[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 9, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23617-23625]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11670]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[FRL-6976-8]
RIN 2090-AA19


Project XL Site-Specific Rulemaking for the Autoliv ASP Inc. 
Facility in Promontory, Utah

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is implementing a project under the Project XL program 
that will provide site-specific regulatory flexibility under the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), for the Autoliv ASP Inc. 
(Autoliv) facility in Promontory, Utah. The terms of the XL project are 
defined in a Final Project Agreement (``FPA'') which has been available 
for public review and comment. (See 65 FR 49571, August 14, 2000). 
Following a review of the public comments, the FPA was signed by 
Autoliv, Box Elder County, the state of Utah, and EPA on September 20, 
2000. EPA is today publishing a final rule, applicable only to the 
Promontory Facility, to facilitate implementation of the XL project. 
The principal objective of this XL Project is to explore the benefits 
of a more streamlined and flexible RCRA regulation of pyrotechnic 
hazardous wastes from the automobile airbag industry that are treated 
in industrial furnaces. Today's final rule is an outgrowth of the 
proposed rule published on February 13, 2001 See 66 FR 9992. Today's 
action provides regulatory flexibility to Autoliv in the form of a 
conditional exemption from the definition of hazardous waste. It is 
conditioned on Autoliv's compliance with air emission and waste 
management requirements that have been developed under this XL project. 
The air emission and waste management requirements are set forth in 
today's final rule. Today's action is intended to provide site-specific 
regulatory changes to implement this XL project. The EPA the state of 
Utah and Autoliv expect this XL project to result in superior 
environmental performance while providing cost savings and paperwork 
reduction for both Autoliv and the state of Utah.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 9, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Docket: Three dockets contain supporting information used in 
developing this final rule, and are available for public inspection and 
copying at the EPA's docket office located at Crystal Gateway, 1235 
Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, Virginia. 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-2001-AUFP-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, Region 8 Library, First Floor, 
999 18th Street, CO 80202-2466 during normal business hours. Persons 
wishing to view the duplicate docket at the Denver location are 
encouraged to contact Ms. Mary Byrne in advance, by telephoning (303) 
312-6491 or by email at or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f3d262d313a71323e2d261f3a2f3e71383029"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e4c575c404b00434f5c576e4b5e4f00494158">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Mary Byrne, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 
80202-2466 or Mr. Ted Cochin, Office of Environmental Policy 
Innovation, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (1802), Washington, 
DC 20460. Further information on today's action may also be obtained on 
the world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/. Questions to EPA 
regarding Today's action can be directed to Ms. Byrne at (303) 312-6491 
or Mr. Cochin at (202) 260-0880.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The development and implementation of on-
site treatment would be piloted at Autoliv's Promontory, Utah facility 
using the existing metals recovery furnace with air pollution controls 
instead of sending the materials off-site to be open burned. This pilot 
is intended to test the effectiveness of on-site treatment of 
automobile airbag waste pyrotechnics in Autoliv's Metals Recovery 
Furnace (MRF). These automobile airbag waste pyrotechnics generated on-
site at the Autoliv facility, are currently regulated as reactive 
hazardous wastes (waste code D003).
    The pilot will determine whether this approach promotes better 
treatment of the waste pyrotechnics than the current method of open 
burning. Autoliv will comply with many of the general facility 
standards of RCRA, and is not seeking relief from all RCRA management 
protections. Through this project, Autoliv intends to be able to treat 
waste

[[Page 23618]]

pyrotechnics, generated on-site, without obtaining a RCRA permit from 
the state of Utah. A RCRA permit is normally required for thermal 
destruction of hazardous waste in an industrial furnace. The waste as 
referenced in Autoliv's Project Proposal is reactive only and does not 
contain significant amounts of hazardous constituents listed in 40 CFR 
Part 261, for more detailed information on waste composition please see 
http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/Autoliv/page2.htm.
    Today's action provides a ``conditional exemption'' from the 
definition of hazardous waste, for the specific waste that is subject 
to this site-specific rule. The effect of EPA granting the conditional 
exemption is that a RCRA permit is not required in this specific 
instance. The waste pyrotechnics, generated on-site at the Autoliv 
facility, are now conditionally exempted from regulation as hazardous 
wastes and thus, 40 CFR Parts 262 through 270 when treated in the MRF 
in accordance with the provisions in this site-specific rule. The 
facility will continue to comply with certain general RCRA conditions 
on facility operations, as described in this site-specific rule for the 
Autoliv Facility and any state of Utah regulations that grant the 
conditional exemption. The project signatories believe that processing 
pyrotechnic materials in the MRF can be both cost-effective and achieve 
superior environmental results as compared to open burning and this 
project meets the intent of Project XL. This rule will not in any way 
impact the provisions or applicability of any other existing or future 
regulations.
    The deferral of specified RCRA requirements is in effect only for 
the five-year term of this XL project. Following review of its MRF, 
Autoliv would notify the state of Utah and EPA in writing of the date 
on which it intends to begin treating its pyrotechnic waste in the MRF. 
This rule would become effective in Autoliv's facility only after such 
written notification. Section III.C.2. and IV.F.1. discuss the aspects 
of state implementation of this rule.
    The deferral of the specified RCRA requirements is conditional upon 
Autoliv's implementation and compliance with the conditions set forth 
in 40 CFR 261.4 of this rule. The agreement includes specific 
requirements for the management of Autoliv's waste that ensure 
protection of human health and the environment while providing some 
flexibility to encourage chemical reuse and waste minimization.
    The conditions set forth in this rule are expected to function as 
an outline of the procedures that must be in place to manage waste. The 
deferral of the hazardous waste determination is conditional on 
compliance with all of the requirements of the XL Project. These 
criteria ensure that the handling and disposal of Autoliv's waste would 
be protective of human health and the environment by establishing how 
Autoliv's waste would be treated within its Promontory facility, and in 
transit to the on-site waste accumulation area for Autoliv.
    EPA has agreed to allow Autoliv to undertake this XL project with 
the requested regulatory flexibility to determine if the performance-
based approach would result in superior environmental performance and 
significant cost savings to Autoliv.
    This rule, and the state actions described in Section IV.F.1. of 
this preamble that parallel this action, will not in any way affect the 
provisions or applicability of any other existing or future 
regulations. The XL Project will enter the implementation phase after 
the initial stack test results have been submitted by Autoliv and 
reviewed by both EPA and the state of Utah to ensure adherence to the 
XL Project.

Outline of Today's Document

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Authority
II. Overview of Project XL
III. Overview of the Autoliv XL Project
    A. What Autoliv Facility Does the Rule Apply?
    B. What Are The Environmental Benefits of This Project?
    C. What Regulatory Changes will be Necessary to Implement this 
Project?
    1. Federal Regulatory Changes
    2. State Regulatory Changes
    D. Why is EPA Supporting this New Approach to Autoliv's Waste 
Management?
    E. How Have Various Stakeholders Been Involved in this Project?
    F. How Will this Project Result in Cost Savings and Paperwork 
Reduction?
    G. How Will the Terms of This XL Project and site Specific Rule 
Be Enforced?
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 of 1984
    1. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
    2. Effect on Utah Authorization
    G. How Does this Rule Comply with Executive Order 13045: 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks?
    H. How 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 of 1995 (NTTAA)?
    K. Is EPA required to Submit a Rule Report Under the 
Congressional Review Act?

I. Authority

    EPA is publishing this site specific rule under the authority of 
sections of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y), and 
6938.)

II. Overview of Project XL

    Project XL--``eXcellence and Leadership''--was announced on March 
16, 1995, as a central part of the National Performance Review and the 
EPA'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 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 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 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 allow EPA to experiment with 
potentially promising regulatory approaches, both to assess whether 
they provide benefits

[[Page 23619]]

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, the 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. The 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 or not they are viable in practice and successful in the 
particular projects that embody them. 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.
    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.
    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 Autoliv XL 
project addresses the XL criteria, readers should refer to the Final 
Project Agreement available from the EPA RCRA docket or Region 8 
library for this action (see ADDRESSES section of today's preamble).
    The Project XL program is compartmentalized into four basic phases: 
the initial pre-proposal phase where the project sponsor comes up with 
an innovative concept that they would like to consider as an XL pilot, 
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, the fourth phase where the project sponsor 
works with EPA, local regulatory agencies, and interested stakeholders 
in developing a Final Project Agreement (FPA) and legal mechanism. 
After the FPA has been signed by all designated parties, the XL pilot 
proceeds into the implementation phase and evaluation phase.
    The FPA is a written agreement between the project sponsor and 
regulatory agencies. The FPA contains a detailed description of the 
pilot project. It addresses the eight Project XL criteria, and the 
expectation of the Agency that this XL project will meet those 
criteria. The FPA identifies performance goals and indicators 
(monitoring schedule) which will enable Autoliv to clearly illustrate 
the baseline quantities. The FPA specifically addresses the manner in 
which the project is expected to produce superior environmental 
benefits. The FPA also discusses the administration of the agreement, 
including dispute resolution and termination. The FPA 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 Autoliv XL Project

    Autoliv is proposing to develop, evaluate and implement, an 
alternative to open burning of certain wastes generated at its 
Promontory, Utah facility.
    This waste is reactive only, and contains no significant levels of 
hazardous constituents. These reactive hazardous wastes are presently 
treated through open burning at a RCRA interim status facility.
    Autoliv currently operates a $3 million Metals Recovery Facility 
(MRF) designed to recover aluminum and steel from inflator units 
containing live pyrotechnic material as well as previously fired units. 
The MRF is capable of recovering 2000 pounds per hour of recyclable 
aluminum and steel from off-spec and fired commercial inflator units 
and their components while minimizing the waste to the environment. 
Autoliv's XL Project proposes to process small volumes of its waste 
pyrotechnic materials within the MRF rather than sending the materials 
to a RCRA regulated treatment, storage or disposal facility (TSDF) for 
open burning. The company is seeking a conditional exemption from the 
definition of hazardous waste for pyrotechnic materials to be processed 
through the MRF.
    The MRF has an extensive air pollution train which is capable of 
capturing the particulate emissions produced by the waste pyrotechnic 
materials. This project will demonstrate that it is feasible to utilize 
existing equipment to process certain hazardous wastes in a more 
efficient and environmentally sound manner, under a more flexible 
regulatory framework. With minimal modifications to the operation, 
Autoliv believes that it can achieve a safer, cleaner, and more 
effective method of treatment than the current method of open burning.
    EPA anticipates that this project will provide information on how 
to develop alternative approaches to handling pyrotechnic waste. This 
information will be useful to EPA in learning more about alternative 
treatment approaches for airbag manufacturing wastestreams. This XL 
Project would include conditions for the treatment of Autoliv's wastes 
within Autoliv's Promontory Facility. These criteria will operate at 
Autoliv's Promontory facility in lieu of the requirements found at 40 
CFR 261.4. The conditions are a set of measurable requirements that are 
similar to the current RCRA requirements. Each of the elements of the 
conditions is described in full in today's rule and is briefly 
explained below.
    The requirements for Autoliv's XL Project include a requirement 
that the project include procedures to assure compliance with 
conditions specified in the rule. The conditions set forth for the 
treatment of Autoliv's waste have been designed to ensure that 
Autoliv's waste

[[Page 23620]]

will be treated in a manner protective of human health and the 
environment. The requirements in the conditions include provisions 
which are consistent with current RCRA requirements. Autoliv is 
proposing that EPA explore the benefits of more streamlined and 
flexible RCRA regulation of pyrotechnic hazardous wastes from the 
automobile airbag industry that are treated in industrial furnaces. The 
project signatories agree that this rule can be characterized as a 
conditional exemption from the definition of hazardous waste.
    Autoliv will comply with many of the general facility standards of 
RCRA, and is not seeking relief from all RCRA management protections. 
Through this project Autoliv intends to be able to treat its waste 
pyrotechnic materials on-site without obtaining a RCRA Part B permit 
from the State of Utah that is normally required for thermal treatment. 
The waste as referenced in Autoliv's Project Proposal is reactive only 
and does not contain significant amounts of hazardous constituents (See 
the Environmental Performance Summary Calculations section of the 
Autoliv Proposal at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/Autoliv/page2.htm. for 
more detailed information on waste composition).

A. To What Autoliv Facility Would the Site Specific Rule Apply?

    This site specific rule would apply only to the Autoliv ASP Inc. 
(Autoliv) facility in Promontory, Utah.

B. What Are the Environmental Benefits of This Project?

    This project is designed to achieve environmental results that are 
superior to what is currently achieved by the current RCRA regulatory 
system.
    This project is expected to achieve superior environmental results 
as compared to open burning for several reasons. The major benefit to 
the environment will be from reduced air emissions due to the 
minimization of open burning of hazardous waste. The company has 
arranged for open burning of 183,557 lbs. of pyrotechnic material that 
were not able to be recovered or recycled during 1998 and 1999. The 
uncontrolled particulate emissions are a point of concern for all 
parties involved. Although open burning is an approved method for 
treatment of pyrotechnic wastes it does not utilize any air pollution 
controls. The same pyrotechnic materials, if processed at the MRF, 
would pass through an extensive air pollution control system rather 
than being emitted, thus achieving a significant reduction of air 
pollutants released to the environment, accomplishing superior 
environmental performance compared to open burning. The company 
projects that it can eliminate open burning of 158,000 lbs. of 
pyrotechnic waste material in the first year of project participation. 
It also estimates that a net reduction of 22,876 lbs./yr. of 
particulate emissions would be accomplished.
    Additional environmental benefits are achievable due to the fact 
that certain pyrotechnic formulations contain materials (e.g., copper) 
that could be potentially recovered in the slag as well as in the 
baghouse. These materials could then be recycled back to Autoliv's raw 
material suppliers. The distinctive properties of the pyrotechnic 
materials enable these materials to be treated more efficiently and in 
a manner that creates few air emissions than open burning which 
precludes recycling or recovery of any kind.
    The specifications governing the air bag industry are very 
stringent and do not allow the use of toxic materials. The major gases 
produced by gas generants are water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. The 
percentage of each of these gases can vary depending on the formulation 
but a typical analysis would be approximately 40% nitrogen, 40% water, 
and 20% carbon dioxide. Other gaseous and particulate (metal) compounds 
are present at ppm levels. These include gaseous carbon dioxide (CO), 
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), nitric oxide (NO), and ammonia (NH3), and 
particulate matter containing the metals copper, cobalt, boron, and 
aluminum. The MRF is presently permitted by Utah (DAQE-549-97) to 
operate 24 hours/day, 365 days/year. Actual operation is estimated to 
be 50 percent of the permitted production capacity. A portion of the 
processing capacity will be absorbed by pyrotechnic waste material. 
Minimal changes to the emission streams are expected because the 
pyrotechnic materials are also present within the recycled inflator 
units themselves.

C. What Regulatory Changes Will Be Necessary To Implement This Project?

1. Federal Regulatory Changes
    This site specific rule provides Autoliv with a temporary 
conditional exemption from 40 CFR 261.4. In order to implement this 
project, EPA will grant a conditional exemption from the definition of 
hazardous waste, for the specific waste that is subject to this rule.
    The effect of EPA granting the conditional exemption is that a RCRA 
Part B permit is not required. The waste pyrotechnics, generated on-
site at the Autoliv facility, are now exempted from regulation as a 
hazardous waste exempt from 40 CFR Parts 262 through 270 when treated 
in the MRF in accordance with the provisions in the site-specific rule. 
The facility will continue to comply with certain general RCRA 
conditions on facility operations, as described in this Project XL 
site-specific rule for the Autoliv facility and any State of Utah 
regulations that grant the conditional exemption. The project 
signatories believe that processing pyrotechnic materials in the MRF 
can be both cost-effective and achieve superior environmental results 
as compared to open burning.
    This site-specific rule is necessary to allow for the temporary 
conditional exemption/deferral, and would add exclusion (b)(18) to 40 
CFR 261.4 to clarify that the on-site treatment of Autoliv's wastes 
would be covered by a new section to 40 CFR.
2. State Regulatory Changes
    The State of Utah is authorized under Section 3003 of RCRA (Sec. 
6926. Authorized State Hazardous Waste Programs), to implement the 
federal RCRA Program. The state program operates in lieu of the federal 
program. The Utah hazardous waste management regulations, codified in 
Utah Code of Regulations contain equivalent or more stringent 
requirements as compared to the federal regulations. Autoliv is subject 
to the federal and the Utah regulations, which would include 
requirements that the pyrotechnic waste be handled according to the 
waste management provisions of RCRA. Conforming state regulatory 
changes or legal mechanisms need to be implemented in addition to the 
federal changes in order for this XL Project to proceed.

D. Why Is EPA Supporting This New Approach to Autoliv's Waste 
Treatment?

    EPA is supporting this regulatory model contained in this rule 
because it provides for a degree of environmental protection that is at 
least as protective as that which existing RCRA regulations would 
provide for the Autoliv's Promontory facility. The approach to be 
tested under this project would be to explore the efficacy of treating 
waste on-site in cases where there is a clear benefit to the 
environment for doing so. This would entail the substitution of current 
RCRA permitting requirements outlined in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 266 with 
those for interim status facilities. EPA is interested in testing and 
evaluating alternative approaches to regulating RCRA facilities that 
can achieve superior environmental

[[Page 23621]]

performance while reducing costs and paperwork burden. Autoliv has a 
history of implementing waste minimization techniques and practices 
with control over manufacturing with emphasis on quality and waste 
minimization. Providing Autoliv the flexibility to dispose of waste on 
a regular schedule means professional resources can be redirected from 
reactive waste management to proactive waste management. EPA 
anticipates that this rule will result in a successful innovative pilot 
of a new on-site treatment system for Autoliv. EPA recognizes that the 
new systems may not be appropriate or necessary for some institutions 
but may, at some point, depending on the results of this XL project, 
consider the possibility of offering it as a regulatory option. For 
this pilot, Autoliv will be implementing an Environmental Reinvestment 
Project (ERP) that will be finalized one year from the project start 
date.

E. How Have Various Stakeholders Been Involved in This Project?

    Stakeholder involvement during the project development stage was 
encouraged in several ways. The methods included communicating through 
the media, directly contacting interested parties and offering an 
educational program regarding the regulatory requirements impacted by 
the XL project. Stakeholders have been kept informed on the project 
status via mailing lists, newspaper articles, public meetings and the 
establishment of a website. Both local and regional stakeholders have 
expressed support for this project. They see this as a unique 
opportunity to improve the air quality in Box Elder County and 
surrounding communities. Participation in Project XL provides Autoliv, 
the Box Elder County, the Utah Division of Environmental Quality and 
the EPA the opportunity to explore new ways to improve the environment. 
The neighboring community of Howell and the surrounding area would 
benefit by reducing emissions associated with open burning. The highly 
visible nature of open burning tends to heighten awareness of the 
associated environmental impacts. A kickoff meeting and site tour held 
on June 8th, 1999 garnered stakeholder support and input for the 
project plan. Additional stakeholder meetings will be held as 
appropriate. Stakeholders that have been active in the project and have 
given oral or written support are: Utah Division of Environmental 
Quality, Bear River Health Department, Howell City, and Box Elder 
County. Stakeholders have been made aware of Autoliv's intentions and 
the environmental benefits associated with Project XL. Autoliv will 
continue to provide the stakeholder group with any information 
regarding the project including semi-annual project updates and will 
encourage them to meet on a regular basis. Copies of all comment 
letters, as well as EPA's response to comment letters, will be located 
in the rulemaking Docket (see the ADDRESSES section of today's 
preamble). As this XL project continues to be implemented, the 
stakeholder involvement program would shift its focus to ensure that: 
(1) Stakeholders are informed of the status of project implementation 
and (2) stakeholders have access to information sufficient to judge the 
success of this Project XL initiative. Anticipated stakeholder 
involvement during the term of the project will likely include other 
general public meetings to present periodic status reports, 
availability of data and other information generated. In addition to 
the state and federal reporting requirements of today's rulemaking, the 
FPA includes provisions whereby Autoliv will make copies of interim 
project reports available to all interested parties. A public file on 
this XL project has been maintained at the website http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/ throughout project development, and Autoliv has committed to 
continue to update it as the project is implemented. A detailed 
description of this program and the stakeholder support for this 
project is included in the FPA, which is available through the docket 
or through EPA's Project XL site on the Internet (see ADDRESSES section 
of this preamble).

F. How Will This Project Result in Cost Savings and Paperwork 
Reduction?

    The waste treatment currently accounts for the most substantial 
expense for environmental, health and safety programs at Autoliv. This 
XL Project would result in cost savings and paperwork reduction in 
several key areas. These include a decrease in paperwork through a 
streamlined process for approval of hazardous waste treatment, 
elimination of paperwork related to transporting the waste off-site to 
a permitted facility, and a reduction in the disposal costs that the 
company would pay to a RCRA treatment or disposal facility. Autoliv 
disposed of 82,361 lbs. of pyrotechnic waste in 1998 at an incurred 
cost of $164,722. The pyrotechnic waste could easily have been 
processed in the MRF with minimal additional operating cost. Autoliv 
estimates that 158,000 lbs. of waste material were generated in the 
year 2000. The contracted disposal fee at present time is $2.00 per 
pound. Through Project XL, Autoliv will save an estimated $316,000 in 
disposal costs in the first year. It has been estimated that issuance 
of a RCRA permit may take three to five years and may cost the facility 
$500,000. Part of Autoliv's cost savings from the XL project will be 
used to fund an ERP. In addition, the following changes would be 
anticipated: waste pyrotechnics would no longer be transported across 
public roads, reducing potential liability and associated costs, and 
increasing public safety. The paperwork burden would be reduced because 
hazardous waste manifests and shipping papers would not be required or 
needed. Operational flexibility would allow materials to be processed 
more regularly, which further reduces paperwork as well as the amount 
of pyrotechnics stored at any given time. It is expected with this 
project a certain amount of paperwork associated with RCRA compliance 
is likely to be reduced.

G. How Will the Terms of This XL Project and Site Specific Rule Be 
Enforced?

    EPA retains its full range of enforcement options under this Site 
Specific rule. The conditional exemption of certain RCRA requirements 
are conditional upon Autoliv's implementation and compliance with the 
conditions set forth in 40 CFR 261.4 of this rule (b)(18). If the 
conditions for the exemption are not met, the XL project may be 
terminated pursuant to the terms of the Final Project Agreement setting 
out the agreement of the parties to this project. The final project 
agreement further provides for a return to compliance with any 
regulations deferred under the project, and may include an agreed-upon 
interim compliance period. As with all XL projects, testing alternative 
environmental protection strategies, the term of the Autoliv XL project 
is one of limited duration. This Site Specific rule would set the term 
of the XL Project at five years after the effective date of this rule. 
Because Project XL is a voluntary and experimental program, the FPA 
contains provisions that allow the project to conclude prior to the end 
of the five years in the event that it is desirable or necessary to do 
so.
    During the five year project term, Autoliv will comply with the 
following:
    (1) Autoliv will comply with the Project XL site-specific rule for 
the Promontory facility and the requirements specified in 40 CFR Part 
262, Part 265, Subparts B, C, D, E, G, H, I, and O, and Part 268. Waste 
material will still be managed and stored as

[[Page 23622]]

hazardous waste prior to treatment. Autoliv will comply with the RCRA 
90-day storage requirements.
    (2) All waste materials processed will be characterized and an 
initial stack test described in the site-specific rule will be 
conducted by Autoliv to evaluate the safety and the efficiency of the 
MRF system.
    (3) The amounts of pyrotechnic wastes will be reported to EPA and 
the State of Utah at each periodic performance review conference 
conducted every six months.
    (4) Due to the dynamic and ever changing nature of the air bag 
industry, it will be pertinent to allow for new development and provide 
flexibility for future materials. Emission product limitations will 
comply with air bag industry emissions standards listed in the Superior 
Environmental Performance section.
    (5) The Utah Division of Air Quality under authority delegated by 
EPA has agreed that a separate Approval Order will be issued for the 
pyrotechnic waste disposal process which will serve as an amendment to 
the existing Approval Order which covers the current operation of 
processing airbag inflators and their components. No regulatory 
flexibility or modification of federal regulations is required for the 
new approval order to be issued by the Division of Air Quality.
    (6) No off-site pyrotechnic wastes will be received or processed at 
this location and in the MRF.
    (7) An MRF Operating Record, including waste feed composition, feed 
rates, temperatures, pressures, upset conditions, spills and releases, 
etc., will be maintained at the facility and made available for the 
State of Utah and EPA to review and copy for enforcement purposes if 
necessary.
    (8) The State of Utah and EPA will be notified of any upset 
conditions, such as, spills and releases of hazardous or toxic 
substances at the MRF. The information will be reported orally within 
24 hours from the time Autoliv becomes aware of the circumstances. A 
written submission to the State of Utah and EPA will be provided within 
five days of the time Autoliv becomes aware of the circumstances of the 
noncompliance. The severity and type of upset condition that would 
trigger the reporting threshold is described in the site-specific rule.

IV. Additional Information

A. How To Request a Public Hearing

    A public hearing will be held, if requested, to provide 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 Autoliv 
XL Project should contact Ms. Mary Byrne of the EPA Region 8 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 February 27, 2001.
    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?

    This is a rule of particular applicability and therefore not within 
the scope of EO 12866.

C. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required?

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. section 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-for-profit 
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This rule will not 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities 
because it only affects Autoliv. Therefore, EPA has concluded 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 Autoliv, 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 cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation 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 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 the Autoliv 
facility in Promontory, Utah. The 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.

[[Page 23623]]

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, 
3013 and 7003 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 non authorized states. EPA is directed to 
carry out HSWA requirements and prohibitions in authorized states until 
the state is granted authorization to do so.
    2. Effect on Utah Authorization
    This rule is being promulgated pursuant to non-HSWA authority, 
rather than HSWA. Utah has received authority to administer most of the 
RCRA program; thus, authorized provisions of each state's hazardous 
waste program are administered in lieu of the federal program. Utah has 
received authority to administer hazardous waste standards for 
generators. As a result, this rule, would not be effective in Utah 
until the state adopts equivalent legal mechanisms or requirements as 
state law. 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.

H. How 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 and 
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.''
    The rule does not have federalism implications. It does not have 
substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the 
national government and the States, or on the distribution of powers 
and responsibilities among various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to 
this proposed rule.

I. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13175: Consultation 
and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments ?

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It does not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
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 Autoliv. 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 
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 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.

K. Is EPA Required to Submit a Rule Report Under the Congressional 
Review Act?

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and the Comptroller General of the United 
States. Section 804, however, exempts from Section 801 the following 
types of rules: rules of particular applicability, rules relating to 
agency management or personnel, and rules of agency organization, 
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or 
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required 
to submit a rule report regarding today's action under Section

[[Page 23624]]

801 because this is a rule of particular applicability.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Waste determination.

    Dated: May 3, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 261 of chapter I of 
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 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)(18) to read as 
follows:


Sec. . 261.4  Exclusions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (18) By-products resulting from the production of automobile air 
bag gas generants at the Autoliv ASP Inc. facility in Promontory Utah, 
(Autoliv) are exempt from the D003 listing, for a period of five years 
from May 9, 2001, provided that:
    (i) The by-product gas generants are processed on-site in Autoliv's 
Metal Recovery Furnace (MRF).
    (A) By-product gas generants must only be fed to the MRF when it is 
operating in conformance with the State of Utah, Division of Air 
Quality's Approval Order DAQE-549-97.
    (B) Combustion gas temperature must be maintained below 400 degrees 
Fahrenheit at the baghouse inlet.
    (ii) Prior to processing in the MRF, the by-product gas generants 
are managed in accordance with the requirements specified in 40 CFR 
262.34.
    (iii) The Autoliv facility and the MRF are operated and managed in 
accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 265, Subparts B, C, D, 
E, G, H, I, and O.
    (iv) Residues derived from the processing of by-product gas 
generants in the MRF are managed in accordance with the requirements 
specified in 40 CFR Parts 262 and 268.
    (v) The following testing of the MRF's stack gas emissions is 
conducted:
    (A) An initial test shall be conducted within 30 operating days of 
starting feed of by-product gas generants to the MRF. EPA may extend 
this deadline, at the request of Autoliv, when good cause is shown. The 
initial test shall consist of three duplicate runs sampling for:
    (1) Particulate matter using Method 5 as specified in 40 CFR Part 
60, Appendix A.
    (2) The metals Aluminum, Arsenic, Barium, Beryllium, Boron, 
Cadmium, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Lead, and Nickel using Method 29 as 
specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A.
    (3) Polychlorinated di-benzo dioxins and furans using Method 23 
0023A as specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A.
    (4) Carbon monoxide using Method 10 as specified in 40 CFR Part 60, 
Appendix A.
    (B) After the initial test is completed, an annual stack test (12 
months from the previous initial stack test) of the MRF shall be 
conducted. The annual tests shall consist of three duplicate runs using 
Method 29 and Method 5 as specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A.
    (C) Testing shall be conducted while by-product gas generants are 
fed to the MRF at no less than 90% of the planned maximum feed rate, 
and with the MRF operating parameters within normal ranges.
    (D) Initial stack testing results and additional project 
performance data and information, including the quantity of by-product 
gas generants processed and the operating parameter values during the 
test runs, will be submitted by Autoliv to the State of Utah and EPA 
within 60 days of the completion of the initial stack test.
    (E) Annual stack test results and additional project performance 
data and information, including the quantity of by-product gas 
generants processed and the operating parameter values during the test 
runs, will be submitted by Autoliv to EPA and the State of Utah within 
60 days of the completion of the annual test.
    (vi) Combustion gas discharged to the atmosphere from the MRF meets 
the following limits:
    (A) Dioxin emissions do not exceed 0.4 ng per dry standard cubic 
meter on a toxicity equivalent quotient (TEQ) basis corrected to 7% 
Oxygen.
    (B) Combined lead and cadmium emissions do not exceed 240 ug per 
dry standard cubic meter corrected to 7% Oxygen.
    (C) Combined arsenic, beryllium, and chromium emissions do not 
exceed 97 ug per dry standard cubic meter corrected to 7% Oxygen.
    (D) Particulate matter emissions do not exceed 34 mg per dry 
standard cubic meter corrected to 7% Oxygen.
    (E) If the limits specified in paragraphs (b)(18)(vi)(A) through 
(D) of this section are exceeded, Autoliv shall discontinue feeding gas 
generants to the MRF until such time as Autoliv can demonstrate to EPA 
and the state of Utah satisfaction that the MRF combustion gas 
emissions can meet the limits specified in paragraphs (b)(18)(vi) (A) 
through (D) of this section
    (vii) No by-product gas generants or other pyrotechnic wastes 
generated off-site will be received at the Autoliv facility in 
Promontory, Utah or processed in the MRF unless otherwise allowed by 
law (permit or regulation).
    (viii) Autoliv will provide EPA and the state of Utah with semi-
annual reports (by January 30 and July 30 of each year).
    (A) The semi-annual reports will document the amounts of by-product 
gas generants processed during the reporting period.
    (B) The semi-annual reports will provide a summary of the MRF 
Operating Record during the reporting period, including information on 
by-product gas generant composition, average feed rates, upset 
conditions, and spills or releases.
    (ix) No significant changes are made to the operating parameter 
production values of Autoliv's production of air bag gas generants such 
that any of the constituents listed in appendix VIII of this part are 
introduced into the process.
    (x) Autoliv reports to the EPA any noncompliance which may endanger 
health or the environment orally within 24 hours from the time Autoliv 
becomes aware of the circumstances, including:
    (A) Any information of a release, discharge, fire, or explosion 
from the MRF, which could threaten the environment or human health.
    (B) The description of the occurrence and its cause shall include:
    (1) Name, address, and telephone number of the facility;
    (2) Date, time, and type of incident;
    (3) Name and quantity of material(s) involved;
    (4) The extent of injuries, if any;
    (5) An assessment of actual or potential hazards to the environment 
and human health, and
    (6) Estimated quantity and disposition of recovered material that 
resulted from the incident.
    (C) A written notice shall also be provided within five days of the 
time Autoliv becomes aware of the circumstances. The written notice 
shall contain a description of the non-compliance and its cause; the 
period of noncompliance including exact dates and times, and if the 
noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is 
expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, 
and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance. The EPA may waive the

[[Page 23625]]

five day written notice requirement in favor of a written report within 
fifteen days.
    (xi) Notifications and submissions made under paragraph (b)(18) of 
this section shall be sent to the Regional Assistant Administrator for 
the Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance, U.S. EPA, Region 
8 and the Executive Secretary of the Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste 
Control Board.

[FR Doc. 01-11670 Filed 5-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>