Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 212 / Monday, November 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 59287

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(197)(i)(D) and

(c)(241)(i)(A)(2) to read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(197) * * *

(i) * * *

(D) Ventura County Air Pollution

Control District.

(1) Rule 74.24, adopted on March 8,

1994.

* * * * *

(241) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(2) Rule 67.4, revised on May 15,

1996.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–29050 Filed 10–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 260

[FRL–5916–3]

Project XL Site-Specific Rulemaking

for Molex, Inc., 700 Kingbird Road

Facility, Lincoln, NE

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to

implement a project under the Project

XL program for the Molex, Inc. (Molex)

facility located at 700 Kingbird Road,

Lincoln, NE. The terms of the project are

defined in a draft Final Project

Agreement (FPA) which is being made

available for public review and

comment by this document. Also, EPA

is making available for informational

purposes a draft variance by the

Nebraska Department of Environmental

Quality necessary for implementation of

the project. In addition, EPA is today

promulgating a direct final site-specific

rule, applicable only to the Molex

facility, to facilitate implementation of

the project. Also in today’s Federal

Register, EPA is publishing a proposed

rule identical to this direct final rule. By

this document, EPA solicits comment

on the direct final rule, the draft

variance, the draft FPA, and the project

generally. Public notice is also being

provided locally.

This direct final site-specific rule is

intended to provide regulatory changes

under the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA) to implement

Molex’s XL project, which will result in

superior environmental performance

and, at the same time, provide Molex

with greater operational flexibility. The

flexibility provided by Project XL will

allow the facility to segregate waste

streams which had previously been comingled into a single waste stream. By

changing the process lines to generate

separate waste streams (nickel, copper,

tin/lead), the facility can optimize the

precipitation of each metal more

effectively before the effluent is sent to

the POTW. The environmental benefit

from the project will be a substantial

reduction in the mass loading of metals

entering the City of Lincoln’s POTW. In

addition, the resultant mono-metal

sludges will be commodity-like

materials suitable for recycling by

smelters. A secondary environmental

benefit will be increased recycling and

reducing the amount of material that

would otherwise be landfilled. The sitespecific rule, applicable only to the

Molex facility, would change certain

RCRA requirements so the

implementing agency, the Nebraska

Department of Environmental Quality,

may issue a temporary variance from

classifying as solid waste nickel, copper,

and tin/lead non-precious metals

containing sludges generated by Molex.

DATES: This action will be effective

January 2, 1998, unless adverse

comments are received by December 3,

1997. If the effective date is delayed,

timely notice will be published in the

Federal Register.

Public Hearing. A public hearing will

be held, if requested, to provide

interested persons an opportunity for

oral presentation of data, views, or

arguments concerning this direct final

rule to implement Molex’s XL project. If

anyone contacts the EPA requesting to

speak at a public hearing by November

24, 1997, a public hearing will be held

at 7:00 p.m. on December 15, 1997. EPA

will determine no later than November

28, 1997 whether a public hearing will

be held. Additional information is

provided in the section entitled

ADDRESSES.

Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons

wishing to present oral testimony must

contact Mr. David Doyle at the EPA by

November 24, 1997. Additional

information is provided in the section

entitled ADDRESSES.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written

comments should be submitted in

duplicate to: Mr. David Doyle, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region VII, Air, RCRA & Toxics

Division, 726 Minnesota Avenue,

Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551–7667.

Docket. A docket containing

supporting information used in

developing this direct final rulemaking

is available for public inspection and

copying at U.S. EPA, Region VII, Air,

RCRA & Toxics Division, 726 Minnesota

Avenue, during normal business hours,

and at EPA’s Water docket (Docket

name ‘‘XL–Molex’’); 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460. For access to the

Water docket materials, call (202) 260–

3027 between 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.

(Eastern time) for an appointment. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying. A docket is also available for

public inspection at the Nebraska

Department of Environmental Quality,

Lincoln, NE.

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is

held, it will be held at 7:00 p.m. on

December 15, 1997 at the following

location: Nebraska Department of

Environmental Quality, Lincoln, NE.

Persons interested in whether a hearing

will be held should contact Mr. David

Doyle, (913) 551–7667, after November

28, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

David Doyle, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region VII, Air,

RCRA & Toxics Division, 726 Minnesota

Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101, (913)

551–7667.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Outline of This Document

I. Authority

II. Background

A. Overview of Project XL

B. Overview of the Molex XL Project

1. Introduction

2. Molex XL Project Description

3. Environmental Benefits

4. Stakeholder Involvement

III. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Requirements

IV. Additional Information

A. Public Hearing

B. Executive Order 12866

C. Regulatory Flexibility

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

I. Authority

This regulation is being promulgated

under the authority of sections 1004,

2002, 3001–3007, and 3010 of the Solid

Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as amended

by the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.

6903, 6912, 6921–6927, and 6930).

II. Background

A. Overview of Project XL

This site-specific rule is designed to

implement a project developed under

Project XL, an important EPA initiative

to allow regulated entities to achieve

better environmental results at less cost.
59288 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 212 / Monday, November 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Project XL—for ‘‘eXcellence and

Leadership’’—was announced on March

16, 1995, as a central part of the

National Performance Review’s and

EPA’s effort to reinvent environmental

protection. See 60 FR 27282 (May 23,

1995). In addition, on April 22, 1997,

EPA modified its guidance on Project

XL, solicited new XL proposals,

clarified EPA definitions, and described

changes intended to bring greater

efficiency to the process of developing

XL projects. See 62 FR 19872 (April 22,

1997).

Project XL provides a limited number

of private and public regulated entities

an opportunity to develop their own

pilot projects to provide 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

the Agency’s ability to test new

regulatory strategies that reduce

regulatory burden and promote

economic growth while achieving better

environmental and public health

protection. The Agency intends to

evaluate the results of this and other

Project XL projects to determine which

specific elements of the project, if any,

should be more broadly applied to other

regulated entities to the benefit of both

the economy and the environment.

In 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. To participate in Project

XL, applicants must develop alternative

pollution reduction strategies 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. They must have full support of

affected Federal, state and tribal

agencies to be selected. The XL program

is intended to allow EPA to experiment

with untried, 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 required to undertake 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 statutes that

it implements. EPA may also modify

rules 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 finding

out whether or not they are viable in

practice and successful in the particular

projects that embody them.

Furthermore, as EPA indicated in

announcing the XL program, the Agency

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 (so long as 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 sections 101(b) and

103 of the Clean Air Act. In some cases,

as in this XL project, such

experimentation requires an alternative

regulatory approach that, while

permissible under the statute, was not

the one adopted by EPA historically or

for general purposes.

B. Overview of the Molex XL Project

1. Introduction

Today’s direct final site-specific rule

supports a Project XL draft Final Project

Agreement (FPA) and the Nebraska

Department of Environmental Quality

draft variance that have been developed

by the Molex XL stakeholder group,

namely Molex, Inc. (Molex), EPA,

Nebraska Department of Environmental

Quality (NDEQ), Lincoln/Lancaster

County Health Department and the City

of Lincoln, NE. The draft FPA and

NDEQ draft variance are available for

review in the docket for today’s action

and also are available on the world wide

web at http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL.

The proposed FPA outlines how the

project addresses the eight Project XL

criteria, in particular how the project

will produce, measure, monitor, report,

and demonstrate superior

environmental benefits. The NDEQ draft

variance is the implementation

mechanism for the project.

In today’s action, the Agency is

soliciting comment on the site-specific

regulatory changes to implement the

project. EPA also seeks comment on the

proposed FPA, which is available on the

world wide web and in the docket file

for today’s action, in light of the criteria

outlined in the Agency’s May 23, 1995,

Federal Register notice (60 FR 27282)

regarding Regulatory Reinvention (XL)

Pilot Projects and April 22, 1997

Federal Register notice (62 FR 19872)

Those criteria are: (1) Environmental

performance superior to what would be

achieved through compliance with

current and reasonably anticipated

future regulations; (2) cost savings or

economic opportunity, and/or decreased

paperwork burden; (3) stakeholder

support; (4) test of innovative strategies

for achieving environmental results; (5)

approaches that could be evaluated for

future broader application; (6) technical

and administrative feasibility; (7)

mechanisms for monitoring, reporting,

and evaluation; and (8) consistency with

Executive Order 12898 on

Environmental Justice (avoidance of

shifting of risk burden).

2. Molex XL Project Description

Molex is a multinational company

that operates several electroplating

facilities worldwide. Molex as part of its

proposal has upgraded its facility in

Lincoln, NE by changing its waste water

treatment system to allow it to optimize

the recovery of metals used in the

electroplating processes. Once operating

this system under the project, the

primary environmental benefit will be

the reduction of metals loading in the

effluent discharges into the publicly

owned treatment works (POTW). A

secondary environmental benefit will be

increased recycling and reducing the

amount of material that would

otherwise be landfarmed.

This project is an alternative

environmental compliance strategy that

encompasses technical changes to the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 212 / Monday, November 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 59289

facility’s wastewater treatment system,

environmental improvements in the

effluent to the POTW, regulatory relief

for the facility for storage and shipment

of wastes, and documentation of the

technical, environmental and economic

impacts of the alternative strategy.

The facility generates several metalsbearing wastewater streams that

formerly were brought together for

combined treatment. Metals recovery in

such a system is limited because each

metal has its own optimal set of

treatment conditions. At its new facility

Molex is operating a segregated

treatment system that separately treats

each metal waste stream to optimize the

precipitation of each metal contaminant

to more effectively remove metals from

the effluent to the POTW. Molex has

made its investment in the system in

anticipation of its participation in the

XL program and the regulatory relief it

will provide. At the new facility Molex

changed the process lines to generate

separate treatment sludges for nickel,

copper, and tin/lead. The environmental

benefit will be a substantial reduction in

the mass loading of metals entering the

City of Lincoln’s POTW. In addition, the

resultant mono-metal sludges will be

commodity-like materials suitable for

recycling by smelters. However, the

segregated system will cost more to

operate than a combined treatment

system. Additionally, the segregated

system will result in increased costs

from compliance with the current

regulations for handling the resultant

sludges. Currently, Molex is handling

the sludges as hazardous wastes.

Without the regulatory relief provided

in this project, Molex will not be able

to financially justify continued

operation of the segregated system.

3. Environmental Benefits

This project supports goals of both the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act

(FWPCA), Nebraska Surface Water

Quality Standards, Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

and the Nebraska Hazardous Waste

Management Program.

This project supports the FWPCA and

Nebraska Surface Water Quality

Standards goals to restore and maintain

the chemical, physical and biological

integrity of the Nation’s and State’s

waters. Specifically, this project reduces

the metals loading effluent into the City

of Lincoln, NE’s POTW, thus reducing

metals discharges from the POTW into

the nation’s and State’s waters and

metals constituents in the POTW sludge

that ultimately is landfarmed.

Additionally, the reduced loading

maintains the reserve treatment capacity

of the POTW, thus deferring the

replacement or enlargement of the

publicly financed construction.

This project also supports the RCRA

and Nebraska Hazardous Waste

Management Program goals of resource

recovery and conservation. Specifically,

this project results in direct recycling of

mono-metals bearing sludges by

smelters, which will decrease the need

for mining of ores or other virgin

materials, thus conserving mineral

resources and reducing the amount of

materials that would otherwise be

landfarmed.

4. Stakeholder Involvement

The participating stakeholders are the

signatories to this FPA. In addition, the

Lincoln/Lancaster County Health

Department and the City of Lincoln,

Nebraska have supported the

development of this project. Also, the

public has been notified from the outset

of this project and invited to participate,

and will continue to be informed as the

project is implemented through

dissemination of the reports submitted

by Molex to NDEQ and EPA.

III. Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act Requirements

A. Summary of Regulatory Changes for

the Molex XL Project

The NDEQ hazardous waste program

has been authorized by EPA pursuant to

the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA) Section 3006(b)

and 40 CFR Part 271, to carry out the

Nebraska program in lieu of the Federal

hazardous waste program. Sludges from

Molex’s former combined treatment

system contain copper, nickel, tin, lead,

and gold. The gold content of the

materials has allowed Molex to handle

the combined treatment sludge as

‘‘recyclable materials’’ from which

precious metals are reclaimed under

Title 128, Rules and Regulations

Governing Hazardous Waste

Management in Nebraska, Chapter 7,

Section 010.

Except for a small quantity of sludge

generated from the gold plating

operation, the sludges at the new facility

will not contain precious metals and

therefore will not qualify as ‘‘recyclable

material’’ from which precious metals

are reclaimed. As such, in the absence

of this regulatory relief, the materials

will be subject to the NDEQ Title 128

generator requirements for storage and

shipment of hazardous wastes, at

considerably greater expense for storage,

shipment and disposal/recycling as

compared to the precious metals

exemption. With the regulatory relief,

Molex will be allowed to handle the

non-precious mono-metals sludges as a

commodity-like material with

substantially reduced regulatory

compliance costs.

To accomplish the regulatory relief,

the U.S. EPA today is promulgating a

direct final site-specific rule to amend

40 CFR 260.31(c), which provides that

authorized state agencies may:

‘‘* * * grant requests for a variance from

classifying as a solid waste those materials

that have been reclaimed but must be

reclaimed further before recovery is

completed if, after initial reclamation, the

resulting material is commodity-like (even

though it is not yet a commercial product,

and has to be reclaimed further).’’

The federal site-specific rule will

provide that the nickel, copper, and tin/

lead non-precious metals bearing

sludges generated at the Molex facility

may qualify for a regulatory variance

from NDEQ. The site-specific rule will

also provide that the variance may be

issued on a temporary basis by NDEQ.

IV. Additional Information

A. Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held, if

requested, to provide opportunity for

interested persons to make oral

presentations regarding the direct final

rule. Persons wishing to make oral

presentation on the rule to implement

Molex’s XL project should contact the

EPA at the address given in the

ADDRESSES section of this document.

Any member of the public may file a

written statement before, during, or

within 30 days after the hearing. 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 will

be available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours at the

EPA addresses given in the ADDRESSES

section of this document.

B. Executive Order 12866

Because this rule only affects one

facility it is not a rule of general

applicability subject to OMB review

under E.O. 12866. In addition, OMB has

agreed that they do not need to review

site specific rules under Project XL.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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-for-profit enterprises, and
59290 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 212 / Monday, November 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

small governmental jurisdictions. This

rule would not have a significant impact

on a substantial number of small entities

because it only affects one entity, the

Molex facility in Lincoln, NE. Therefore,

EPA certifies that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action applies only to one

company, and therefore requires no

information collection activities subject

to the Paperwork Reduction Act, and

therefore no information collection

request (ICR) will be submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review in compliance with

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.

E. 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 why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

As noted above, this rule is limited to

Molex’s facility in Lincoln, NE. 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 260

Environmental protection, Hazardous

waste, Treatment storage and disposal

facility, Waste determination.

Dated: October 27, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble of this rule, chapter I of title

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 260

continues to read as follows:

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

6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6937, 6938, 6939,

and 6974.

2. Section 260.31 is amended by

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 260.31 Standards and criteria for

variances from classification as a solid

waste.

* * * * *

(d) Pursuant to participation by

Molex, Inc. in the Project XL program

(May 23, 1995 and April 22, 1997), and

for a period not to exceed two years, the

Nebraska Department of Environmental

Quality may grant to the Molex, Inc.

facility located at 700 Kingbird Road in

Lincoln, NE, a temporary variance from

classifying as a solid waste the

commodity-like nickel, copper, and tin/

lead non-precious metals bearing

sludges generated at the facility.

[FR Doc. 97–29052 Filed 10–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket No. FEMA–7673]

List of Communities Eligible for the

Sale of Flood Insurance

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule identifies

communities participating in the

National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP). These communities have

applied to the program and have agreed

to enact certain floodplain management

measures. The communities’

participation in the program authorizes

the sale of flood insurance to owners of

property located in the communities

listed.

EFFECTIVE DATES: The dates listed in the

third column of the table.

ADDRESSES: Flood insurance policies for

property located in the communities

listed can be obtained from any licensed

property insurance agent or broker

serving the eligible community, or from

the NFIP at: Post Office Box 6464,

Rockville, MD 20849, (800) 638–6620.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert F. Shea, Jr., Division Director,

Program Implementation Division,

Mitigation Directorate, 500 C Street SW.,

room 417, Washington, DC 20472, (202)

646–3619.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP

enables property owners to purchase

flood insurance which is generally not

otherwise available. In return,

communities agree to adopt and

administer local floodplain management

measures aimed at protecting lives and

new construction from future flooding.

Since the communities on the attached

list have recently entered the NFIP,

subsidized flood insurance is now

available for property in the community.

In addition, the Associate Director of

the Federal Emergency Management

Agency has identified the special flood

hazard areas in some of these

communities by publishing a Flood

Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) or Flood

Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of

the flood map, if one has been

published, is indicated in the fourth

column of the table. In the communities

listed where a flood map has been

published, Section 102 of the Flood

Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. 4012(a), requires

the purchase of flood insurance as a

condition of Federal or federally related

financial assistance for acquisition or

construction of buildings in the special

flood hazard areas shown on the map.

The Associate Director finds that the

delayed effective dates would be

contrary to the public interest. The

Associate Director also finds that notice

and public procedure under 5 U.S.C.

553(b) are impracticable and

unnecessary.

National Environmental Policy Act.

This rule is categorically excluded from