public health and
environmental protection. Through site-specific agreements with project
sponsors, Project XL gives companies, communities, local governments,
military bases, and universities flexibility from certain environmental
regulations in exchange for commitments to achieve superior
environmental performance at less cost. Since 1995, under Project XL,
sponsors--private facilities, multiple facilities, industry sectors,
Federal facilities, communities, universities, and states--have
implemented innovative strategies that produce superior environmental
performance, provide flexibility, cost savings, paperwork reduction or
other benefits to sponsors, and promote greater accountability to
stakeholders. In addition to Project XL, EPA provides other mechanisms
for piloting new ideas such as the EPA State Innovation Grant Program
(https://www.epa.gov/innovation/stategrants/) and the EPA/ECOS Joint
Agreement to Pursue Regulatory Innovation (https://www.ecos.org/files/
1426_file_Agreement.pdf) as opportunities for collaborative
innovation with a variety of stakeholders. EPA is completing the
earlier projects submitted under Project XL, and is continuing piloting
under the other mechanisms.
The intent of Project XL was to allow the EPA to experiment with
untried, potentially promising regulatory approaches, both to assess
whether they provide superior environmental performance and other
benefits at the specific facility affected, and whether they should be
considered for wider application. Such pilot projects allow the EPA to
proceed more quickly than would be possible when undertaking changes on
a nationwide basis. EPA may modify rules, on a site- or state-specific
basis, that represent one of several possible policy approaches within
a more general statutory directive, so long as the alternative being
used is permissible under the statute. Similarly, the other mechanisms
for innovation, the EPA State Innovation Grant Program and the EPA/ECOS
Joint Agreement to Pursue Regulatory Innovation provide a process for
States, Tribes, municipalities, and whole business sectors to test
regulatory innovation at a broad, systemic scale.
The adoption of such alternative approaches or interpretations in
the context of a given project does not, however, signal EPA's
willingness to adopt that interpretation as a general matter, or even
in the context of other innovation projects. It would be inconsistent
with the forward-looking nature of these pilot projects to adopt such
innovative approaches prematurely on a widespread basis without first
determining whether or not they are viable in practice and successful
for the particular projects that embody them. These pilot projects are
not intended to be a means for piecemeal revision of entire programs.
Depending on the results in these projects, EPA may or may not be
willing to consider adopting the alternative approach or interpretation
again, either generally or for other specific facilities. EPA believes
that adopting alternative policy approaches and/or interpretations, on
a limited, site- or state-specific basis and in connection with a
carefully selected pilot project is consistent with the expectations of
Congress about EPA's role in implementing the environmental statutes
(so long as EPA acts within the discretion allowed by the statute).
Congress' recognition that there is a need for experimentation and
research, as well as ongoing reevaluation of environmental programs, is
reflected in a variety of statutory provisions. Also, consistent with
the President's Management Agenda, these pilot projects are designed to
demonstrate the performance of new approaches through environmental
outcomes.
Before submitting an official Project XL proposal to EPA, the
project sponsor typically engaged in informal discussions with EPA
about proposal design. Once a formal proposal was submitted, EPA along
with the corresponding state environmental agency reviewed the
proposal. EPA based acceptance of proposals on the extent to which
proposals met the following eight criteria: (1) Superior environmental
performance, (2) cost savings and reduced paperwork, (3) stakeholder
involvement, (4) innovation or pollution prevention, (5)
transferability, (6) feasibility, (7) monitoring, reporting and
evaluation, and (8) no shifting of risk burden. If the proposal was
accepted, EPA and the partnering state agency negotiated the conditions
of the proposal with the project sponsor along with other interested
stakeholders, including local and national environmental groups and
nearby community residents. Once an agreement was reached regarding the
conditions of the proposal and the necessary regulatory flexibility,
the Final Project Agreement (FPA) was signed and the project sponsor
began implementation.
XL project proposals were collected by EPA's Office of
Environmental Policy
[[Page 33474]]
Innovation (OEPI) which has been given responsibility for
implementation of this program. Since its inception in 1995, over 100
Project XL proposals have been received and reviewed, and over 50 pilot
projects have been implemented. Of these approximately nine (9) have
been completed, thirteen (13) have been terminated prior to completion
and thirty (30) remain to be completed. The program itself includes
other offices within EPA headquarters, EPA regions, federal, state,
tribal and local government agencies. The renewal of this ICR is
important as it will allow the Agency to continue to work with sponsors
of these innovation pilots, and to respond to additional regulated
entities who are interested in innovation pilot projects.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
The EPA would like to solicit comments to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information to
be collected: and
(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic
submissions of responses.
Burden Statement: This section presents EPA's estimates of the
burden and cost to complete the information collection activities
associated with this collection. In using this analysis, however, it
should be remembered not only that all responses to this solicitation
are voluntary, but also that respondents have some expected value
attached with their participation. Fundamental to projects in this
program will be reduced cost of compliance due to increased regulatory
flexibility. Not unlike a contracts-based Request For Proposals, one
would not expect a response from any entity where the burdens
associated with preparing the response outweigh the expected benefits
to the respondent.
Information requests are expected for approximately 40 XL projects
over the lifetime of this ICR as well as approximately 30 other
projects that have been developed under the State Innovation Grants and
other mechanisms. The State Grants Program uses a competition process
established under 40 CFR 31 and compliant with the requirements
established in the Agency's Assistance Agreement Competition Policy (
EPA E.O. 5700.5A1). Under that policy, States compete for funds by
responding to an annual solicitation with a brief initial proposal.
States that are selected based upon an evaluation using published
criteria are asked to submit a more detailed proposal leading to award.
The average number of annual awards is eight (8).
Information will also be requested for implemented projects as part
of periodic reporting required for grants management and for projects
that are approaching completion, or have reached completion and for
which information is requested to document the outcome of each project.
In the ten years since the March 16, 1995 announcement of the program,
EPA received over 100 Project XL proposals. In the tenth year of the
program, EPA continues to receive inquiries about the program.
During the lifetime of this ICR, EPA will solicit information from
project sponsors regarding the process and outcomes for projects at
completion. This addresses the commitment of each project sponsor
established in the project FPA to report on the final outcomes of the
project and to provide relevant information to allow EPA to assess the
degree of success for each of these projects and examine the
impediments to implementation that are relevant to potential future
attempts to scale up successful innovations demonstrated in Project XL
or other families of innovation to broader scale application. To
complete a project final report and respond to a follow-up
questionnaire, EPA estimates that each project sponsor will use forty
(40) hours of time, and further estimates the thirty (40) XL projects
at or approaching completion will require a total of 1600 hours (40
hours x 40 projects). Further, EPA estimates that its own analysts will
require an additional twenty (20) hours of time per project to read and
extract information on project measures and outcomes, or a total of 600
hours. EPA estimates that eighteen hundred (2200) hours of time may
reflect a cost of $660,000. Similarly, EPA anticipates that State
Innovation Grants Projects may require States to expend up to 40 hours
in preparation for each pre-proposal for a total of 1000 hours as an
annual average (40x25). The small number of States selected and asked
to provide a more detailed proposal may expend up to 100 hours per
proposal for a total of 800 hours (8x100) annually (1800 hours
annually). Over the period of this ICR, States may expend up to 5400
hours (1800x3) preparing proposals for State Innovation Grants; EPA
anticipates expending up to 2000 hours for analysis of this
information. In addition, quarterly reporting on projects, now required
under assistance agreement policy may account for 64 hours of time
annually for recipient States and 100 hours annually for EPA to
complete analysis. The anticipated total cost of this reporting is
estimated at $2,400,000.
No capital or start-up costs will be associated with this effort.
Burden means total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Dated: May 23, 2005.
Gregory Ondich,
Acting Office Director, Office of Environmental Policy Innovation.
[FR Doc. 05-11383 Filed 6-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P