9992 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC or sent

electronically, via the IRS Internet site

at: http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/taxlregs/

reglist.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stuart Murray, (202) 622–4580 (not a

toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under section 6103(j)(1), upon written

request from the Secretary of Commerce,

the Secretary is to furnish to the Bureau

of the Census (Bureau) tax return

information that is prescribed by

Treasury regulations for the purpose of,

but only to the extent necessary in,

structuring censuses and national

economic accounts and conducting

related statistical activities authorized

by law. Section 301.6103(j)(1)–1 of the

regulations further defines such

purposes by reference to 13 U.S.C.

Chapter 5 and provides an itemized

description of the return information

authorized to be disclosed for such

purposes. Section 301.6103(j)(1)–1(b)(5)

of the regulations provides a list of

information provided to the Social

Security Administration (SSA) pursuant

to Internal Revenue Code section

6103(l)(1)(A) or (5) that officers or

employees of SSA may disclose to the

Bureau. Periodically, the disclosure

regulations are amended to reflect the

changing needs of the Bureau for data

for its statutorily authorized statistical

activities.

This document contains proposed

amendments to the regulations

authorizing IRS and SSA personnel to

disclose additional items of return

information that have been requested by

the Secretary of Commerce for specified

purposes related to the LEHD and SIPP

projects.

The text of the temporary regulations

also serves as the text of these proposed

regulations. The preamble to the

temporary regulations explains the

regulations.

Special Analyses

It has been determined that this notice

of proposed rulemaking is not a

significant regulatory action as defined

in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a

regulatory assessment is not required. It

also has been determined that section

553(b) of the Administrative Procedure

Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply

to these regulations, and because the

regulations do not impose a collection

of information on small entities, the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to

section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue

Code, this notice of proposed

rulemaking will be submitted to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration for comment

on its impact on small business.

Comments and Requests for a Public

Hearing

Before these proposed regulations are

adopted as final regulations,

consideration will be given to any

electronic and written comments (a

signed original and eight (8) copies) that

are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS

and Treasury Department specifically

request comments on the clarity of the

proposed regulation and how they can

be made easier to understand. All

comments will be available for public

inspection and copying. A public

hearing may be scheduled if requested

in writing by a person that timely

submits comments. If a public hearing is

scheduled, notice of the date, time, and

place for the hearing will be published

in the Federal Register.

Drafting Information

The principal author of these

regulations is Jamie G. Bernstein, Office

of the Associate Chief Counsel,

Procedure & Administration (Disclosure

& Privacy Law Division), Internal

Revenue Service. However, other

personnel from the IRS and Treasury

Department participated in their

development.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301

Employment taxes, Estate taxes,

Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes,

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Proposed Amendments to the

Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR Part 301 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 301—PROCEDURE AND

ADMINISTRATION

Paragraph 1. The authority citation

for part 301 is amended by adding an

entry in numerical order to read as

follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Section 301.6103(j)(1)–1 also issued

under 26 U.S.C. 6103(j)(1); * * *

Par. 2. Section 301.6103(j)(1)–1 is

amended by:

1. Adding paragraphs (b)(2)(v) and

(vi).

2. Adding paragraphs (b)(3)(xxiii),

(xxiv), (xxv), (xxvi), (xxvii) and (xxviii).

3. Adding paragraphs (b)(5)(iii), (iv),

and (v).

4. Revising paragraph (e).

The additions and revision read as

follows:

§ 301.6103(j)(1)–1 Disclosure of return

information to officers and employees of

the Department of Commerce for certain

statistical purposes and related activities.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2)(v) and (vi) [The text of proposed

paragraphs (b)(2)(v) and (vi) is the same

as the text of § 301.6103(j)(1)–1T(b)(2)(v)

and (vi) published elsewhere in this

issue of the Federal Register].

(3) [The text of proposed paragraphs

(b)(3)(xxiii), (xxiv), (xxv), (xxvi), (xxvii)

and (xxviii) is the same as the text of

§ 301.6103(j)(1)–1T(b)(3)(xxiii), (xxiv),

(xxv), (xxvi), (xxvii) and (xxviii)

published elsewhere in this issue of the

Federal Register].

* * * * *

(5)(iii), (iv), and (v) [The text of

proposed paragraphs (b)(5)(iii), (iv), and

(v) is the same as the text of

§ 301.6103(j)(1)–T(b)(5)(iii), (iv), and (v)

published elsewhere in this issue of the

Federal Register].

* * * * *

(e) [The text of proposed paragraph (e)

is the same as the text of

§ 301.6103(j)(1)–T(e) published

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal

Register].

Robert E. Wenzel,

Deputy Commissioner of the Internal

Revenue.

[FR Doc. 01–1990 Filed 2–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6830–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[FRL–6940–7]

Project XL Site-Specific Rulemaking

for the Autoliv ASP Inc. Facility in

Promontory, Utah

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comment.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is proposing in this rule

to implement a project under the Project

XL program that would provide sitespecific regulatory flexibility under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA), for the Autoliv ASP Inc.

(Autoliv) facility in Promontory, Utah.

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. This proposed rule would

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 9993

provide regulatory flexibility to Autoliv

in the form of a conditional exemption

from the definition of hazardous waste.

The terms of the project are defined in

the Final Project Agreement (FPA)

which was made available for public

review and comments through a Federal

Register notice on August 14, 2000 (65

FR 49571) and signed on September 20,

2000 by Autoliv, Box Elder County, the

state of Utah, and EPA.

DATES: Public comments: Comments on

the proposed rule must be received on

or before March 6, 2001.

Public Hearing: Commenters may

request a public hearing by February 20,

2001, during the public comment

period. Commenters requesting a public

hearing should specify the basis for

their request. If EPA determines that

there is sufficient reason to hold a

public hearing, it will do so by February

27, 2001, during the last week of the

public comment period. Requests for a

public hearing should be submitted to

the address below.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Written

comments should be mailed to the

RCRA Information Center Docket Clerk

(5305W), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Please send an

original and two copies of all comments,

and refer to Docket Number F–2001–

AUFP–FFFFF.

Request to Speak at Hearing: Requests

for a hearing should be mailed to the

RCRA Information Center Docket Clerk

(5305G), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Please send an

original and two copies of all comments,

and refer to Docket Number F–2001–

AUFP–FFFFF. A copy should also be

sent to Ms. Mary Byrne at U.S. EPA

Region 8 (8P–R), 999 18th Street, Suite

300, Denver, CO 80202–2466.

Viewing Project Materials: A docket

containing the proposed rule, the signed

FPA, supporting materials, and public

comments is available for public

inspection and copying at the RCRA

Information Center (RIC), located at

Crystal Gateway, 1235 Jefferson Davis

Highway, First Floor, Arlington,

Virginia. The RIC is open from 9:00 a.m.

to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday,

excluding federal holidays. The public

is encouraged to phone in advance to

review docket materials. Appointments

can be scheduled by phoning the Docket

Office at (703) 603–9230. Refer to RCRA

docket number F–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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Mary Byrne, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th

Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202–

2466. Ms. Byrne can be reached at (303)

312–6491 or byrne.mary@epa.gov.

Further information on today’s action

may also be obtained on the world wide

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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

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.

This proposed rule provides a

‘‘conditional exemption’’ from the

definition of hazardous waste, for the

specific waste that is subject to this

proposed site-specific rule. The effect of

EPA granting the conditional exemption

is that a RCRA permit will not be

required. The waste pyrotechnics,

generated on-site at the Autoliv facility,

will be 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 proposed

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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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

proposed rule are expected to function

as an outline of the procedures that

must be in place to manage waste. The

proposed 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 proposed performancebased approach would result in superior

environmental performance and

significant cost savings to Autoliv.

9994 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

This proposed 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.

EPA is soliciting comments on this

proposed rule. EPA will publish

responses to comments. 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 Will the Proposed

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 Proposed 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. Does this Rule Comply with Executive

Order 12875: Enhancing

Intergovernmental Partnerships?

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)?

I. Authority

EPA is publishing this proposed 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

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).

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 9995

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 proposed

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. The proposed 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

would 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 proposed rule and is briefly

explained below.

The proposed requirements for

Autoliv’s XL Project include a

requirement that the project include

procedures to assure compliance with

conditions specified in the proposed

rule. The proposed conditions set forth

for the treatment of Autoliv’s waste have

been designed to ensure that Autoliv’s

waste 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

Proposed Rule Apply?

This proposed 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

9996 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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 proposed rule would provide

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 will not be required. The

waste pyrotechnics, generated on-site at

the Autoliv facility, will be 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 sitespecific 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

proposed 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

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 proposed

rule will result in a successful

innovative pilot of a new on-site

treatment system for Autoliv. EPA

recognizes that the proposed 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 9997

to be implemented, the stakeholder

involvement program would shift its

focus to ensure that: (1) Stakeholders are

apprised 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 will be 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 Proposed Rule Be Enforced?

EPA retains its full range of

enforcement options under this

proposed 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

proposed 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

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

9998 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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?

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993) the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety in

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlement, grants, user fees,

or loan programs of the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Because the annualized cost of this

final rule will be significantly less than

$100 million and will not meet any of

the other criteria specified in the

Executive Order, it has been determined

that this rule is not a significant

regulatory action under the terms of

Executive Order 12866, and is therefore

not subject to OMB review.

Executive Order 12866 also

encourages agencies to provide a

meaningful public comment period, and

suggests that in most cases the comment

period should be 60 days. However, in

consideration of the very limited scope

of today’s rulemaking and the

considerable public involvement in the

development of the proposed Final

Project Agreement, the EPA considers

21 days to be sufficient in providing a

meaningful public comment period for

today’s action.

C. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Required?

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),

5 U.S.C. 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.

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 nonauthorized

states. EPA is directed to carry out

HSWA requirements and prohibitions in

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 9999

authorized states until the state is

granted authorization to do so.

2. Effect on Utah Authorization

This proposed 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 proposed

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. Does This Rule Comply With

Executive Order 12875: Enhancing

Intergovernmental Partnerships?

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute and that creates a

mandate upon a state, local or tribal

government, unless the federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by those governments. If

the mandate is unfunded, EPA must

provide to the Office of Management

and Budget a description of the extent

of EPA’s prior consultation with

representatives of affected State, local

and tribal governments, the nature of

their concerns, copies of any written

communications from the governments,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of state, local and tribal

governments to provide meaningful and

timely input in the development of

regulatory proposals containing

significant unfunded mandates.

This proposed rule does not create a

mandate on state, local or tribal

governments. This rule does not impose

any enforceable duties on these entities.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do

not apply to this rule.

I. How Does This Rule Comply With

Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments?

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments. If the mandate is

unfunded, EPA must provide to the

Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of EPA’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order

13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected and

other representatives of Indian tribal

governments to provide meaningful and

timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities. Today’s rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. There are no communities

of Indian tribal governments located in

the vicinity of 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

proposed rulemaking does not involve

technical standards. Therefore, EPA is

not considering the use of any voluntary

consensus standards. EPA welcomes

comments on this aspect of the

proposed rulemaking and, specifically,

invites the public to identify

potentially-applicable voluntary

consensus standards and to explain why

such standards should be used in this

regulation.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

Environmental protection, Hazardous

waste, Waste determination.

Dated: January 19, 2001.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, part 261 of chapter I of title

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

1. The authority citation for part 261

continues to read as follows:

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

6922, 6924(y), and 6938.

2. Section 261.4 is amended by

adding paragraph (b)(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 [the effective

date of this rule/publication date]

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

10000 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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

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. 01–3616 Filed 2–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Parts 3000, 3100, 3200, 3400,

3500, 3600, and 3800

[WO–610–4111–02–24–IA]

RIN 1004–AC64

Oil and Gas Leasing; Geothermal

Resources Leasing; Coal Management;

Management of Solid Minerals Other

Than Coal; Mineral Materials Disposal;

and Mining Claims Under the General

Mining Laws

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of

extension of public comment period.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) is extending the

public comment period on a Notice of

Proposed Rule, published in the Federal

Register on December 15, 2000 (65 FR

78440). The proposed rule would

amend Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) mineral resources regulations to

increase fees and to impose new fees to