Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23617

relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide,

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Dated: April 20, 2001.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of

Federal Regulations, is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart S—Kentucky

2. In § 52.920 the table in paragraph

(d) is amended by adding a new entry

for ‘‘Alternate Averaging Period for

American Greetings Corporation’’ to the

end of the table as follows:

§ 52.920 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

EPA-APPROVED KENTUCKY SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Name of source Permit No. State effective date EPA approval date Federal Register notice

*******

Alternate Averaging Period for

American Greetings Corporation.

KDEPDAQ Permit V–98–049 July 9, 2001 ............................ 66 FR 23617.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–11524 Filed 5–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

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

byrne.mary@epa.gov.

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 onsite 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 onsite 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

23618 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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 sitespecific 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 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

23620 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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 onsite 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 onsite 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 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 semiannual 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 agreedupon 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

23622 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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 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

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 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

23624 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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:

§ . 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 offsite 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 byproduct 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 noncompliance 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 68

[CC Docket No. 99–216, FCC 00–400]

2000 Biennial Regulatory Review of

Adopting Technical Criteria and

Approving Terminal Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of

effective date.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commission (Commission) amended its

rules governing the connection of

terminal equipment to the public

switched telephone network to

streamline the standards development

and approval processes. These rules

contained information collection

requirements that became effective on

May 9, 2001.

DATES: Effective May 9, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Magnotti, (202) 418–2320 (voice),

smagnotti@fcc.gov, or Dennis Johnson,

(202) 418–2320 (voice),

dcjohnso@fcc.gov, of the Network

Services Division, Common Carrier

Bureau. The TTY number is (202) 418–

0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

December 21, 2000, the Commission

adopted the Part 68 Streamlining Order

which amended the Commission’s rules

governing the connection of terminal

equipment to the public switched

telephone network in an effort to

privatize and streamline the standards

development and approval processes; a

summary of the order was published in

the Federal Register. 66 FR 7579

(January 24, 2001). Some of the

regulations adopted in that order

included information collection that

required approval from the Office of

Management and Budget. The order

explained that ‘‘[t]he collections of

information contained within are

contingent upon approval by the OMB.

The Commission will publish a

document at a later date establishing the

effective date.’’ OMB approved the

amendments to 47 CFR 68.106–68.610

that establish those reporting

requirements. See OMB No. 3060–0056.

Accordingly, these regulations will

become effective upon publication of

this document in the Federal Register.

This document constitutes publication

of the effective date of the regulations.

We note that the information collection

requirements in § 68.105, as adopted in

the Part 68 Streamlining Order, were

originally established in a separate

proceeding as part of the definition of

the term ‘‘demarcation point’’ in 47 CFR

68.3 (1999). 15 FCC Rcd 22983 (2000).

Therefore, that rule will become

effective upon OMB approval in the

Competitive Networks proceeding.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 68

Communications common carriers,

Terminal equipment, Part 68, Technical

criteria.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–11589 Filed 5–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 010208032–1109–02;

I.D.121200L]

RIN 0648–AM47

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Final 2001 Specifications for

the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery;

Regulatory Amendment

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final 2001 specifications for

the Atlantic bluefish fishery; regulatory

amendment.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues 2001

specifications for the Atlantic bluefish

fishery, including total allowable

harvest levels (TAL), state-by-state

commercial quotas, and recreational

harvest limits and possession limits for

Atlantic bluefish off the east coast of the

United States. NMFS also amends the

regulations implementing the Fishery

Management Plan for Atlantic Bluefish

(FMP) to insert an inadvertently omitted

paragraph in the procedure for annually

setting TAL. This action is necessary to

conserve and manage the bluefish

resource and is intended to provide for

sustainable fisheries.

DATES: The 2001 TAL, commercial

quotas, and recreational harvest limits

are effective May 9, 2001 through

December 31, 2001.

The amendment to § 648.160 is

effective June 8, 2001.

The amendment to § 648.164 is

effective May 9, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting

documents, including the

Environmental Assessment, Regulatory

Impact Review, Pre Regulatory

Economic Evaluation (EA/RIR/PREE),

and the Essential Fish Habitat

Assessment are available from: Patricia

A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator,

Northeast Region, National Marine

Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive,

Gloucester, MA 01930–2298. The EA/

RIR/PREE are accessible via the Internet

at http:/www.nero.gov/ro/doc/nr.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Myles Raizin, Fishery Policy Analyst,

(978) 281-9104, e-mail at

Myles.A.Raizin@noaa.gov, fax at (978)

281–9135.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS

implemented the FMP through

regulations at 50 CFR part 648, subparts

A and J. Section 648.160 requires

annual specifications. The FMP, as

adopted by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery

Management Council (Council) requires

that the Council recommend, on an

annual basis, TAL, which is composed

of a commercial quota and a recreational

harvest limit. NMFS published a

proposed rule to establish the 2001

bluefish specifications and insert an

inadvertently omitted paragraph into §

648.160 at 66 FR 10983, February 21,

2001, with a comment period ending

March 23, 2001.

Final Specifications

2001 TAL

The FMP requires that the TAL for

any given year be set based on the

fishing mortality rate (F) resulting from

the stock rebuilding schedule contained

in Amendment 1 to the FMP (F=0.41 for

2001) or on the estimated F for the

fishing year preceding the Council

submission of the recommended

specifications, whichever F is lower.

The 1999 bluefish fishery data were the

most recent data that were complete

when the specification process began for

the 2001 bluefish fishery. Because the

1999 fishery produced an F of only

0.295 (equals a 33 percent exploitation

rate for the bluefish fishery), the TAL is

set to maintain this F in 2001.