Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37739

Dated: June 8, 2000.

Michael L. Davis,

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Civil Works),

Department of the Army.

Dated: June 12, 2000.

J. Charles Fox,

Assistant Administrator for Water,

Environmental Protection Agency.

[FR Doc. 00–15268 Filed 6–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MD 080–3037; FRL–6716–9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Maryland; Withdrawal of Proposed

Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of notice of

proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: On January 26, 1999 (64 FR

3906), EPA proposed to approve the

State of Maryland’s regulations for

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Budget Program

(commonly referred to as the NOX

Budget Rule) as a revision to the State

Implementation Plan (SIP). Prior to our

taking any final rulemaking, Maryland

informed us that it was revising the rule.

On November 18, 1999, Maryland

submitted a new SIP revision request to

EPA which consists of the revised

version of its NOX Budget Rule. Because

the State of Maryland has now

submitted the revised version of its NOX

Budget Rule as a SIP revision, we are

withdrawing our January 26, 1999

proposed rule on the old version. EPA

will initiate a new and separate

rulemaking on the Maryland’s

November 18, 1999 SIP revision

submittal.

DATES: This proposed rule is withdrawn

as of June 16, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cristina Fernandez (215) 814–2178, or

by e-mail at fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 2, 2000.

Bradley M. Campbell,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 00–15156 Filed 6–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[FRL–6716–4]

Project XL Site-Specific Rulemaking

for the IBM Semiconductor

Manufacturing Facility in Essex

Junction, VT

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comment.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is today proposing this

rule to implement a pilot project under

the Project XL program that would

provide site-specific regulatory

flexibility under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),

as amended, for the International

Business Machines Corporation (IBM)

semiconductor manufacturing facility in

Essex Junction, Vermont. The principal

objective of this IBM Vermont XL

project is to determine whether the

wastewater treatment sludge resulting

from an innovative copper metallization

process (i.e., an electroplating

operation) should be designated a RCRA

hazardous waste (F006), and thus be

subject to RCRA regulatory controls. If,

as a result of this XL project, the Agency

determines that the wastewater

treatment sludge (which does not

otherwise exhibit a hazardous

characteristic) need not be subject to

RCRA hazardous waste regulations to be

protective of human health and the

environment and removes such sludges

from the hazardous waste program, this

would not only enhance the costeffectiveness of the innovative process

by removing the costs of such regulatory

controls, but could also encourage the

development and installation of this

innovative process (or similar ones) by

other semiconductor manufacturers. To

achieve this, today’s proposed rule,

when finalized, will provide an

exemption of the copper metallization

process from the narrative listing

description of electroplating operations

that result in an F006 wastewater

treatment sludge.

DATES: Public Comments: Comments on

the proposed rule must be received on

or before July 17, 2000. All comments

should be submitted in writing to the

address listed below.

Public Hearing: Commenters may

request a public hearing by June 30,

2000 during the public comment period.

Commenters requesting a public hearing

should specify the basis for their

request. If EPA determines that there is

sufficient reason to hold a public

hearing, it will do so by July 7, 2000,

during the last week of the public

comment period. Requests for a public

hearing should be submitted to the

address below.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Written

comments should be mailed to the

RCRA Information Center Docket Clerk

(5305W), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,

Washington, D.C. 20460. Please send an

original and two copies of all comments,

and refer to Docket Number F–2000–

IBMP–FFFFF.

Request to Speak at Hearing: Requests

for a hearing should be mailed to the

RCRA Information Center Docket Clerk

(5305G), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,

Washington, D.C. 20460. Please send an

original and two copies of all comments,

and refer to Docket Number F–2000–

IBMP–FFFFF. A copy should also be

sent to Mr. John Moskal at the U.S. EPA

New England office. Mr. John Moskal

may be contacted at the following

address: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, New England (SPP), One

Congress St., Suite 1100, Boston, MA

02114, (617) 918–1826.

Viewing Project Materials: A docket

containing the proposed rule, draft Final

Project Agreement, supporting

materials, and public comments is

available for public inspection and

copying at the RCRA Information Center

(RIC), located at Crystal Gateway, 1235

Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor,

Arlington, Virginia. The RIC is open

from 9 am to 4 pm Monday through

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The

public is encouraged to phone in

advance to review docket materials.

Appointments can be scheduled by

phoning the Docket Office at (703) 603–

9230. Refer to RCRA docket number F–

2000–IBMP–FFFFF. The public may

copy a maximum of 100 pages from any

regulatory docket at no charge.

Additional copies cost 15 cents per

page. Project materials are also available

for review for today’s action on the

world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/

projectxl/.

A duplicate copy of the docket is

available for inspection and copying at

U.S. EPA New England, One Congress

Street, Suite 1100 (LIB), Boston MA

02114–2023 during normal business

hours. Persons wishing to view the

duplicate docket at the Boston location

are encouraged to contact Mr. John

Moskal or Mr. George Frantz in advance,

by telephoning (617) 918–1826 or (617)

918–1883, respectively.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

John Moskal or Mr. George Frantz, U.S.

37740 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Environmental Protection Agency, New

England (SPP), Assistance and Pollution

Prevention Division, One Congress

Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114–

2023. Mr. Moskal can be reached at

(617) 918–1826 (or

moskal.john@epa.gov) and Mr. Frantz

can be reached at (617) 918–1883 (or

frantz.george@epa.gov). Further

information on today’s action may also

be obtained on the world wide web at

http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This pilot

project assesses the appropriateness of

designating the sludges resulting from

the treatment of the wastewaters

generated by the copper metallization

process as a listed hazardous waste

(F006), and to characterize those factors

that may determine whether similar

metallization processes should also be

exempted from the process description

in the F006 listing. No other hazardous

wastes generated and/or managed at the

IBM facility are affected by this

proposed rule. Similarly, no wastewater

treatment sludges generated through the

treatment of wastewaters resulting from

similar copper metallization processes

at other facilities are affected by this

proposed rule.

The duration of this XL pilot project

is 5 years. The exemption from the

specified RCRA requirements for the

wastewater treatment sludge resulting

from the copper metallization process at

this IBM facility does not include a

‘‘sunset provision’’ which would

automatically terminate the exemption

at a certain point in the future (as is

typically done in regulatory changes to

facilitate XL pilot projects). Instead,

EPA and VTDEC (and IBM) commit to

evaluating the project at the end of its

5-year term. If the project is determined

to be successful, EPA may consider

expanding the scope of the exemption to

the national level (by rulemaking). If the

project is determined to be

unsuccessful, EPA will promulgate a

rule (after notice and comment) to

remove the site-specific exemption and

the wastewater treatment sludge will

again become subject to the F006

hazardous waste listing. It is the intent

of EPA and VTDEC that the conditional

exemption remain applicable to the IBM

facility until EPA (and VTDEC) takes

regulatory action to change the

exemption (to either remove it, expand

it, or perhaps modify it). The five-year

term for this XL pilot project begins

upon the effective date of the final

rulemaking (the latter of EPA or VTDEC)

promulgated to allow for the XL project

to be implemented.

Today’s proposed rulemaking will not

in any way affect the provisions or

applicability of any other existing or

future regulations.

EPA is soliciting comments on this

rulemaking (as well as the draft FPA).

EPA will publish responses to

comments in a subsequent final rule.

The XL project will enter the

implementation phase when the final

rule is promulgated by EPA and VTDEC,

and all signatories to the XL project sign

the Final Project Agreement.

The terms of the overall XL project are

contained in a draft Final Project

Agreement (FPA) on which EPA is also

requesting comment. The draft Final

Project Agreement (FPA) (also available

in today’s Federal Register) is available

for public review and comment at the

EPA Docket in Washington DC, in the

US EPA New England library, at the

IBM Essex Junction facility, and on the

world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/

projectxl/. Following a review of the

public comments and appropriate

changes, the FPA would be signed by

representatives from EPA, the Vermont

Department of Environmental

Conservation (VTDEC) and IBM.

Outline of Today’s Proposal

The information presented in this

preamble is organized as follows:

I. Authority

II. Overview of Project XL

III. Overview of the IBM Vermont XL Pilot

Project

A. To Which Facilities Will the Proposed

Rule Apply?

B. What Problems Will the IBM Vermont

XL Project Attempt to Address?

1. Background on Hazardous Waste

Identification

2. Background on the F006 Hazardous

Waste Listing

3. Site-Specific Considerations at the IBM

Vermont Facility

C. What Solution is Proposed by the IBM

Vermont XL Project?

D. What Regulatory Changes Will Be

Necessary to Implement this Project?

1. Federal Regulatory Changes

2. State Regulatory Changes

E. Why is EPA Supporting this Approach

to Removing a Waste From a Hazardous

Waste Listing?

F. How Have Various Stakeholders Been

Involved in this Project?

G. How Will this Project Result in Cost

Savings and Paperwork Reduction?

H. What Are the Terms of the IBM Vermont

XL Project and How Will They Be

Enforced?

I. How Long Will this Project Last and

When Will It Be Complete?

IV. Additional Information

A. How to Request a Public Hearing

B. How Does this Rule Comply With

Executive Order 12866?

C. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Required?

D. Is an Information Collection Request

Required for this Project Under the

Paperwork Reduction Act?

E. Does this Project Trigger the

Requirements of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act?

F. RCRA & Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments

1. Applicability of Rules in Authorized

States

2. Effect on Vermont Authorization

G. How Does this Rule Comply with

Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks?

H. Does this Rule Comply with Executive

Order 13132: Federalism?

I. How Does this Rule Comply with

Executive Order 13084: Consultation and

Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments?

J. Does this Rule Comply with the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act?

I. Authority

EPA is publishing this proposed

regulation under the authority of

sections 2002, 3001, 3002, 3003, 3006,

3010, and 7004 of the Solid Waste

Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6912, 6921,

6922, 6923, 6926, 6930, 6937, 6938, and

6974).

II. Overview of Project XL

The draft Final Project Agreement

(FPA) sets forth the intentions of EPA,

VTDEC, and the IBM Essex Junction, VT

facility with regard to a project

developed under Project XL, an EPA

initiative to allow regulated entities to

achieve better environmental results

with limited regulatory flexibility. The

proposed regulation, along with the FPA

(also available in today’s Federal

Register), would facilitate

implementation of the project. Project

XL—‘‘eXcellence and Leadership’’—

was announced on March 16, 1995, as

a central part of the National

Performance Review and the Agency’s

effort to reinvent environmental

protection. See 60 FR 27282 (May 23,

1995). Project XL provides a limited

number of private and public regulated

entities an opportunity to develop their

own pilot projects to request regulatory

flexibility that will result in

environmental protection that is

superior to what would be achieved

through compliance with current and

reasonably-anticipated future

regulations. These efforts are crucial to

EPA’s ability to test new strategies that

reduce regulatory burden and promote

economic growth while achieving better

environmental and public health

protection. EPA intends to evaluate the

results of this and other Project XL

projects to determine which specific

elements of the project(s), if any, should

be more broadly applied to other

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37741

regulated entities for the benefit of both

the economy and the environment.

Under Project XL, participants in four

categories—facilities, industry sectors,

governmental agencies and

communities—are offered the flexibility

to develop common sense, cost-effective

strategies that will replace or modify

specific regulatory requirements, on the

condition that they produce and

demonstrate superior environmental

performance.

The XL program is intended to

encourage EPA to experiment with

potentially promising regulatory

approaches, both to assess whether they

provide benefits at the specific facility

affected, and whether they should be

considered for wider application. Such

pilot projects allow EPA to proceed

more quickly than would be possible

when undertaking changes on a

nationwide basis. As part of this

experimentation, EPA may try out

approaches or legal interpretations that

depart from, or are even inconsistent

with, longstanding Agency practice, so

long as those interpretations are within

the broad range of discretion enjoyed by

the Agency in interpreting the statutes

that it implements. EPA may also

modify rules, on a site-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.

Adoption of such alternative

approaches or interpretations in the

context of a given XL project does not,

however, signal EPA’s willingness to

adopt that interpretation as a general

matter, or even in the context of other

XL projects. It would be inconsistent

with the forward-looking nature of these

pilot projects to adopt such innovative

approaches prematurely on a

widespread basis without first

determining whether they are viable in

practice and successful in the particular

projects that embody them.

Furthermore, as EPA indicated in

announcing the XL program, EPA

expects to adopt only a limited number

of carefully selected projects. 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 interpretation again, either

generally or for other specific facilities.

EPA believes that adopting alternative

policy approaches and interpretations,

on a limited, site-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 (provided that the Agency 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, such as section 8001 of

RCRA.

XL Criteria

To participate in Project XL,

applicants must develop alternative

environmental performance objectives

pursuant to eight criteria: Superior

environmental performance; cost

savings and paperwork reduction; local

stakeholder involvement and support;

test of an innovative strategy;

transferability; feasibility; identification

of monitoring, reporting and evaluation

methods; and avoidance of shifting risk

burden. The XL projects must have the

full support of the affected Federal,

State, local and tribal agencies to be

selected.

For more information about the XL

criteria, readers should refer to the two

descriptive documents published in the

Federal Register (60 FR 27282, May 23,

1995 and 62 FR 19872, April 23, 1997),

and the December 1, 1995 ‘‘Principles

for Development of Project XL Final

Project Agreements’’ document. For

further discussion as to how the IBM

Vermont XL project addresses the XL

criteria, readers should refer to the draft

Final Project Agreement available from

the EPA RCRA docket, the U.S. EPA

New England library, or the Project XL

web page (see ADDRESSES section of

today’s preamble).

XL Program Phases

The Project XL program is

compartmentalized into four basic

developmental phases: The initial preproposal phase where the project

sponsor comes up with an innovative

concept that they would like EPA to

consider as an XL pilot project; the

second phase where the project sponsor

works with EPA and interested

stakeholders in developing an XL

proposal; the third phase where EPA,

local regulatory agencies, and other

interested stakeholders review the XL

proposal; and the fourth phase where

the project sponsor works with EPA,

local regulatory agencies, and interested

stakeholders in developing a Final

Project Agreement and legal

mechanism. After promulgation of the

final rule (or other legal mechanism) for

the XL pilot, and after the Final Project

Agreement has been signed by all

designated parties, the XL pilot project

proceeds onto implementation and

evaluation.

Final Project Agreement

The Final Project Agreement (FPA) is

a written voluntary agreement between

the project sponsor and regulatory

agencies. The draft FPA contains a

detailed description of the proposed

pilot project. It addresses the eight

Project XL criteria, and the expectation

of the Agency that the XL project will

meet those criteria. The draft FPA

identifies performance goals and

indicators that the project is yielding the

expected environmental benefits, and

specifically addresses the manner in

which the project is expected to

produce superior environmental

benefits. The draft FPA also discusses

the administration of the FPA, including

dispute resolution and termination. The

draft FPA for this XL project is available

for review in the docket for today’s

action, and also is available on the

world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/

projectxl/.

III. Overview of the IBM Vermont XL

Pilot Project

EPA is today requesting comments on

the draft Final Project Agreement (FPA)

and proposed rule to implement key

provisions of this Project XL initiative.

Today’s proposed rule would facilitate

implementation of the draft FPA (the

document that embodies EPA’s intent to

implement this project) that has been

developed by EPA, the Vermont

Department of Environmental

Conservation (VTDEC), the IBM Essex

Junction, VT facility, and other

stakeholders. After comments on the

draft FPA and proposed rule have been

considered, EPA, VTDEC, and IBM

expect to sign a final FPA. Today’s

proposed rule, when finalized, would

not be effective in Vermont until the

State has made conforming changes to

its hazardous waste program.

A. To Which Facilities Will the

Proposed Rule Apply?

This proposed rule would apply only

to the IBM Essex Junction, VT facility.

Further, the regulatory modification

being proposed only affects the copper

metallization plating process (and the

wastes generated by that process) that is

the focus of this XL project; wastes

resulting from any other operations at

the facility are not affected by this

proposed rule (or the final rule, when

finalized).

B. What Problems Will the IBM Vermont

XL Project Attempt To Address?

IBM does not believe the innovative

copper metallization process it uses

should be included among those

electroplating operations that result in a

wastewater treatment sludge that is

37742 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules

specifically listed as a hazardous waste

(F006), and that the regulatory controls

(with associated increases in costs)

provide no benefit to the environment.

1. Background on Hazardous Waste

Identification

Under the current RCRA regulatory

framework, the generator of a waste is

responsible for determining whether the

waste is hazardous (see 40 CFR 262.11).

There are two ways that a waste is

determined to be hazardous; either the

waste exhibits a characteristic of a

hazardous waste as defined in 40 CFR

261.21, 261.22, 261.23, and 261.24, or

the Agency has identified and

specifically listed it as a hazardous

waste in 40 CFR 261.31, 261.32, and

261.33. The wastewater treatment

sludge that is the focus of this XL

project typically does not exhibit a

characteristic of hazardous waste;

however, it does meet the narrative

listing description for F006, generally

described as wastewater treatment

sludge from electroplating operations. In

promulgating the hazardous waste

listings, EPA presented the basis for the

listings in 40 CFR part 261, appendix

VII (e.g., the basis for the F006 listing is

the presence of cadmium, hexavalent

chromium, nickel, and cyanide

(complexed) in high enough

concentrations to present a risk to

human health and the environment if

the waste is mismanaged). However, the

hazardous waste listings are

implemented based on their narrative

descriptions, not by a waste-specific

assessment of the hazardous

constituents the wastes contain (such an

assessment is how the ‘‘toxicity

characteristic’’ is implemented pursuant

to 40 CFR 261.24). To address those

wastes that meet the narrative

description of a listed hazardous waste

but which the generator believes are

nonhazardous, RCRA regulations

provide a mechanism for the generator

to petition the Agency for a

determination that the wastes generated

at their facility should not be regulated

as hazardous (i.e., a ‘‘delisting’’

pursuant to 40 CFR 260.22).

2. Background on the F006 Hazardous

Waste Listing

On May 19, 1980, EPA promulgated

the F006 hazardous waste listing,

thereby designating wastewater

treatment sludges from electroplating

operations to be a RCRA hazardous

waste (see 45 FR 33084). This

wastestream is typically generated

through the chemical treatment (e.g.,

lime precipitation) of wastewaters

generated by plating operations to

precipitate out certain toxic metals.

These wastewaters are typically made

up of spent plating/coating solutions

and rinsewaters (from the rinsing of

parts after being plated). As discussed in

more detail in the background

document supporting the listing of

electroplating wastewater treatment

sludge (F006), Electroplating and Metal

Finishing Operations (pages 105–143)

(available in the docket for this

proposal), the Agency noted that while

there are many various plating processes

covered by the listing, they all generally

involve hazardous constituents of

concern at concentration levels

requiring regulatory oversight to ensure

that the management and disposal of

such sludges will not result in damages

to the environment or otherwise present

a risk to human health and the

environment. The metal constituents

found to be commonly used in

electroplating operations include

cadmium, lead, chromium (in

hexavalent form), copper, nickel, zinc,

gold and silver. Cyanides, strong acids

and strong bases are also used

extensively in the general types of

plating operations intended to be

included in the listing description. As

stated earlier, the specific constituents

of concern cited as the basis for listing

such wastewater treatment sludges as

hazardous wastes were cadmium,

hexavalent chromium, nickel, and

cyanide (complexed) (see 40 CFR part

261, appendix VII).

While the actual composition of the

electroplating-generated wastewater

treatment sludges may vary due to the

specific sequence of processing

operations (commonly, more than one

processing step is involved in a plating

operation), in general, the sludges

would be expected to contain significant

concentrations of toxic metals, and

possibly complexed cyanides in high

concentrations if the cyanides are not

properly isolated in the wastewater

treatment process. Thus, the approach

to this hazardous waste listing was one

where the constituents typically used in

the ‘‘up-stream’’ production process

were, in part, the basis of the hazardous

waste listing applicable to the residuals

from wastewater treatment (typically

alkaline precipitation of the heavy

metals).

The Agency noted in the May 19,

1980 rulemaking that several plating

operations were found to not contain

significant concentrations of toxic

metals or cyanides, such that the

sludges resulting from the treatment of

the wastewaters resulting from such

operations would not be expected to

pose a risk to human health and the

environment. These operations were

accordingly identified and specifically

excluded from the F006 listing

description: (1) Sulfuric acid anodizing

of aluminum, (2) tin plating on carbon

steel, (3) zinc plating (segregated basis)

on carbon steel, (4) aluminum or zincaluminum plating on carbon steel, (5)

cleaning/stripping associated with tin,

zinc and aluminum plating on carbon

steel, and (6) chemical etching and

milling of aluminum. (see 40 CFR

261.31).

Accordingly, the chemical make-up of

the materials used in the plating

operation was a major consideration in

whether the wastewater treatment

sludge would be designated a hazardous

waste. Other factors that may impact the

concentration levels of hazardous

constituents in the wastewater treatment

sludge are the type and shape of the

article being plated, how much of the

plating solution is carried over into the

rinsewater, and the actual plating

process being used.

3. Site-Specific Considerations at the

IBM Vermont Facility

Since the IBM facility has many

complicated manufacturing processes, a

review of the basic steps in

semiconductor manufacturing relevant

to the metallization process which is the

subject of this XL project may be useful.

In general, the surface of a silicon wafer

is cleaned and passivated (i.e., coated to

provide an insulating layer) with a very

thin silicon oxide layer. An organic

photoresist is applied to the wafer and

a circuit pattern is exposed onto the

resist by shining light onto the wafer

through a mask. The exposed

photoresist is washed away, while the

remainder is hardened to protect the

insulating layer. After this is completed,

the wafer is treated with inorganic

liquids and gases to create the doped

circuits which provide the

semiconductor function. The hardened

resist is then removed with organic

solvents. At certain points in the

process, metallization techniques are

used to electronically connect the

stacked layers of the semiconductor

device. (The copper metallization

process which is the basis for this XL

project serves this purpose.) Wafer

cleaning and rinsing steps, using

mixtures of inorganic acids, oxidizers,

and deionized water, occur after many

of the process steps. This process cycle

is repeated until a fully functional

memory or logic device has been

produced. After the circuits are built on

the wafer, minute amounts of metal are

deposited onto the wafer to produce the

connections which marry the

semiconductor to a module or circuit

board for use in a computer. Finally, the

wafer is sliced into individual chips for

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37743

1Prior to the copper electroplating operation, a

thin layer of copper is applied to each wafer by

vapor deposition. This very thin layer serves as a

‘‘seed’’ site for the deposition of the electroplated

copper. A scheduled change (not related to this XL

project) in the process for depositing the seed layer

will result in additional copper being inadvertently

deposited to the outermost edge of the wafer as a

result of a change in the way the wafer is held in

the tool.

Due to this change in the seed layer process, it

will be necessary for future copper plating tools to

remove the copper from the outer three millimeters

of the wafer edge following the plating step to

prepare the wafer for future processing. The copper

on the edge is removed using an acid spray, in a

process step termed ‘‘edge bead removal.’’ This will

add 0.77 grams/day of copper to the wastewater

stream, representing 5–10% of the load generated

by the plating wastewaters and 0.5–1% of the load

generated by the total copper process.

2There are a few cleaning processes at the facility

where dilute NF3 is an ineffective substitute for the

PFC. However, for those operations, IBM has

substituted a much more dilute PFC than was

originally used, still achieving reductions in the

global warming gas emissions.

3 VTDEC accepted IBM’s position that the F006

listing was inappropriately bringing the copper

metallization waste stream into the hazardous waste

system since the process did not contain the

constituents for which F006 was listed. VTDEC has

the discretion to waive the hazardous waste tax ‘‘for

Continued

testing and placement onto substrates or

modules for use in computer systems.

The new copper metallization process

IBM has introduced, which is the

subject of this XL project, serves to

provide the interconnection of the

device circuits, electronically

connecting the stacked layers of the

semiconductor device. In designing the

process, IBM worked with the

manufacturers of the plating solutions

and the manufacturer of the plating tool

(which holds the wafer) to minimize

waste and increase efficiency. The

metallization process uses this

specialized tool to bring only one side

of the wafer into contact with the

copper plating solution and applies an

electrical current to plate the copper

onto the wafer surface. Once the

metallization process is complete, the

wafer is rinsed with sulfuric acid over

the plating bath to keep as much plating

solution as possible in the bath (thus

minimizing the amount of plating

solution that is carried over into the

rinsewaters). After the sulfuric acid

rinse, the wafer is then rinsed with

deionized water, and deionized water

and sulfuric acid, in a pre-defined

sequence, with the resulting rinsewaters

being sent through the facility’s

wastewater treatment system.

For each wafer produced,

approximately 3.5 grams of plating

solution (containing approximately

0.065 grams of copper) is carried over to

the rinsewaters. The volume of water

used in the rinsing ranges from 0.5 to

0.7 gallons per wafer. Present

projections show that copper mass and

rinsewater volume will increase from

approximately 110 grams/day and

1000–2000 gallons/day, respectively in

the second quarter of 1999 to 180 grams/

day and 2000–3000 gallons/day when

the process is fully deployed in 2002.1

Also, the plating unit includes a 40-

gallon reservoir for the plating solution

that constantly filters and regenerates

the solution. The goal in designing and

operating this reservoir is to achieve an

infinite bath life for the solution.

However, it is currently necessary to

replace a portion of the used plating

solution in the reservoir with new

solution. Currently, IBM drums the

spent plating solution from the reservoir

and sends the material for appropriate

off-site management. IBM does not

currently, nor plan to in the future, send

the spent plating solution from the

reservoir through the wastewater

treatment system. Thus, the only plating

solution that is or will be sent through

the facility’s wastewater treatment

system is the relatively small amount

that is carried over to the rinsewaters.

According to tests conducted by IBM,

the plating solution currently being

used by the facility does not contain any

of the hazardous metal constituents and

cyanides which were the focus of the

original hazardous waste listing for

wastewater treatment sludges from

electroplating operations (and thus,

these constituents would not be

expected to be in the wastewater

treatment sludge unless they are

introduced from some other production

process).

IBM reports other significant

environmental benefits of converting to

the copper metallization process that

should be considered. The copper

metallization process replaces an

aluminum chemical vapor deposition

process that required the vaporization of

aluminum for deposit on the wafer. The

use of the vapor deposition process

entailed cleaning steps that used

perfluorinated compounds (PFCs),

which are global warming gases. By

replacing a majority of the aluminum

connections with copper, a significant

reduction in global warming gases will

be realized simply by minimizing the

number of cleaning steps that use PFCs.

It should also be noted that while such

vapor deposition processes (and

subsequent cleaning steps) are still

required in other aspects of the

semiconductor manufacturing process,

IBM has developed an alternative

cleaning method that uses dilute

nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) instead of

PFCs, wherever appropriate. NF3 has

significantly less impact on global

warming than PFCs.2 The Agency

recognizes this significant

environmental benefit although it is not

closely associated with the regulatory

flexibility being sought by IBM.

IBM also reports that the new copper

metallization process is much more

energy efficient (30 to 40% less energy)

than the aluminum chemical vapor

deposition process it replaces.

Similarly, the semiconductor chip

produced by the copper metallization

process is approximately 25% more

energy-efficient than the chip it

replaces. IBM expects this type of

metallization process (or processes very

similar) to become more common in the

semiconductor manufacturing industry.

The aluminum chemical vapor

deposition process which the copper

metallization process replaces was dry

and generated no wastewater or sludge

that was subject to RCRA. From the time

the copper metallization process was

first introduced in 1996 until April of

1998, the copper metallization

rinsewaters were collected and

drummed for off-site disposal, keeping

these wastewaters separate from the onsite wastewater treatment system.

However, beginning in May 1998, the

volume of rinsewater generated

(approximately 250 gallons/day) became

large enough to make it necessary to

introduce the plating rinsewaters into

the wastewater treatment system by

commingling them with other

wastewater streams generated on-site.

Even though the contribution of

wastewaters from the copper

metallization process to the total

volume of wastewater being treated to

generate the sludge is minimal (the

volume of rinsewaters from the plating

operation expected to be generated

when the plating process is at full

production is 1600 gallons/day,

compared with an estimated 5,000,000

gallons/day volume of other on-site

wastewaters), the sludge generated by

the treatment of the commingled

wastewaters is regulated as F006

because it meets the narrative listing

description (i.e., wastewater treatment

sludges from an electroplating

operation).

Consequently, IBM’s reported annual

hazardous waste generation increased

from 2.14 million pounds to 5.78

million pounds (1999 totals) and their

waste management costs increased by

$3,500 per year. Regarding IBM’s waste

management costs, the State of Vermont

has deferred the hazardous waste tax

that would normally apply to the

generation of an F006 waste

(approximately $225,000/year).3

37744 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules

cause shown.’’ 32 VSA 10102(2). VTDEC took the

position that the constituents for which F006 was

listed took primacy over the narrative listing

description that was intended to further describe

wastes within the boundaries of the basis for listing,

i.e. the constituents of concern. The constituents

described the potential for harm to human health

and the environment while the narrative listing

description described the processes, known at the

time, that were likely to contain the constituents.

While the increased waste

management costs (as well as the

associated recordkeeping and

paperwork burdens) are relatively

insignificant to the facility, they

nevertheless represent increased costs

for no net environmental benefit.

C. What Solution Is Proposed by the IBM

Vermont XL Project?

IBM’s position is that they have

adopted a more energy- and resourceefficient metallization process that

employs a plating solution that is

significantly different from the plating

solutions used when the Agency

promulgated the F006 listing, and

therefore should not be subject to the

F006 listing. This process has been

specifically designed to minimize the

use of the plating solution while

maximizing the use of the copper metal

in the solution, and minimizing the

amount of solution that is carried over

into the rinsewater. Because this

metallization process does not

contribute hazardous constituents to the

wastewater treatment sludge, IBM is

seeking to have its copper metallization

process exempted from the F006

hazardous waste listing. Therefore,

rather than pursue a delisting of the

wastewater treatment sludge under 40

CFR 260.22, IBM has opted to work with

the Agency, VTDEC, and interested

stakeholders to develop and implement

a pilot project under Project XL that will

evaluate whether the copper

metallization process should be

included in the plating operations that

result in F006 listed hazardous wastes.

The Agency agrees with IBM that this

XL project has a somewhat different

aspect to it (i.e., the focus on the

innovative production process that

generates the wastewaters that, in turn,

are treated to generate the listed sludge),

such that the delisting approach is not

the most suitable. A delisting approach

would look strictly at the waste being

delisted (as well as how it is managed),

which in this situation is the result of

treating large volumes of wastewaters

from a variety of production processes

(including wastewaters contributed by

the innovative copper metallization

process) and would not adequately

reflect the specific environmental

impacts associated with the innovative

production process. It is the innovative

production process that causes the

wastewater treatment sludge to be

designated a hazardous waste.

D. What Regulatory Changes Will Be

Necessary To Implement This Project?

To implement this XL project, the

Agency is proposing in today’s notice to

provide a site-specific exemption in 40

CFR 261.4(b) (i.e., ‘‘Solid wastes which

are not hazardous wastes’’) for the

copper metallization process at the IBM

Vermont facility from the F006

hazardous waste listing description. The

Agency considered a modification to the

F006 listing description in the table in

40 CFR 261.31(a), adding the copper

metallization process at the IBM

Vermont facility to the list of plating

operations that are not intended to be

subject to the listing. However, because

the exemption will have a number of

conditions that the IBM facility must

follow to ensure that this XL project is

protective of human health and the

environment throughout the term of the

project and to provide the information

and data the Agency will use to

consider whether the regulatory

exemption should be incorporated into

the national program, the Agency

prefers placing the exemption language

in 40 CFR 261.4(b). Regardless of where

EPA chooses to place the exemption

language in the regulations (261.31(a) or

261.4(b)), the legal effect of the

exemption will be the same. EPA

expects that should the exemption of

the copper metallization process from

the F006 listing be incorporated into the

national program, EPA would then

modify the listing description in 40 CFR

261.31(a).

E. Why Is EPA Supporting This

Approach To Removing a Waste From a

Hazardous Waste Listing?

The Agency agrees with IBM that this

XL project has merit and has the

potential to yield significant

environmental benefits should this

exemption be adopted on a national

basis. Project XL offers the opportunity

for the Agency to test its belief that this

innovative process should be

encouraged as one that is

environmentally superior to existing

technologies and to consider the

appropriate regulatory status of the

wastes from this technology before it is

adopted by similar manufacturing

facilities.

Further, this XL project offers EPA the

opportunity to test a different approach

to re-evaluating whether a specific

wastestream is appropriately subject to

regulatory controls as a listed waste.

The existing mechanism for removing a

waste from a listing on a site-specific

basis is through a ‘‘delisting’’ petition

under 40 CFR 260.22. However, the

delisting approach is not the most

suitable for the situation at the IBM

Vermont facility because the scope of

the listing itself is at issue. If IBM

submitted a delisting petition, EPA

would evaluate the hazardous nature of

the entire wastewater treatment sludge

(which is the wastestream that actually

carries the F006 listing) rather than only

that portion which is contributed by the

copper metallization process. EPA

generally prefers a delisting approach in

most circumstances (it is, generally, a

better approach for determining the

hazardous nature of the actual waste

material and whether the waste should

be removed from the hazardous waste

management program). In this instance,

however, because the Agency wants to

test whether IBM’s copper metallization

process should be included within the

scope of the F006 listing, the Agency

believes an evaluation of the

‘‘production side’’ of the sequence of

operations that results in the wastewater

treatment sludge would be more useful.

Specifically, because the wastewater

treatment sludge is considered

hazardous due to an ‘‘upstream’’

production unit meeting the narrative

description of an electroplating

operation, the Agency believes it is

more appropriate to evaluate the

upstream production unit to determine

whether the hazardous waste listing on

the ‘‘downstream’’ wastewater treatment

sludge is warranted. Therefore, the

Agency will focus on the key parameters

on the production side (in this case, the

innovative design and operation of the

copper metallization process) to make a

determination of the regulatory status of

the materials generated on the waste

management side (in this case, the

wastewater treatment sludge). This XL

project therefore represents an

opportunity for EPA to explore a

different approach to determining

whether a waste (in this case, one

resulting from an innovative process)

should continue to be subject to a

hazardous waste listing. In other words,

this approach may be considered

another ‘‘tool’’ for the Agency to use in

‘‘fine tuning’’ the hazardous waste

listings so that the narrative description

of a listed waste appropriately

delineates between those wastes that

pose a risk to human health and the

environment from those wastes (which

arguably are generated by very similar

processes) that do not pose such a risk.

If, in fact, the absence of hazardous

constituents of concern in the plating

solution is determinative of whether the

wastewater treatment sludge is

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37745

hazardous (or whether any ‘‘hazard’’ in

the sludge stems from the plating

operation), this may become the key

determining factor in similar requests

for regulatory exemptions.

Alternatively, if the Agency determines

that the amount of plating solution that

is carried over into the rinsewater (with

focus on the shape of the parts being

plated as well as the actual plating

process) is the determining factor, this

variable may be accounted for in future

rulemakings that address the F006

hazardous waste listing.

Because this is an innovative and

highly efficient plating technology that

also does not use the hazardous

constituents common in most

electroplating operations, EPA agrees

with IBM’s expectation that more

semiconductor manufacturing facilities

will seek to adopt this process (or ones

very similar). The Agency agrees that if

there is no adverse effect on the

wastewater treatment sludge from the

use of this metallization process, then

regulating the sludge as a hazardous

waste based solely on the fact that the

metallization process continues to meet

the narrative listing description of an

electroplating operation may be

imposing regulatory controls

unnecessarily.

Further, the Agency believes that this

innovative metallization process is

environmentally superior to the old

process it replaces, i.e., the aluminum

chemical vapor deposition process. Not

only is the metallization process 30 to

40% more energy efficient than the old

process and the chips produced are

approximately 25% more energy

efficient, there are also environmental

benefits realized by discontinuing the

use of the old process. While the

metallization process generates a

wastewater stream (and subsequent

sludge from the treatment of that

wastewater) that was not inherent to the

aluminum chemical vapor deposition

process, the old vapor deposition

process entailed a cleaning step that

used perfluorinated compounds (PFCs),

which are global warming gases. The

aluminum chemical vapor deposition

process basically uses vaporized metal

(in this case, aluminum) that is then

deposited on the wafer, all of which

occurs in ‘‘chambers.’’ The vaporized

metal also gets deposited on the insides

of these chambers, which must

periodically be cleaned of this metal

coating. Thus, by replacing the old

process with the metallization process,

10,000 metric tons of carbon equivalent

(MTCE) of global warming gases will not

be emitted to the air. However, it should

be noted that, due to the nature of the

materials and components involved in

the semiconductor manufacturing

process, the vapor deposition process

cannot be completely eliminated from

the production line, nor can the

subsequent cleaning steps. (However,

the number of cleaning steps requiring

the use of PFCs has been significantly

reduced and will continue to be reduced

by the conversion to the innovative

copper metallization process. The vapor

deposition chambers, therefore, are a

major focus in measuring the reduction

in global warming gases.) Nevertheless,

the Agency believes that the use of the

innovative copper metallization process

should be encouraged where possible.

(Also, as stated earlier, IBM has

developed an alternative cleaning

process that uses dilute nitrogen

trifluoride (NF3) as a replacement for the

PFCs. The dilute NF3 is reported to have

a much lower impact on global warming

than the PFCs that would otherwise be

used.)

From a public policy standpoint, it

would not serve to encourage

manufacturers to employ less-hazardous

or more environmentally friendly and

innovative production processes and

ingredients in manufacturing operations

if the Agency is unwilling to revisit

existing hazardous waste listings to

determine if the wastes resulting from

such innovative process changes still

warrant a hazardous waste listing. This

XL project offers the Agency the

opportunity to consider proactively the

appropriate regulatory status of the

wastewater treatment sludges generated

from an innovative production process

before it is widely used and

commonplace and may serve as a

precedent for other listed wastestreams.

Additionally, the Agency believes that

to the extent the implementation of the

hazardous waste regulations, including

the actual requirements as well as the

costs and administrative burdens, are

directly related to the hazards being

posed by the waste being regulated, this

will improve the overall

implementation of the program and

compliance with the regulations. Just as

it is important to ensure that those

wastes that can pose significant risk to

human health and the environment are

properly controlled and managed, it is

also important to not needlessly subject

wastes that do not pose such risks to the

same type of regulatory oversight.

F. How Have Various Stakeholders Been

Involved in This Project?

IBM has established an appropriate

stakeholder group to develop the Final

Project Agreement for this XL pilot

project and to evaluate IBM’s plan and

progress in implementing the project.

IBM has solicited input on this project

from a wide range of stakeholders

including local and national

environmental groups, neighborhood

associations, and industry trade

associations. Stakeholders have been

notified of this project by direct mail,

telephone, and notification in the local

press.

In addition, IBM has conducted a

series of meetings with select

stakeholders who have agreed to serve

as commenters for this project. They

have been briefed on the proposal, and

are supportive of the project as

described. The State of Vermont also

supports the project and is a Project

Signatory to the Agreement. Stakeholder

meetings were held at the IBM facility

on February 17 and March 24, 2000.

IBM has kept an open dialogue with

interested stakeholders since the

project’s inception and will continue to

involve any interested stakeholders in

the project’s development. In addition,

EPA and IBM will make all projectrelated documents and events publically

accessible through announcements,

EPA’s web site and public dockets.

G. How Will This Project Result in Cost

Savings and Paperwork Reduction?

As stated earlier, introducing the

rinsewaters from the metallization

process into the wastewater treatment

system has caused the entire volume of

wastewater treatment sludge to be

defined as a hazardous waste, increasing

the facility’s waste management costs by

approximately $3,500/year. Removing

the hazardous waste designation will

eliminate this expenditure. Also, as

discussed earlier, the State of Vermont

has waived the waste tax that would

otherwise apply to IBM’s generation of

F006 waste (approximately $225,000/

year). (Note that the State of Vermont is

not authorized to do hazardous waste

delistings which could change the

regulatory status of the sludge from a

listed hazardous waste to a

nonhazardous waste; however, the State

has more flexibility in assessing

hazardous waste generation taxes. Had

the State not granted this tax waiver, the

cost savings associated with this

specific XL project would be considered

significant.) Finally, IBM expects to see

cost savings of $100,000 to $200,000 per

year when the conversion to the copper

metallization process has been fully

implemented. The sources of these cost

savings include reduced material costs

(e.g., reduction in the use and resultant

purchase of PFCs) and reduced energy

expenditures.

Because the IBM Vermont facility will

continue to be regulated as a Large

Quantity Generator due to the volume of

hazardous wastes generated at other

37746 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules

parts of the facility, and because there

is no State hazardous waste tax being

applied, the actual reduction in

paperwork and cost savings related to

waste management are not significant.

The wastewater treatment sludge will

no longer be considered a hazardous

waste (unless the sludge otherwise

exhibits a characteristic of hazardous

waste) and so will not have to be

counted in the facility’s annual report.

While this reduction in reported

hazardous waste generated will

certainly improve the facility’s public

image, it will save only a little time and

money in preparing the annual report

for the hazardous wastes generated by

other facility operations.

There are also cost savings realized by

not having to use a hazardous waste

transporter or hazardous waste manifest

to ship the sludge off-site for further

management. Also, because the sludges

are currently shipped to Canada for

treatment and disposal, IBM must

currently file an annual ‘‘Request for

Export of Hazardous Waste’’ with

Canada, requiring 2 hours of

engineering time, as well as several

hours of phone calls and follow-up to

ensure the application is expeditiously

processed. Such an application and

expenditure of resources is not needed

if the sludges being shipped to Canada

are not hazardous wastes.

EPA, as well as VTDEC, will also

benefit from some paperwork reduction

and cost savings by not having to

process and track the manifests and

export documents that will otherwise

have to be processed without this XL

project.

In considering the cost savings and

paperwork reduction associated with

this XL project, it is important to

consider the potential impacts if this

pilot project proves successful and the

regulatory flexibility (i.e., the exemption

of the copper metallization unit from

the listing description of F006 wastes) is

promulgated on a national basis. The

conversion to the copper metallization

process represents significant

operational cost savings for IBM. As a

result, on a national level the overall

cost (and paperwork) reduction that

would be realized may be quite

significant, assuming this innovative

technology (or a similar one) is adopted

by more semiconductor manufacturers.

While there is little question that a

national exemption patterned after this

site-specific exemption would result in

cost and paperwork reductions, because

of the variability in how States

implement their waste taxes, or other

mechanisms for raising revenues based

on the hazardous wastes generated in

the State, it is difficult to estimate a

projected savings on such taxes on a

national level.

H. What Are the Terms of the IBM

Vermont XL Project and How Will They

Be Enforced?

As stated earlier, to allow for the

implementation of the XL pilot project,

EPA is today proposing to modify the

current regulatory framework in 40 CFR

261.4(b) to provide a site-specific

exemption for IBM’s copper

metallization process from the narrative

description for F006 listed hazardous

waste (see 40 CFR 261.31(a)), thus

removing the F006 listing designation

from the sludges generated by the

treatment of the wastewaters generated

by the copper metallization process.

VTDEC likewise intends to modify its

State hazardous waste program to allow

for the same removal of the F006 listing

designation from the wastewater

treatment sludge. It should be noted that

the Agency intends that the exemption,

once finalized, will apply to all the

wastewater treatment sludge resulting

from the treatment of the copper

metallization rinsewaters at the site,

including those sludges that are in the

process of being generated, sludges that

result from rinsewaters already in the

wastewater treatment system, and

sludges that have been removed from

the wastewater treatment system and are

being stored pending off-site

transportation.

Through the development of the draft

Final Project Agreement (FPA), IBM has

agreed to comply with several key

criteria as conditions for this exemption,

which will be included in the regulatory

text of the exemption being proposed.

These conditions are focused on proving

the environmental benefits of removing

the F006 listing from the wastewater

treatment sludges (or the

inappropriateness of designating these

wastewater treatment sludges F006

hazardous waste) and to gather the data

and other information that would allow

the Agency to make a determination

regarding the possible future adoption

of this site-specific exemption as a

nationwide generic exemption. IBM has

also agreed to commit to a good faith

effort to achieve several goals related to

superior environmental performance.

(Note that while achieving these goals is

not being proposed as a condition of the

exemption due to their uncertain nature,

an evaluation of the success of this XL

pilot project will certainly be influenced

by IBM’s success in achieving their

stated goals, as well as the effort

expended to achieve the goals.)

As conditions of the site-specific

exemption, IBM must report on the

following:

(1) IBM must analyze the plating bath

and rinsewaters generated from the

copper metallization process. The

analysis must be conducted on samples

that are representative of rinsewaters

and plating baths associated with all the

tools that are converted to the copper

metallization process and will measure

for the presence of volatiles, semivolatiles, and metals (using the methods

specified in 40 CFR part 264, appendix

IX) in both the plating bath and

rinsewaters. IBM must collect, analyze

and submit this data twice a year (by

January 15 and July 15 of each year).

(2) In addition, IBM must report on

the status of the greenhouse gas

emission reduction project at the

facility. This will include greenhouse

gas reductions achieved from the

conversion to the copper metallization

process and IBM’s additional voluntary

initiative to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions from its other chamber

cleaning processes. IBM will track usage

of C2F6, the primary PFC used in the

chamber cleaning operation, and

estimate the reduction in PFC emissions

based on the reduction in chemical

usage. Likewise, IBM will provide

similar data for the chemicals that

replace the C2F6, specifically, dilute

nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and dilute

C2F6, including the quantity of NF3 used

in the cleaning process, and the carbon

equivalent potential of the NF3 to

calculate the global warming impact of

the converted processes. IBM will report

on the number of chambers converted

during the reporting period and

remaining to be converted to achieve the

site global warming gas emission

reduction goal along with an update of

the calculated greenhouse gas emission

reductions for the facility, both in terms

of total mass emitted and mass emitted

normalized to production. Submissions

of these data are likewise due twice a

year, by January 15 and July 15 in

conjunction with the plating bath and

rinsewater analyses.

In addition, IBM commits to monitor

copper concentrations in its wastewater

effluent for conformance with their

current NPDES (National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System) permit.

IBM’s stated goal is to maintain copper

concentrations in the effluent discharge

of less than 40% of the discharge limit.

I. How Long Will This Project Last and

When Will It Be Completed?

This project will be in effect for five

years from the date that the final

rulemaking becomes effective (the latter

of the EPA final rule or the VTDEC final

rule) unless it is terminated earlier or

extended by all Project Signatories (if

the FPA is extended, the comments and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37747

input of stakeholders will be sought and

a Federal Register notice will be

published). Any Project Signatory may

terminate its participation in this project

at any time in accordance with the

procedures set forth in the FPA. The

project will be completed at the

conclusion of the five-year anniversary

of the final rulemaking or at a time

earlier or later determined by the

amount of information gathered to date

and the interest of the parties involved.

Upon completion of the project term,

EPA and VTDEC commit to evaluating

the project. If the project results indicate

that it was a success, EPA will consider

transferring the regulatory flexibility (or

some similar flexibility) to the national

RCRA program (through rulemaking

procedures). Should the project results

indicate that the project was not

successful, EPA will promulgate a rule

to remove the site-specific exemption.

Absent any regulatory action on the part

of the Agency, the implementing rule

(i.e., the site-specific exemption) will

remain in effect as long as IBM

continues to meet its conditions (i.e.,

EPA and VTDEC intend to allow IBM to

continue operating under the sitespecific rule). However, as for any

conditional exemption, if at any time,

should IBM fail to meet the conditions

of the site-specific exemption, the

exemption is not applicable. Also, the

Agency may promulgate a rule to

withdraw the exemption at any time,

subject to the procedures agreed to in

the Final Project Agreement (FPA),

including, but not limited to, a

substantial failure on the part of any

Project Signatory to comply with the

terms and conditions of the FPA or if

the exemption becomes inconsistent

with future statutory or regulatory

requirements.

IV. Additional Information

A. How To Request a Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held, if

requested, to provide an opportunity for

interested persons to make oral

presentations regarding this regulation

in accordance with 40 CFR part 25.

Persons wishing to make an oral

presentation on the site-specific rule to

implement the IBM Vermont XL project

should contact Mr. John Moskal or Mr.

George Frantz of the EPA New England

office, at the address given in the

ADDRESSES section of this document.

Any member of the public may file a

written statement before the hearing, or

after the hearing, to be received by EPA

no later than June 30, 2000. Written

statements should be sent to EPA at the

addresses given in the ADDRESSES

section of this document. If a public

hearing is held, a verbatim transcript of

the hearing, and written statements

provided at the hearing will be available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours at the EPA

addresses for docket inspection given in

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

B. How Does This Rule Comply With

Executive Order 12866?

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993) the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to Office of Management and

Budget (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 in

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 entitlement, grants, user fees,

or loan programs of 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.

Because the annualized cost of this

final rule will be significantly less than

$100 million and will not meet any of

the other criteria specified in the

Executive Order, it has been determined

that this rule is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under the terms of

Executive Order 12866, and is therefore

not subject to OMB review.

Executive Order 12866 also

encourages agencies to provide a

meaningful public comment period, and

suggests that in most cases the comment

period should be 60 days. However, in

consideration of the very limited scope

of today’s rulemaking and the

considerable public involvement in the

development of the proposed Final

Project Agreement, EPA considers 30

days to be sufficient in providing a

meaningful public comment period for

today’s action.

C. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Required?

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),

5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires

an agency to conduct a regulatory

flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking

requirements 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 not-forprofit enterprises, and small

governmental jurisdictions. This rule

will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities

because it only affects the IBM facility

in Essex Junction, VT and it is not a

small entity. Therefore, EPA certifies

that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

D. Is an Information Collection Request

Required for This Project Under the

Paperwork Reduction Act?

This action applies only to one

facility, and therefore requires no

information collection activities subject

to the Paperwork Reduction Act, and

therefore no information collection

request (ICR) will be submitted to OMB

for review in compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501, et seq.

E. Does This Project Trigger the

Requirements of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act?

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, 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

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 costeffective 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 of 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

37748 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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.

As noted above, this rule is applicable

only to one facility in Vermont. EPA has

determined that this rule contains no

regulatory requirements that might

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. EPA has also 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.

Thus, today’s rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA.

F. RCRA & Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments of 1984

1. Applicability of Rules in Authorized

States

Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA

may authorize qualified States to

administer and enforce the RCRA

program for hazardous waste within the

State. (See 40 CFR part 271 for the

standards and requirements for

authorization.) States with final

authorization administer their own

hazardous waste programs in lieu of the

Federal program. Following

authorization, EPA retains enforcement

authority under sections 3008, 7003 and

3013 of RCRA.

After authorization, Federal rules

written under RCRA (non-HSWA), no

longer apply in the authorized state

except for those issued pursuant to the

Hazardous and Solid Waste Act

Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New

Federal requirements imposed by those

rules 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 nonauthorized

States. EPA is directed to carry out

HSWA requirements and prohibitions in

authorized States until the State is

granted authorization to do so.

2. Effect on Vermont Authorization

Today’s proposed rule, if finalized,

will be promulgated pursuant to nonHSWA authority, rather than HSWA.

Vermont has received authority to

administer most of the RCRA program;

thus, authorized provisions of the

State’s hazardous waste program are

administered in lieu of the Federal

program. Vermont has received

authority to administer the regulations

that specifically identify hazardous

wastes by listing them. As a result, if

today’s proposed rule to modify the

listing for F006 hazardous waste is

finalized, it would not be effective in

Vermont until the State adopts the

modification. It is EPA’s understanding

that subsequent to the promulgation of

this rule, Vermont intends to propose

rules or other legal mechanisms to

provide the exemption for the copper

metallization process from the F006

listing description. EPA may not enforce

these requirements until it approves the

State requirements as a revision to the

authorized State program.

G. How Does This Rule Comply With

Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks?

The 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 rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it is not an

economically significant rule, as defined

by Executive Order 12866, and because

it does not involve decisions based on

environmental health or safety risks.

H. Does This Rule Comply With

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.’’

Under section 6 of Executive Order

13132, EPA may not issue a regulation

that has federalism implications, that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs, and that is not required by statute,

unless the Federal government provides

funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by State and

local governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the regulation.

EPA may also not issue a regulation that

has federalism implications and that

preempts State law, unless the Agency

consults with the State and local

officials early in the process of

developing the regulation.

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 level

of government, as specified in Executive

Order 13132. The exemption outlined in

today’s proposed rule will not take

effect unless Vermont chooses to adopt

the rule or other legal implementing

mechanism. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule. Although section 6 of

Executive Order 13132 does not apply

to this rule, EPA did fully coordinate

and consult with the state and local

officials in developing this rule.

I. How Does This Rule Comply With

Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments?

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments. If the mandate is

unfunded, EPA must provide to the

Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of EPA’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order

13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected and

other representatives of Indian tribal

governments to provide meaningful and

timely input in the development of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37749

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities. Today’s rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. There are no communities

of Indian tribal governments located in

the vicinity of the facility. Accordingly,

the requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

J. Does This Rule Comply With the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act?

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272

note) directs EPA to use voluntary

consensus standards in its regulatory

activities unless to do so would be

inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures, and

business practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standard. This

proposed rulemaking does not involve

technical standards. Therefore, EPA is

not considering the use of any voluntary

consensus standards. EPA welcomes

comments on this aspect of the

proposed rulemaking and, specifically,

invites the public to identify

potentially-applicable voluntary

consensus standards and to explain why

such standards should be used in this

regulation.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

Environmental protection, Hazardous

materials, Recycling, Waste treatment

and disposal.

Dated: June 8, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, part 261 of Chapter I of Title

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

1. The authority citation for part 261

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,

6922, 6924(y), and 6938.

2. Section 261.4 is amended by

adding paragraph (b)(16) to read as

follows:

§ 261.4 Exclusions.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(16) Sludges resulting from the

treatment of wastewaters (not including

spent plating solutions) generated by the

copper metallization process at the

International Business Machines

Corporation (IBM) semiconductor

manufacturing facility in Essex

Junction, VT, are exempt from the F006

listing, provided that:

(i) IBM provides the Agency with

semi-annual reports (by January 15 and

July 15 of each year) detailing

constituent analyses measuring the

concentrations of volatiles, semivolatiles, and metals using methods

presented in part 264, Appendix IX of

this chapter of both the plating solution

utilized by, and the rinsewaters

generated by, the copper metallization

process;

(ii) IBM provides the agency with

semi-annual reports (by January 15 and

July 15 of each year), through the year

2004, or when IBM has achieved its

facility wide goal of a 50% reduction in

greenhouse gas emissions from a 1995

base year (when normalized to

production), whichever is first, that

contain the following:

(A) Estimated greenhouse gas

emissions, and estimated greenhouse

gas emission reductions. Greenhouse

gas emissions will be reported in terms

of total mass emitted and mass emitted

normalized to production; and

(B) The number of chemical vapor

deposition chambers used in the

semiconductor manufacturing

production line that have been

converted to either low flow C2F6 or NF3

during the reporting period and the

number of such chambers remaining to

be converted to achieve the facility goal

for global warming gas emission

reductions.

(iii) No significant changes are made

to the copper metallization process such

that any of the constituents listed in 40

CFR part 261, appendix VII as the basis

for the F006 listing are introduced into

the process.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–15154 Filed 6–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 52

[CC Docket No. 99–200; FCC 00–104]

Numbering Resource Optimization

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Further notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document seeks further

comments on the following matters:

Thousands-block number pooling;

charging for numbering resources;

utilization thresholds for carriers, and

consideration of a transition period for

wireless service providers

implementation of thousand-block

number pooling. The foregoing issues

were addressed in a previous proposed

rule; however, the comments and

information received were insufficient

for the agency to proceed on these

matters. Therefore, the agency has

formulated further questions and is now

seeking additional comment.

DATES: Comments are due June 30, 2000,

and reply comments are due July 7,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Secretary, 445 12th Street,

SW, Room TW–B204F, Washington, DC

20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Aaron Goldberger, (202) 418–2320 or email at agoldberg@fcc.gov or Cheryl

Callahan at (202) 418–2320 or

ccallaha@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted

on March 17, 2000, and released on

March 31, 2000. The full text of this

Report and Order and Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center, 445 12th Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20554. Comments and

reply comments will be available for

public inspection during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center. The complete text may also be

obtained through the world wide web,

at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/

CommonCarrier/Orders, or may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20036.

Synopsis of the Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking

1. In this Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (FNPRM), we seek further

comment on what specific utilization

threshold carriers not participating in

thousands-block number pooling

carriers should meet in order to request

growth numbering resources.

Commenters that offered a specific

utilization threshold suggested that

utilization thresholds should be set as

low as 60% and as high as 90%.

However, very little information was