54955
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
177
/
Tuesday,
September
12,
2000
/
Rules
and
Regulations
the
operation
of
the
Eight
Mile
Road
Drawbridge
over
Honker
Cut,
mile
0.3,
San
Joaquin
County,
California
to
allow
for
maintenance,
cleaning
and
painting.
The
drawspan
provides
4
feet
vertical
clearance
above
flood
stage
when
in
the
closed­
to­
navigation
position.
Navigation
on
the
waterway
consists
of
both
commercial
and
recreational
watercraft.
Presently,
the
draw
is
required
to
open
on
signal
if
at
least
twelve
hours
advance
notice
is
provided.
The
County
requested
the
drawbridge
be
permitted
to
remain
closed
to
navigation
from
September
5
until
December
21,
2000.
During
this
time
the
bridge
will
be
enclosed
with
scaffolding
and
containment
tarps
while
cleaning
and
painting
operations
are
performed.
This
temporary
drawbridge
operation
amendment
has
been
coordinated
with
the
waterway
users.
No
objections
to
the
proposed
rule
were
raised.

Regulatory
Evaluation
This
temporary
rule
is
not
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
under
section
3(
f)
of
Executive
Order
12866
and
does
not
require
an
assessment
of
potential
costs
and
benefits
under
section
6(
a)(
3)
of
that
Order.
It
has
not
been
reviewed
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
under
that
Order.
It
is
not
significant
under
the
regulatory
policies
and
procedures
of
the
Department
of
Transportation
(
DOT)
(
44
FR
11040,
February
26,
1979).
We
expect
the
economic
impact
of
this
temporary
rule
to
be
so
minimal
that
a
full
Regulatory
Evaluation
under
paragraph
10(
e)
of
the
regulatory
policies
and
procedures
of
DOT
is
unnecessary.
This
is
because
the
average
number
of
requests
for
opening
the
drawspan
are
seven
per
year
and
alternate
navigational
routes
are
available.

Small
Entities
Under
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
5
U.
S.
C.
601
 
612),
the
Coast
Guard
must
consider
whether
this
temporary
rule
will
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
The
term
``
small
entities''
comprises
small
businesses
and
not­
forprofit
organizations
that
are
independently
owned
and
operated
and
are
not
dominant
in
their
fields
and
government
jurisdictions
with
populations
of
less
than
50,000.
Due
to
the
small
number
of
requests
to
open
the
bridge
per
year
and
the
availability
of
alternative
routes,
the
Coast
Guard
expects
the
impact
of
this
action
to
be
minimal.
Therefore,
the
Coast
Guard
certifies
under
5
U.
S.
C.
605(
b),
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.

Assistance
for
Small
Entities
Under
section
213(
a)
of
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
Pub.
L.
104
 
121),
we
offer
to
assist
small
entities
in
understanding
the
rule
so
they
can
better
evaluate
its
effects
on
them
and
participate
in
the
rulemaking
process.
Any
individual
who
qualifies
or,
believes
they
qualify
as
a
small
entity,
requiring
assistance
with
the
provisions
of
this
rule,
may
contact
David
H.
Sulouff,
Chief,
Bridge
Section,
Eleventh
Coast
Guard
District,
Building
50
 
6,
Coast
Guard
Island,
Alameda,
CA
94501
 
5100,
telephone
510
 
437
 
3516.

Collection
of
Information
This
rule
calls
for
no
new
collection
of
information
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
 
3520).

Federalism
We
have
analyzed
this
rule
under
the
principles
and
criteria
contained
in
Executive
Order
13132,
and
have
determined
this
rule
does
not
have
implications
for
federalism
under
that
Order.

Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
The
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
2
U.
S.
C.
1531
 
1538)
governs
the
issuance
of
Federal
regulations
requiring
unfunded
mandates.
An
unfunded
mandate
is
a
regulation
requiring
a
State,
local,
or
tribal
government
or
the
private
sector
to
incur
direct
costs
without
the
Federal
Government
having
first
provided
the
funds
to
pay
those
unfunded
mandate
costs.
This
rule
will
not
impose
an
unfunded
mandate.

Taking
of
Private
Property
This
rule
will
not
effect
a
taking
of
private
property
or
otherwise
have
taking
implications
under
E.
O.
12630,
Governmental
Actions
and
Interference
with
Constitutionally
Protected
Property
Rights.

Civil
Justice
Reform
This
rule
meets
applicable
standards
in
sections
3(
a)
and
3(
b)(
2)
of
E.
O.
12988,
Civil
Justice
Reform,
to
minimize
litigation,
eliminate
ambiguity,
and
reduce
burden.

Protection
of
Children
We
have
analyzed
this
rule
under
E.
O.
13045,
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks.
This
rule
is
not
an
economically
significant
rule
and
does
not
concern
an
environmental
risk
to
health
or
risk
to
safety
that
may
disproportionately
affect
children.

Environmental
The
Coast
Guard
considered
the
environmental
impact
of
this
temporary
rule
and
concluded
that
under
Chapter
2.
B.
2
and
Figure
2
 
1,
32(
e)
of
Commandant
Instruction
M16475.1C,
this
temporary
rule
is
categorically
excluded
from
further
environmental
documentation.
A
``
Categorical
Exclusion
Determination''
is
available
in
the
docket
for
inspection
or
copying
where
indicated
under
ADDRESSES.

List
of
Subjects
in
33
CFR
Part
117
Bridges.
For
the
reasons
set
out
in
the
preamble,
the
Coast
Guard
amends
Part
117
of
Title
33,
Code
of
Federal
Regulations,
as
follows:

PART
117
 
DRAWBRIDGE
OPERATION
REGULATIONS
1.
The
authority
citation
for
Part
117
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
33
U.
S.
C.
Sec.
499;
49
CFR
1.46;
33
CFR
1.05
 
1(
g);
section
117.225
also
issued
under
the
authority
of
Pub.
L.
102
 
587,
106
Stat.
5039.

2.
From
12:
01
a.
m.
on
September
5
until
11:
59
p.
m.
on
December
21,
2000,
§
117.161
is
suspended
and
a
new
§
117.
T162
is
temporarily
added
to
read
as
follows:

§
117.
T162
Honker
Cut.

The
draw
of
the
Eight
Mile
Road
Drawbridge
over
Honker
Cut,
mile
0.3,
San
Joaquin
County,
between
Empire
Tract
and
King
Island
at
Stockton,
California
need
not
open
for
navigation
from
12:
01
a.
m.
on
September
5
until
11:
59
p.
m.
on
December
21,
2000.

Dated:
September
5,
2000.
E.
R.
Riutta,
Vice
Admiral,
U.
S.
Coast,
Guard
Commander,
Eleventh
Coast
Guard
District.
[
FR
Doc.
00
 
23331
Filed
9
 
11
 
00;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
4910
 
15
 
U
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
261
[
FRL
 
6867
 
7]

RIN
2090
 
AA11
Project
XL
Site­
Specific
Rulemaking
for
the
IBM
Semiconductor
Manufacturing
Facility
in
Essex
Junction,
VT
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
08:
38
Sep
11,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00013
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
12SER1.
SGM
pfrm04
PsN:
12SER1
54956
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
177
/
Tuesday,
September
12,
2000
/
Rules
and
Regulations
ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
This
rule
will
allow
the
implementation
of
a
pilot
project
under
the
Project
XL
program
that
will
provide
site­
specific
regulatory
flexibility
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA),
as
amended,
for
the
International
Business
Machines
Corporation
(
IBM)
semiconductor
manufacturing
facility
in
Essex
Junction,
Vermont.
The
principal
objective
of
this
IBM
Vermont
XL
project
is
to
determine
whether
the
wastewater
treatment
sludge
resulting
from
an
innovative
copper
metallization
process
(
i.
e.,
an
electroplating
operation)
should
be
designated
a
RCRA
hazardous
waste
(
F006),
and
thus
be
subject
to
RCRA
regulatory
controls.
If,
as
a
result
of
this
XL
project,
the
Agency
determines
that
the
wastewater
treatment
sludge
(
which
does
not
otherwise
exhibit
a
hazardous
characteristic)
need
not
be
subject
to
RCRA
hazardous
waste
regulations
to
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment
and
removes
such
sludges
from
the
hazardous
waste
program,
this
would
not
only
enhance
the
costeffectiveness
of
the
innovative
process
by
removing
the
costs
of
such
regulatory
controls,
but
could
also
encourage
the
development
and
installation
of
this
innovative
process
(
or
similar
ones)
by
other
semiconductor
manufacturers.
To
achieve
this,
this
rule
provides
an
exemption
for
the
copper
metallization
process
from
the
narrative
listing
description
of
electroplating
operations
that
result
in
an
F006
wastewater
treatment
sludge.
DATES:
This
final
rule
is
effective
September
12,
2000.
ADDRESSES:
A
docket
containing
the
rule,
Final
Project
Agreement,
supporting
materials,
and
public
comments
is
available
for
public
inspection
and
copying
at
the
RCRA
Information
Center
(
RIC),
located
at
Crystal
Gateway,
1235
Jefferson
Davis
Highway,
First
Floor,
Arlington,
Virginia.
The
RIC
is
open
from
9
am
to
4
pm
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
Federal
holidays.
The
public
is
encouraged
to
phone
in
advance
to
review
docket
materials.
Appointments
can
be
scheduled
by
phoning
the
Docket
Office
at
(
703)
603
 
9230.
Refer
to
RCRA
docket
number
F
 
2000
 
IBMP
 
FFFFF.
The
public
may
copy
a
maximum
of
100
pages
from
any
regulatory
docket
at
no
charge.
Additional
copies
cost
15
cents
per
page.
Project
materials
are
also
available
for
review
for
today's
action
on
the
world
wide
web
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
projectxl/.
A
duplicate
copy
of
the
docket
is
available
for
inspection
and
copying
at
U.
S.
EPA
New
England,
One
Congress
Street,
Suite
1100
(
LIB),
Boston
MA,
02114
 
2023
during
normal
business
hours.
Persons
wishing
to
view
the
duplicate
docket
at
the
Boston
location
are
encouraged
to
contact
Mr.
John
Moskal
or
Mr.
George
Frantz
in
advance,
by
telephoning
(
617)
918
 
1826
or
(
617)
918
 
1883,
respectively.
Information
is
also
available
on
the
world
wide
web
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov.
ProjectXL.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Mr.
John
Moskal
or
Mr.
George
Frantz,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
New
England
(
SPP),
Assistance
and
Pollution
Prevention
Division,
One
Congress
Street,
Suite
1100,
Boston,
MA,
02114
 
2023.
Mr.
Moskal
can
be
reached
at
(
617)
918
 
1826
(
or
moskal.
john@
epa.
gov)
and
Mr.
Frantz
can
be
reached
at
(
617)
918
 
1883
(
or
frantz.
george@
epa.
gov).
Further
information
on
today's
action
may
also
be
obtained
on
the
world
wide
web
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
projectxl.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

Outline
of
Today's
Rule
The
information
presented
in
this
preamble
is
organized
as
follows:
I.
Authority
II.
Overview
of
Project
XL
III.
Overview
of
the
IBM
Vermont
XL
Pilot
Project
A.
To
Which
Facilities
Will
the
Rule
Apply?
B.
What
Problems
will
the
IBM
Vermont
XL
Project
Attempt
to
Address?
1.
Background
on
Hazardous
Waste
Identification
2.
Background
on
the
F006
Hazardous
Waste
Listing
3.
Site­
Specific
Considerations
at
the
IBM
Vermont
Facility
C.
What
Solutions
Are
Being
Tested
by
the
IBM
Vermont
XL
Project?
D.
What
Regulatory
Changes
Are
Being
Promulgated
to
Implement
this
Project?
1.
Federal
Regulatory
Changes
2.
State
Regulatory
Changes
E.
Why
is
EPA
Supporting
this
Approach
to
Removing
a
Waste
From
a
Hazardous
Waste
Listing?
F.
How
Have
Various
Stakeholders
Been
Involved
in
this
Project?
G.
How
Will
this
Project
Result
in
Cost
Savings
and
Paperwork
Reduction?
H.
What
Are
the
Terms
of
the
IBM
Vermont
XL
Project
and
How
Will
They
Be
Enforced?
I.
How
Long
Will
this
Project
Last
and
When
Will
It
Be
Complete?
IV.
Additional
Information
A.
How
Does
this
Rule
Comply
With
Executive
Order
12866?
B.
Is
a
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
Required?
C.
Is
an
Information
Collection
Request
Required
for
this
Project
Under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act?
D.
Does
this
Project
Trigger
the
Requirements
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act?
E.
RCRA
&
Hazardous
and
Solid
Waste
Amendments
1.
Applicability
of
Rules
in
Authorized
States
2.
Effect
on
Vermont
Authorization
F.
How
Does
this
Rule
Comply
with
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks?
G.
Does
this
Rule
Comply
with
Executive
Order
12875:
Enhancing
Intergovernmental
Partnerships?
H.
How
Does
this
Rule
Comply
with
Executive
Order
13084:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments?
I.
Does
this
Rule
Comply
with
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act?

I.
Authority
EPA
is
publishing
this
regulation
under
the
authority
of
sections
2002,
3001,
3002,
3003,
3006,
3010,
and
7004
of
the
Solid
Waste
Disposal
Act
of
1970,
as
amended
by
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act,
as
amended
(
42
U.
S.
C.
6912,
6921,
6922,
6923,
6926,
6930,
6937,
6938,
and
6974).

II.
Overview
of
Project
XL
The
Final
Project
Agreement
(
FPA)
sets
forth
the
intentions
of
EPA,
VTDEC,
and
the
IBM
Essex
Junction,
VT
facility
with
regard
to
a
project
developed
under
Project
XL,
an
EPA
initiative
to
allow
regulated
entities
to
achieve
better
environmental
results
with
limited
regulatory
flexibility.
The
regulation,
along
with
the
FPA,
will
facilitate
implementation
of
the
project.
Project
XL
 
`
`
eXcellence
and
Leadership''
 
was
announced
on
March
16,
1995,
as
a
central
part
of
the
National
Performance
Review
and
the
Agency's
effort
to
reinvent
environmental
protection.
See
60
FR
27282
(
May
23,
1995).
Project
XL
provides
a
limited
number
of
private
and
public
regulated
entities
an
opportunity
to
develop
their
own
pilot
projects
to
request
regulatory
flexibility
that
will
result
in
environmental
protection
that
is
superior
to
what
would
be
achieved
through
compliance
with
current
and
reasonably­
anticipated
future
regulations.
These
efforts
are
crucial
to
EPA's
ability
to
test
new
strategies
that
reduce
regulatory
burden
and
promote
economic
growth
while
achieving
better
environmental
and
public
health
protection.
EPA
intends
to
evaluate
the
results
of
this
and
other
Project
XL
projects
to
determine
which
specific
elements
of
the
project(
s),
if
any,
should
be
more
broadly
applied
to
other
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
08:
38
Sep
11,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00014
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
12SER1.
SGM
pfrm04
PsN:
12SER1
54957
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
177
/
Tuesday,
September
12,
2000
/
Rules
and
Regulations
regulated
entities
for
the
benefit
of
both
the
economy
and
the
environment.
Under
Project
XL,
participants
in
four
categories
 
facilities,
industry
sectors,
governmental
agencies
and
communities
 
are
offered
the
flexibility
to
develop
common
sense,
cost­
effective
strategies
that
will
replace
or
modify
specific
regulatory
requirements,
on
the
condition
that
they
produce
and
demonstrate
superior
environmental
performance.
The
XL
program
is
intended
to
encourage
EPA
to
experiment
with
potentially
promising
regulatory
approaches,
both
to
assess
whether
they
provide
benefits
at
the
specific
facility
affected,
and
whether
they
should
be
considered
for
wider
application.
Such
pilot
projects
allow
EPA
to
proceed
more
quickly
than
would
be
possible
when
undertaking
changes
on
a
nationwide
basis.
As
part
of
this
experimentation,
EPA
may
try
out
approaches
or
legal
interpretations
that
depart
from,
or
are
even
inconsistent
with,
longstanding
Agency
practice,
so
long
as
those
interpretations
are
within
the
broad
range
of
discretion
enjoyed
by
the
Agency
in
interpreting
the
statutes
that
it
implements.
EPA
may
also
modify
rules,
on
a
site­
specific
basis,
that
represent
one
of
several
possible
policy
approaches
within
a
more
general
statutory
directive,
so
long
as
the
alternative
being
used
is
permissible
under
the
statute.
Adoption
of
such
alternative
approaches
or
interpretations
in
the
context
of
a
given
XL
project
does
not,
however,
signal
EPA's
willingness
to
adopt
that
interpretation
as
a
general
matter,
or
even
in
the
context
of
other
XL
projects.
It
would
be
inconsistent
with
the
forward­
looking
nature
of
these
pilot
projects
to
adopt
such
innovative
approaches
prematurely
on
a
widespread
basis
without
first
determining
whether
they
are
viable
in
practice
and
successful
in
the
particular
projects
that
embody
them.
Furthermore,
as
EPA
indicated
in
announcing
the
XL
program,
EPA
expects
to
adopt
only
a
limited
number
of
carefully
selected
projects.
These
pilot
projects
are
not
intended
to
be
a
means
for
piecemeal
revision
of
entire
programs.
Depending
on
the
results
in
these
projects,
EPA
may
or
may
not
be
willing
to
consider
adopting
the
alternative
interpretation
again,
either
generally
or
for
other
specific
facilities.
EPA
believes
that
adopting
alternative
policy
approaches
and
interpretations,
on
a
limited,
site­
specific
basis
and
in
connection
with
a
carefully
selected
pilot
project,
is
consistent
with
the
expectations
of
Congress
about
EPA's
role
in
implementing
the
environmental
statutes
(
provided
that
the
Agency
acts
within
the
discretion
allowed
by
the
statute).
Congress'
recognition
that
there
is
a
need
for
experimentation
and
research,
as
well
as
ongoing
reevaluation
of
environmental
programs,
is
reflected
in
a
variety
of
statutory
provisions,
such
as
section
8001
of
RCRA.

XL
Criteria
To
participate
in
Project
XL,
applicants
must
develop
alternative
environmental
performance
objectives
pursuant
to
eight
criteria:
Superior
environmental
performance;
cost
savings
and
paperwork
reduction;
local
stakeholder
involvement
and
support;
test
of
an
innovative
strategy;
transferability;
feasibility;
identification
of
monitoring,
reporting
and
evaluation
methods;
and
avoidance
of
shifting
risk
burden.
The
XL
projects
must
have
the
full
support
of
the
affected
Federal,
State,
local
and
tribal
agencies
to
be
selected.
For
more
information
about
the
XL
criteria,
readers
should
refer
to
the
two
descriptive
documents
published
in
the
Federal
Register
(
60
FR
27282,
May
23,
1995
and
62
FR
19872,
April
23,
1997),
and
the
December
1,
1995
``
Principles
for
Development
of
Project
XL
Final
Project
Agreements''
document.
For
further
discussion
as
to
how
the
IBM
Vermont
XL
project
addresses
the
XL
criteria,
readers
should
refer
to
the
Final
Project
Agreement
available
from
the
EPA
RCRA
docket,
the
U.
S.
EPA
New
England
library,
or
the
Project
XL
web
page
(
see
ADDRESSES
section
of
today's
preamble).

XL
Program
Phases
The
Project
XL
program
is
compartmentalized
into
four
basic
developmental
phases:
The
initial
preproposal
phase
where
the
project
sponsor
comes
up
with
an
innovative
concept
that
they
would
like
EPA
to
consider
as
an
XL
pilot
project;
the
second
phase
where
the
project
sponsor
works
with
EPA
and
interested
stakeholders
in
developing
an
XL
proposal;
the
third
phase
where
EPA,
local
regulatory
agencies,
and
other
interested
stakeholders
review
the
XL
proposal;
and
the
fourth
phase
where
the
project
sponsor
works
with
EPA,
local
regulatory
agencies,
and
interested
stakeholders
in
developing
a
Final
Project
Agreement
and
legal
mechanism.
After
promulgation
of
the
final
rule
(
or
other
legal
mechanism)
for
the
XL
pilot,
and
after
the
Final
Project
Agreement
has
been
signed
by
all
designated
parties,
the
XL
pilot
project
proceeds
onto
implementation
and
evaluation.
Final
Project
Agreement
The
Final
Project
Agreement
(
FPA)
is
a
written
voluntary
agreement
between
the
project
sponsor
and
regulatory
agencies.
The
FPA
contains
a
detailed
description
of
the
pilot
project.
It
addresses
the
eight
Project
XL
criteria,
and
the
expectation
of
the
Agency
that
the
XL
project
will
meet
those
criteria.
The
FPA
identifies
performance
goals
and
indicators
that
the
project
is
yielding
the
expected
environmental
benefits,
and
specifically
addresses
the
manner
in
which
the
project
is
expected
to
produce
superior
environmental
benefits.
The
FPA
also
discusses
the
administration
of
the
FPA,
including
dispute
resolution
and
termination.
The
FPA
for
this
XL
project
is
available
for
review
in
the
docket
for
today's
action,
and
also
is
available
on
the
world
wide
web
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
projectxl/.

III.
Overview
of
the
IBM
Vermont
XL
Project
Today's
rule
will
facilitate
implementation
of
the
FPA
(
the
document
that
embodies
EPA's
intent
to
implement
this
project)
that
has
been
developed
by
EPA,
the
Vermont
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
(
VTDEC),
the
IBM
Essex
Junction,
VT
facility,
and
other
stakeholders.
Today's
rule,
will
not
be
effective
in
Vermont
until
the
State
has
made
conforming
changes
to
its
hazardous
waste
program.

A.
To
Which
Facilities
Will
the
Rule
Apply?
This
rule
will
apply
only
to
the
IBM
Essex
Junction,
VT
facility.
Further,
the
regulatory
modification
only
affects
the
copper
metallization
plating
process
(
and
the
wastes
generated
by
that
process)
that
is
the
focus
of
this
XL
project;
wastes
resulting
from
any
other
operations
at
the
facility
are
not
affected
by
this
rule.

B.
What
Problems
Will
the
IBM
Vermont
XL
Project
Attempt
To
Address?
IBM
does
not
believe
the
innovative
copper
metallization
process
it
uses
should
be
included
among
those
electroplating
operations
that
result
in
a
wastewater
treatment
sludge
that
is
specifically
listed
as
a
hazardous
waste
(
F006),
and
that
the
regulatory
controls
(
with
associated
increases
in
costs)
provide
no
benefit
to
the
environment.

1.
Background
on
Hazardous
Waste
Identification
Under
the
current
RCRA
regulatory
framework,
the
generator
of
a
waste
is
responsible
for
determining
whether
the
waste
is
hazardous
(
see
40
CFR
262.11).
There
are
two
ways
that
a
waste
is
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
08:
38
Sep
11,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00015
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
12SER1.
SGM
pfrm04
PsN:
12SER1
54958
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
177
/
Tuesday,
September
12,
2000
/
Rules
and
Regulations
determined
to
be
hazardous;
either
the
waste
exhibits
a
characteristic
of
a
hazardous
waste
as
defined
in
40
CFR
261.21,
261.22,
261.23,
and
261.24,
or
the
Agency
has
identified
and
specifically
listed
it
as
a
hazardous
waste
in
40
CFR
261.31,
261.32,
and
261.33.
The
wastewater
treatment
sludge
that
is
the
focus
of
this
XL
project
typically
does
not
exhibit
a
characteristic
of
hazardous
waste;
however,
it
does
meet
the
narrative
listing
description
for
F006,
generally
described
as
wastewater
treatment
sludge
from
electroplating
operations.
In
promulgating
the
hazardous
waste
listings,
EPA
presented
the
basis
for
the
listings
in
40
CFR
part
261,
appendix
VII
(
e.
g.,
the
basis
for
the
F006
listing
is
the
presence
of
cadmium,
hexavalent
chromium,
nickel,
and
cyanide
(
complexed)
in
high
enough
concentrations
to
present
a
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment
if
the
waste
is
mismanaged).
However,
the
hazardous
waste
listings
are
implemented
based
on
their
narrative
descriptions,
not
by
a
waste­
specific
assessment
of
the
hazardous
constituents
the
wastes
contain
(
such
an
assessment
is
how
the
``
toxicity
characteristic''
is
implemented
pursuant
to
40
CFR
261.24).
To
address
those
wastes
that
meet
the
narrative
description
of
a
listed
hazardous
waste
but
which
the
generator
believes
are
nonhazardous,
RCRA
regulations
provide
a
mechanism
for
the
generator
to
petition
the
Agency
for
a
determination
that
the
wastes
generated
at
their
facility
should
not
be
regulated
as
hazardous
(
i.
e.,
a
``
delisting''
pursuant
to
40
CFR
260.22).

2.
Background
on
the
F006
Hazardous
Waste
Listing
On
May
19,
1980,
EPA
promulgated
the
F006
hazardous
waste
listing,
thereby
designating
wastewater
treatment
sludges
from
electroplating
operations
to
be
a
RCRA
hazardous
waste
(
see
45
FR
33084).
This
wastestream
is
typically
generated
through
the
chemical
treatment
(
e.
g.,
lime
precipitation)
of
wastewaters
generated
by
plating
operations
to
precipitate
out
certain
toxic
metals.
These
wastewaters
are
typically
made
up
of
spent
plating/
coating
solutions
and
rinsewaters
(
from
the
rinsing
of
parts
after
being
plated).
As
discussed
in
more
detail
in
the
background
document
supporting
the
listing
of
electroplating
wastewater
treatment
sludge
(
F006),
Electroplating
and
Metal
Finishing
Operations
(
pages
105
 
143)
(
available
in
the
docket
for
this
project),
the
Agency
noted
that
while
there
are
many
various
plating
processes
covered
by
the
listing,
they
all
generally
involve
hazardous
constituents
of
concern
at
concentration
levels
requiring
regulatory
oversight
to
ensure
that
the
management
and
disposal
of
such
sludges
will
not
result
in
damages
to
the
environment
or
otherwise
present
a
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
metal
constituents
found
to
be
commonly
used
in
electroplating
operations
include
cadmium,
lead,
chromium
(
in
hexavalent
form),
copper,
nickel,
zinc,
gold
and
silver.
Cyanides,
strong
acids
and
strong
bases
are
also
used
extensively
in
the
general
types
of
plating
operations
intended
to
be
included
in
the
listing
description.
As
stated
earlier,
the
specific
constituents
of
concern
cited
as
the
basis
for
listing
such
wastewater
treatment
sludges
as
hazardous
wastes
were
cadmium,
hexavalent
chromium,
nickel,
and
cyanide
(
complexed)
(
see
40
CFR
part
261,
appendix
VII).
While
the
actual
composition
of
the
electroplating­
generated
wastewater
treatment
sludges
may
vary
due
to
the
specific
sequence
of
processing
operations
(
commonly,
more
than
one
processing
step
is
involved
in
a
plating
operation),
in
general,
the
sludges
would
be
expected
to
contain
significant
concentrations
of
toxic
metals,
and
possibly
complexed
cyanides
in
high
concentrations
if
the
cyanides
are
not
properly
isolated
in
the
wastewater
treatment
process.
Thus,
the
approach
to
this
hazardous
waste
listing
was
one
where
the
constituents
typically
used
in
the
``
up­
stream''
production
process
were,
in
part,
the
basis
of
the
hazardous
waste
listing
applicable
to
the
residuals
from
wastewater
treatment
(
typically
alkaline
precipitation
of
the
heavy
metals).
The
Agency
noted
in
the
May
19,
1980
rulemaking
that
several
plating
operations
were
found
to
not
contain
significant
concentrations
of
toxic
metals
or
cyanides,
such
that
the
sludges
resulting
from
the
treatment
of
the
wastewaters
resulting
from
such
operations
would
not
be
expected
to
pose
a
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
These
operations
were
accordingly
identified
and
specifically
excluded
from
the
F006
listing
description:
(
1)
sulfuric
acid
anodizing
of
aluminum,
(
2)
tin
plating
on
carbon
steel,
(
3)
zinc
plating
(
segregated
basis)
on
carbon
steel,
(
4)
aluminum
or
zincaluminum
plating
on
carbon
steel,
(
5)
cleaning/
stripping
associated
with
tin,
zinc
and
aluminum
plating
on
carbon
steel,
and
(
6)
chemical
etching
and
milling
of
aluminum.
(
see
40
CFR
261.31).
Accordingly,
the
chemical
make­
up
of
the
materials
used
in
the
plating
operation
was
a
major
consideration
in
whether
the
wastewater
treatment
sludge
would
be
designated
a
hazardous
waste.
Other
factors
that
may
impact
the
concentration
levels
of
hazardous
constituents
in
the
wastewater
treatment
sludge
are
the
type
and
shape
of
the
article
being
plated,
how
much
of
the
plating
solution
is
carried
over
into
the
rinsewater,
and
the
actual
plating
process
being
used.

3.
Site­
Specific
Considerations
at
the
IBM
Vermont
Facility
Since
the
IBM
facility
has
many
complicated
manufacturing
processes,
a
review
of
the
basic
steps
in
semiconductor
manufacturing
relevant
to
the
metallization
process
which
is
the
subject
of
this
XL
project
may
be
useful.
In
general,
the
surface
of
a
silicon
wafer
is
cleaned
and
passivated
(
i.
e.,
coated
to
provide
an
insulating
layer)
with
a
very
thin
silicon
oxide
layer.
An
organic
photoresist
is
applied
to
the
wafer
and
a
circuit
pattern
is
exposed
onto
the
resist
by
shining
light
onto
the
wafer
through
a
mask.
The
exposed
photoresist
is
washed
away,
while
the
remainder
is
hardened
to
protect
the
insulating
layer.
After
this
is
completed,
the
wafer
is
treated
with
inorganic
liquids
and
gases
to
create
the
doped
circuits
which
provide
the
semiconductor
function.
The
hardened
resist
is
then
removed
with
organic
solvents.
At
certain
points
in
the
process,
metallization
techniques
are
used
to
electronically
connect
the
stacked
layers
of
the
semiconductor
device.
(
The
copper
metallization
process
which
is
the
basis
for
this
XL
project
serves
this
purpose.)
Wafer
cleaning
and
rinsing
steps,
using
mixtures
of
inorganic
acids,
oxidizers,
and
deionized
water,
occur
after
many
of
the
process
steps.
This
process
cycle
is
repeated
until
a
fully
functional
memory
or
logic
device
has
been
produced.
After
the
circuits
are
built
on
the
wafer,
minute
amounts
of
metal
are
deposited
onto
the
wafer
to
produce
the
connections
which
marry
the
semiconductor
to
a
module
or
circuit
board
for
use
in
a
computer.
Finally,
the
wafer
is
sliced
into
individual
chips
for
testing
and
placement
onto
substrates
or
modules
for
use
in
computer
systems.
The
new
copper
metallization
process
IBM
has
introduced,
which
is
the
subject
of
this
XL
project,
serves
to
provide
the
interconnection
of
the
device
circuits,
electronically
connecting
the
stacked
layers
of
the
semiconductor
device.
In
designing
the
process,
IBM
worked
with
the
manufacturers
of
the
plating
solutions
and
the
manufacturer
of
the
plating
tool
(
which
holds
the
wafer)
to
minimize
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
08:
38
Sep
11,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00016
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
12SER1.
SGM
pfrm04
PsN:
12SER1
54959
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
177
/
Tuesday,
September
12,
2000
/
Rules
and
Regulations
1
Prior
to
the
copper
electroplating
operation,
a
thin
layer
of
copper
is
applied
to
each
wafer
by
vapor
deposition.
This
very
thin
layer
serves
as
a
``
seed''
site
for
the
deposition
of
the
electroplated
copper.
A
scheduled
change
(
not
related
to
this
XL
project)
in
the
process
for
depositing
the
seed
layer
will
result
in
additional
copper
being
inadvertently
deposited
to
the
outermost
edge
of
the
wafer
as
a
result
of
a
change
in
the
way
the
wafer
is
held
in
the
tool.
Due
to
this
change
in
the
seed
layer
process,
it
will
be
necessary
for
future
copper
plating
tools
to
remove
the
copper
from
the
outer
three
millimeters
of
the
wafer
edge
following
the
plating
step
to
prepare
the
wafer
for
future
processing.
the
copper
on
the
edge
is
removed
using
an
acid
spray,
in
a
process
step
termed
``
edge
bead
removal.''
This
will
add
0.77
grams/
day
of
copper
to
the
wastewater
stream,
representing
5
 
10%
of
the
load
generated
by
the
plating
wastewaters
and
0.5
 
1%
of
the
load
generated
by
the
total
copper
process.
2
There
are
a
few
cleaning
processes
at
the
facility
where
dilute
NF3
is
an
ineffective
substitute
for
the
PFC.
However,
for
those
operations,
IBM
has
substituted
a
much
more
dilute
PFC
than
was
originally
used,
still
achieving
reductions
in
the
global
warming
gas
emissions.
3
VTDEC
accepted
IBM's
position
that
the
F006
listing
was
inappropriately
bringing
the
copper
metallization
waste
stream
into
the
hazardous
waste
system
since
the
process
did
not
contain
the
constituents
for
which
F006
was
listed.
VTDEC
has
the
discretion
to
waive
the
hazardous
waste
tax
``
for
cause
shown.''
32
VSA
10102(
2).
VTDEC
took
the
position
that
the
constituents
for
which
F006
was
listed
took
primacy
over
the
narrative
listing
description
that
was
intended
to
further
describe
wastes
within
the
boundaries
of
the
basis
for
listing,
i.
e.
the
constituents
of
concern.
The
constituents
described
the
potential
for
harm
to
human
health
and
the
environment
while
the
narrative
listing
description
described
the
processes,
known
at
the
time,
that
were
likely
to
contain
the
constituents.
waste
and
increase
efficiency.
The
metallization
process
uses
this
specialized
tool
to
bring
only
one
side
of
the
wafer
into
contact
with
the
copper
plating
solution
and
applies
an
electrical
current
to
plate
the
copper
onto
the
wafer
surface.
Once
the
metallization
process
is
complete,
the
wafer
is
rinsed
with
sulfuric
acid
over
the
plating
bath
to
keep
as
much
plating
solution
as
possible
in
the
bath
(
thus
minimizing
the
amount
of
plating
solution
that
is
carried
over
into
the
rinsewaters).
After
the
sulfuric
acid
rinse,
the
wafer
is
then
rinsed
with
deionized
water,
and
deionized
water
and
sulfuric
acid,
in
a
pre­
defined
sequence,
with
the
resulting
rinsewaters
being
sent
through
the
facility's
wastewater
treatment
system.
For
each
wafer
produced,
approximately
3.5
grams
of
plating
solution
(
containing
approximately
0.065
grams
of
copper)
is
carried
over
to
the
rinsewaters.
The
volume
of
water
used
in
the
rinsing
ranges
from
0.5
to
0.7
gallons
per
wafer.
Present
projections
show
that
copper
mass
and
rinsewater
volume
will
increase
from
approximately
110
grams/
day
and
1000
 
2000
gallons/
day,
respectively
in
the
second
quarter
of
1999
to
180
grams/
day
and
2000
 
3000
gallons/
day
when
the
process
is
fully
deployed
in
2002.1
Also,
the
plating
unit
includes
a
40­
gallon
reservoir
for
the
plating
solution
that
constantly
filters
and
regenerates
the
solution.
The
goal
in
designing
and
operating
this
reservoir
is
to
achieve
an
infinite
bath
life
for
the
solution.
However,
it
is
currently
necessary
to
replace
a
portion
of
the
used
plating
solution
in
the
reservoir
with
new
solution.
Currently,
IBM
drums
the
spent
plating
solution
from
the
reservoir
and
sends
the
material
for
appropriate
off­
site
management.
IBM
does
not
currently,
nor
plan
to
in
the
future,
send
the
spent
plating
solution
from
the
reservoir
through
the
wastewater
treatment
system.
Thus,
the
only
plating
solution
that
is
or
will
be
sent
through
the
facility's
wastewater
treatment
system
is
the
relatively
small
amount
that
is
carried
over
to
the
rinsewaters.
According
to
tests
conducted
by
IBM,
the
plating
solution
currently
being
used
by
the
facility
does
not
contain
any
of
the
hazardous
metal
constituents
and
cyanides
which
were
the
focus
of
the
original
hazardous
waste
listing
for
wastewater
treatment
sludges
from
electroplating
operations
(
and
thus,
these
constituents
would
not
be
expected
to
be
in
the
wastewater
treatment
sludge
unless
they
are
introduced
from
some
other
production
process).
IBM
reported
other
significant
environmental
benefits
of
converting
to
the
copper
metallization
process
that
should
be
considered.
The
copper
metallization
process
replaced
an
aluminum
chemical
vapor
deposition
process
that
required
the
vaporization
of
aluminum
for
deposit
on
the
wafer.
The
use
of
the
vapor
deposition
process
entailed
cleaning
steps
that
used
perfluorinated
compounds
(
PFCs),
which
are
global
warming
gases.
By
replacing
a
majority
of
the
aluminum
connections
with
copper,
a
significant
reduction
in
global
warming
gases
will
be
realized
simply
by
minimizing
the
number
of
cleaning
steps
that
use
PFCs.
It
should
also
be
noted
that
while
such
vapor
deposition
processes
(
and
subsequent
cleaning
steps)
are
still
required
in
other
aspects
of
the
semiconductor
manufacturing
process,
IBM
has
developed
an
alternative
cleaning
method
that
uses
dilute
nitrogen
trifluoride
(
NF3)
instead
of
PFCs,
wherever
appropriate.
NF3
has
significantly
less
impact
on
global
warming
than
PFCs.
2
The
Agency
recognizes
this
significant
environmental
benefit
although
it
is
not
closely
associated
with
the
regulatory
flexibility
being
sought
by
IBM.
IBM
also
reported
that
the
new
copper
metallization
process
is
much
more
energy
efficient
(
30
to
40%
less
energy)
than
the
aluminum
chemical
vapor
deposition
process
it
replaces.
Similarly,
the
semiconductor
chip
produced
by
the
copper
metallization
process
is
approximately
25%
more
energy­
efficient
than
the
chip
it
replaces.
IBM
expects
this
type
of
metallization
process
(
or
processes
very
similar)
to
become
more
common
in
the
semiconductor
manufacturing
industry.
The
aluminum
chemical
vapor
deposition
process
which
the
copper
metallization
process
replaces
was
dry
and
generated
no
wastewater
or
sludge
that
was
subject
to
RCRA.
From
the
time
the
copper
metallization
process
was
first
introduced
in
1996
until
April
of
1998,
the
copper
metallization
rinsewaters
were
collected
and
drummed
for
off­
site
disposal,
keeping
these
wastewaters
separate
from
the
onsite
wastewater
treatment
system.
However,
beginning
in
May
1998,
the
volume
of
rinsewater
generated
(
approximately
250
gallons/
day)
became
large
enough
to
make
it
necessary
to
introduce
the
plating
rinsewaters
into
the
wastewater
treatment
system
by
commingling
them
with
other
wastewater
streams
generated
on­
site.
Even
though
the
contribution
of
wastewaters
from
the
copper
metallization
process
to
the
total
volume
of
wastewater
being
treated
to
generate
the
sludge
is
minimal
(
the
volume
of
rinsewaters
from
the
plating
operation
expected
to
be
generated
when
the
plating
process
is
at
full
production
is
1600
gallons/
day,
compared
with
an
estimated
5,000,000
gallons/
day
volume
of
other
on­
site
wastewaters),
the
sludge
generated
by
the
treatment
of
the
commingled
wastewaters
is
regulated
as
F006
because
it
meets
the
narrative
listing
description
(
i.
e.,
wastewater
treatment
sludges
from
an
electroplating
operation).
Consequently,
IBM's
reported
annual
hazardous
waste
generation
increased
from
2.14
million
pounds
to
5.78
million
pounds
(
1999
totals)
and
their
waste
management
costs
increased
by
$
3,500
per
year.
Regarding
IBM's
waste
management
costs,
the
State
of
Vermont
has
deferred
the
hazardous
waste
tax
that
would
normally
apply
to
the
generation
of
an
F006
waste
(
approximately
$
225,000/
year).
3
While
the
increased
waste
management
costs
(
as
well
as
the
associated
recordkeeping
and
paperwork
burdens)
are
relatively
insignificant
to
the
facility,
they
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
08:
38
Sep
11,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00017
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
12SER1.
SGM
pfrm04
PsN:
12SER1
54960
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
177
/
Tuesday,
September
12,
2000
/
Rules
and
Regulations
nevertheless
represent
increased
costs
for
no
net
environmental
benefit.

C.
What
Solutions
Are
Being
Tested
by
the
IBM
Vermont
XL
Project?
IBM's
position
is
that
they
have
adopted
a
more
energy­
and
resourceefficient
metallization
process
that
employs
a
plating
solution
that
is
significantly
different
from
the
plating
solutions
used
when
the
Agency
promulgated
the
F006
listing,
and
therefore
should
not
be
subject
to
the
F006
listing.
This
process
has
been
specifically
designed
to
minimize
the
use
of
the
plating
solution
while
maximizing
the
use
of
the
copper
metal
in
the
solution,
and
minimizing
the
amount
of
solution
that
is
carried
over
into
the
rinsewater.
Because
this
metallization
process
does
not
contribute
hazardous
constituents
to
the
wastewater
treatment
sludge,
IBM
sought
to
have
its
copper
metallization
process
exempted
from
the
F006
hazardous
waste
listing.
Therefore,
rather
than
pursue
a
delisting
of
the
wastewater
treatment
sludge
under
40
CFR
260.22,
IBM
has
opted
to
work
with
the
Agency,
VTDEC,
and
interested
stakeholders
to
develop
and
implement
a
pilot
project
under
Project
XL
that
will
evaluate
whether
the
copper
metallization
process
should
be
included
in
the
plating
operations
that
result
in
F006
listed
hazardous
wastes.
The
Agency
agrees
with
IBM
that
this
XL
project
has
a
somewhat
different
aspect
to
it
(
i.
e.,
the
focus
on
the
innovative
production
process
that
generates
the
wastewaters
that,
in
turn,
are
treated
to
generate
the
listed
sludge),
such
that
the
delisting
approach
is
not
the
most
suitable.
A
delisting
approach
would
look
strictly
at
the
waste
being
delisted
(
as
well
as
how
it
is
managed),
which
in
this
situation
is
the
result
of
treating
large
volumes
of
wastewaters
from
a
variety
of
production
processes
(
including
wastewaters
contributed
by
the
innovative
copper
metallization
process)
and
would
not
adequately
reflect
the
specific
environmental
impacts
associated
with
the
innovative
production
process.
It
is
the
innovative
production
process
that
causes
the
wastewater
treatment
sludge
to
be
designated
a
hazardous
waste.

D.
What
Regulatory
Changes
Are
Being
Promulgated
to
Implement
this
Project?
To
implement
this
XL
project,
the
Agency
is
promulgating
in
today's
notice
a
site­
specific
exemption
in
40
CFR
261.4(
b)
(
i.
e.,
``
Solid
wastes
which
are
not
hazardous
wastes'')
for
the
copper
metallization
process
at
the
IBM
Vermont
facility
from
the
F006
hazardous
waste
listing
description.
The
Agency
considered
a
modification
to
the
F006
listing
description
in
the
table
in
40
CFR
261.31(
a),
adding
the
copper
metallization
process
at
the
IBM
Vermont
facility
to
the
list
of
plating
operations
that
are
not
intended
to
be
subject
to
the
listing.
However,
because
the
exemption
will
have
a
number
of
conditions
that
the
IBM
facility
must
follow
to
ensure
that
this
XL
project
is
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment
throughout
the
term
of
the
project
and
to
provide
the
information
and
data
the
Agency
will
use
to
consider
whether
the
regulatory
exemption
should
be
incorporated
into
the
national
program,
the
Agency
prefered
placing
the
exemption
language
in
40
CFR
261.4(
b).
Regardless
of
where
EPA
chose
to
place
the
exemption
language
in
the
regulations
(
§
261.31(
a)
or
§
261.4(
b)),
the
legal
effect
of
the
exemption
is
the
same.
EPA
expects
that
should
the
exemption
of
the
copper
metallization
process
from
the
F006
listing
be
incorporated
into
the
national
program,
EPA
would
then
modify
the
listing
description
in
40
CFR
261.31(
a).

E.
Why
Is
EPA
Supporting
This
Approach
to
Removing
a
Waste
From
a
Hazardous
Waste
Listing?
The
Agency
agrees
with
IBM
that
this
XL
project
has
merit
and
has
the
potential
to
yield
significant
environmental
benefits
should
this
exemption
be
adopted
on
a
national
basis.
Project
XL
offers
the
opportunity
for
the
Agency
to
test
its
belief
that
this
innovative
process
should
be
encouraged
as
one
that
is
environmentally
superior
to
existing
technologies
and
to
consider
the
appropriate
regulatory
status
of
the
wastes
from
this
technology
before
it
is
adopted
by
similar
manufacturing
facilities.
Further,
this
XL
project
offered
EPA
the
opportunity
to
test
a
different
approach
to
re­
evaluating
whether
a
specific
wastestream
is
appropriately
subject
to
regulatory
controls
as
a
listed
waste.
The
existing
mechanism
for
removing
a
waste
from
a
listing
on
a
site­
specific
basis
is
through
a
``
delisting''
petition
under
40
CFR
260.22.
However,
the
delisting
approach
is
not
the
most
suitable
for
the
situation
at
the
IBM
Vermont
facility
because
the
scope
of
the
listing
itself
is
at
issue.
If
IBM
submitted
a
delisting
petition,
EPA
would
evaluate
the
hazardous
nature
of
the
entire
wastewater
treatment
sludge
(
which
is
the
wastestream
that
actually
carries
the
F006
listing)
rather
than
only
that
portion
which
is
contributed
by
the
copper
metallization
process.
EPA
generally
prefers
a
delisting
approach
in
most
circumstances
(
it
is,
generally,
a
better
approach
for
determining
the
hazardous
nature
of
the
actual
waste
material
and
whether
the
waste
should
be
removed
from
the
hazardous
waste
management
program).
In
this
instance,
however,
because
the
Agency
wants
to
test
whether
IBM's
copper
metallization
process
should
be
included
within
the
scope
of
the
F006
listing,
the
Agency
believed
an
evaluation
of
the
``
production
side''
of
the
sequence
of
operations
that
resulted
in
the
wastewater
treatment
sludge
is
more
useful.
Specifically,
because
the
wastewater
treatment
sludge
is
considered
hazardous
due
to
an
``
upstream''
production
unit
meeting
the
narrative
description
of
an
electroplating
operation,
the
Agency
believed
it
was
more
appropriate
to
evaluate
the
upstream
production
unit
to
determine
whether
the
hazardous
waste
listing
on
the
``
downstream''
wastewater
treatment
sludge
is
warranted.
Therefore,
the
Agency
focused
on
the
key
parameters
on
the
production
side
(
in
this
case,
the
innovative
design
and
operation
of
the
copper
metallization
process)
to
make
a
determination
of
the
regulatory
status
of
the
materials
generated
on
the
waste
management
side
(
in
this
case,
the
wastewater
treatment
sludge).
This
XL
project
therefore
represents
an
opportunity
for
EPA
to
explore
a
different
approach
to
determining
whether
a
waste
(
in
this
case,
one
resulting
from
an
innovative
process)
should
continue
to
be
subject
to
a
hazardous
waste
listing.
In
other
words,
this
approach
may
be
considered
another
``
tool''
for
the
Agency
to
use
in
``
fine
tuning''
the
hazardous
waste
listings
so
that
the
narrative
description
of
a
listed
waste
appropriately
delineates
between
those
wastes
that
pose
a
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment
from
those
wastes
(
which
arguably
are
generated
by
very
similar
processes)
that
do
not
pose
such
a
risk.
If,
in
fact,
the
absence
of
hazardous
constituents
of
concern
in
the
plating
solution
is
determinative
of
whether
the
wastewater
treatment
sludge
is
hazardous
(
or
whether
any
``
hazard''
in
the
sludge
stems
from
the
plating
operation),
this
may
become
the
key
determining
factor
in
similar
requests
for
regulatory
exemptions.
Alternatively,
if
the
Agency
determines
that
the
amount
of
plating
solution
that
is
carried
over
into
the
rinsewater
(
with
focus
on
the
shape
of
the
parts
being
plated
as
well
as
the
actual
plating
process)
is
the
determining
factor,
this
variable
may
be
accounted
for
in
future
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
08:
38
Sep
11,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00018
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
12SER1.
SGM
pfrm04
PsN:
12SER1
54961
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
177
/
Tuesday,
September
12,
2000
/
Rules
and
Regulations
rulemakings
that
address
the
F006
hazardous
waste
listing.
Because
this
is
an
innovative
and
highly
efficient
plating
technology
that
also
does
not
use
the
hazardous
constituents
common
in
most
electroplating
operations,
EPA
agrees
with
IBM's
expectation
that
more
semiconductor
manufacturing
facilities
will
seek
to
adopt
this
process
(
or
ones
very
similar).
The
Agency
agrees
that
if
there
is
no
adverse
effect
on
the
wastewater
treatment
sludge
from
the
use
of
this
metallization
process,
then
regulating
the
sludge
as
a
hazardous
waste
based
solely
on
the
fact
that
the
metallization
process
continues
to
meet
the
narrative
listing
description
of
an
electroplating
operation
may
be
imposing
regulatory
controls
unnecessarily.
Further,
the
Agency
believes
that
this
innovative
metallization
process
is
environmentally
superior
to
the
old
process
it
replaces,
i.
e.,
the
aluminum
chemical
vapor
deposition
process.
Not
only
is
the
metallization
process
30
to
40%
more
energy
efficient
than
the
old
process
and
the
chips
produced
approximately
25%
more
energy
efficient,
there
are
also
environmental
benefits
realized
by
discontinuing
the
use
of
the
old
process.
While
the
metallization
process
generates
a
wastewater
stream
(
and
subsequent
sludge
from
the
treatment
of
that
wastewater)
that
was
not
inherent
to
the
aluminum
chemical
vapor
deposition
process,
the
old
vapor
deposition
process
entailed
a
cleaning
step
that
used
perfluorinated
compounds
(
PFCs),
which
are
global
warming
gases.
The
aluminum
chemical
vapor
deposition
process
basically
uses
vaporized
metal
(
in
this
case,
aluminum)
that
is
then
deposited
on
the
wafer,
all
of
which
occurs
in
``
chambers.''
The
vaporized
metal
also
gets
deposited
on
the
insides
of
these
chambers,
which
must
periodically
be
cleaned
of
this
metal
coating.
Thus,
by
replacing
the
old
process
with
the
metallization
process,
10,000
metric
tons
of
carbon
equivalent
(
MTCE)
of
global
warming
gases
will
not
be
emitted
to
the
air.
However,
it
should
be
noted
that,
due
to
the
nature
of
the
materials
and
components
involved
in
the
semiconductor
manufacturing
process,
the
vapor
deposition
process
cannot
be
completely
eliminated
from
the
production
line,
nor
can
the
subsequent
cleaning
steps.
(
However,
the
number
of
cleaning
steps
requiring
the
use
of
PFCs
has
been
significantly
reduced
and
will
continue
to
be
reduced
by
the
conversion
to
the
innovative
copper
metallization
process.
The
vapor
deposition
chambers,
therefore,
are
a
major
focus
in
measuring
the
reduction
in
global
warming
gases.)
Nevertheless,
the
Agency
believes
that
the
use
of
the
innovative
copper
metallization
process
should
be
encouraged
where
possible.
(
Also,
as
stated
earlier,
IBM
has
developed
an
alternative
cleaning
process
that
uses
dilute
nitrogen
trifluoride
(
NF3)
as
a
replacement
for
the
PFCs.
The
dilute
NF3
is
reported
to
have
a
much
lower
impact
on
global
warming
than
the
PFCs
that
would
otherwise
be
used.)
From
a
public
policy
standpoint,
it
would
not
serve
to
encourage
manufacturers
to
employ
less­
hazardous
or
more
environmentally
friendly
and
innovative
production
processes
and
ingredients
in
manufacturing
operations
if
the
Agency
is
unwilling
to
revisit
existing
hazardous
waste
listings
to
determine
if
the
wastes
resulting
from
such
innovative
process
changes
still
warrant
a
hazardous
waste
listing.
This
XL
project
offers
the
Agency
the
opportunity
to
consider
proactively
the
appropriate
regulatory
status
of
the
wastewater
treatment
sludges
generated
from
an
innovative
production
process
before
it
is
widely
used
and
commonplace
and
may
serve
as
a
precedent
for
other
listed
wastestreams.
Additionally,
the
Agency
believes
that
to
the
extent
the
implementation
of
the
hazardous
waste
regulations,
including
the
actual
requirements
as
well
as
the
costs
and
administrative
burdens,
are
directly
related
to
the
hazards
being
posed
by
the
waste
being
regulated,
this
will
improve
the
overall
implementation
of
the
program
and
compliance
with
the
regulations.
Just
as
it
is
important
to
ensure
that
those
wastes
that
can
pose
significant
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment
are
properly
controlled
and
managed,
it
is
also
important
to
not
needlessly
subject
wastes
that
do
not
pose
such
risks
to
the
same
type
of
regulatory
oversight.

F.
How
Have
Various
Stakeholders
Been
Involved
in
This
Project?
IBM
has
established
an
appropriate
stakeholder
group
to
develop
the
Final
Project
Agreement
for
this
XL
pilot
project
and
to
evaluate
IBM's
plan
and
progress
in
implementing
the
project.
IBM
has
solicited
input
on
this
project
from
a
wide
range
of
stakeholders
including
local
and
national
environmental
groups,
neighborhood
associations,
and
industry
trade
associations.
Stakeholders
have
been
notified
of
this
project
by
direct
mail,
telephone,
and
notification
in
the
local
press.
In
addition,
IBM
has
conducted
a
series
of
meetings
with
select
stakeholders
who
had
agreed
to
serve
as
commenters
for
this
project.
They
had
been
briefed
on
the
proposal,
and
were
supportive
of
the
project
as
described.
The
State
of
Vermont
also
supports
the
project
and
is
a
Project
Signatory
to
the
Agreement.
Stakeholder
meetings
were
held
at
the
IBM
facility
on
February
17
and
March
24,
2000.
IBM
has
kept
an
open
dialogue
with
interested
stakeholders
since
the
project's
inception
and
will
continue
to
involve
any
interested
stakeholders
in
the
project's
development.
In
addition,
EPA
and
IBM
will
make
all
projectrelated
documents
and
events
publically
accessible
through
announcements,
EPA's
web
site
and
public
dockets.

G.
How
Will
This
Project
Result
in
Cost
Savings
and
Paperwork
Reduction?
As
stated
earlier,
introducing
the
rinsewaters
from
the
metallization
process
into
the
wastewater
treatment
system
has
caused
the
entire
volume
of
wastewater
treatment
sludge
to
be
defined
as
a
hazardous
waste,
increasing
the
facility's
waste
management
costs
by
approximately
$
3,500/
year.
Removing
the
hazardous
waste
designation
will
eliminate
this
expenditure.
Also,
as
discussed
earlier,
the
State
of
Vermont
has
waived
the
waste
tax
that
would
otherwise
apply
to
IBM's
generation
of
F006
waste
(
approximately
$
225,000/
year).
(
Note
that
the
State
of
Vermont
is
not
authorized
to
do
hazardous
waste
delistings
which
could
change
the
regulatory
status
of
the
sludge
from
a
listed
hazardous
waste
to
a
nonhazardous
waste;
however,
the
State
has
more
flexibility
in
assessing
hazardous
waste
generation
taxes.
Had
the
State
not
granted
this
tax
waiver,
the
cost
savings
associated
with
this
specific
XL
project
would
be
considered
significant.)
Finally,
IBM
expects
to
see
cost
savings
of
$
100,000
to
$
200,000
per
year
when
the
conversion
to
the
copper
metallization
process
has
been
fully
implemented.
The
sources
of
these
cost
savings
include
reduced
material
costs
(
e.
g.,
reduction
in
the
use
and
resultant
purchase
of
PFCs)
and
reduced
energy
expenditures.
Because
the
IBM
Vermont
facility
will
continue
to
be
regulated
as
a
Large
Quantity
Generator
due
to
the
volume
of
hazardous
wastes
generated
at
other
parts
of
the
facility,
and
because
there
is
no
State
hazardous
waste
tax
being
applied,
the
actual
reduction
in
paperwork
and
cost
savings
related
to
waste
management
are
not
significant.
The
wastewater
treatment
sludge
will
no
longer
be
considered
a
hazardous
waste
(
unless
the
sludge
otherwise
exhibits
a
characteristic
of
hazardous
waste)
and
so
will
not
have
to
be
counted
in
the
facility's
annual
report.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
08:
38
Sep
11,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00019
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
12SER1.
SGM
pfrm04
PsN:
12SER1
54962
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
177
/
Tuesday,
September
12,
2000
/
Rules
and
Regulations
4
The
Agency
notes
that
in
the
proposed
rule
language,
the
condition
for
reporting
on
estimated
greenhouse
gas
emissions
and
reductions
from
a
1995
base
year
would
cease
after
2004
or
once
IBM
had
achieved
their
facility­
wide
goal
of
50%
reduction,
whichever
comes
first.
The
draft
FPA
identified
the
goal
as
a
40%
reduction.
No
comments
were
received
noting
this
discrepancy.
The
correct
goal
is
40%
and
the
regulatory
language
being
promulgated
today
has
been
amended
to
reflect
the
correct
40%
goal.
While
this
reduction
in
reported
hazardous
waste
generated
will
certainly
improve
the
facility's
public
image,
it
will
save
only
a
little
time
and
money
in
preparing
the
annual
report
for
the
hazardous
wastes
generated
by
other
facility
operations.
There
are
also
cost
savings
realized
by
not
having
to
use
a
hazardous
waste
transporter
or
hazardous
waste
manifest
to
ship
the
sludge
off­
site
for
further
management.
Also,
because
the
sludges
are
currently
shipped
to
Canada
for
treatment
and
disposal,
IBM
must
currently
file
an
annual
``
Request
for
Export
of
Hazardous
Waste''
with
Canada,
requiring
2
hours
of
engineering
time,
as
well
as
several
hours
of
phone
calls
and
follow­
up
to
ensure
the
application
is
expeditiously
processed.
Such
an
application
and
expenditure
of
resources
is
not
needed
if
the
sludges
being
shipped
to
Canada
are
not
hazardous
wastes.
EPA,
as
well
as
VTDEC,
will
also
benefit
from
some
paperwork
reduction
and
cost
savings
by
not
having
to
process
and
track
the
manifests
and
export
documents
that
will
otherwise
have
to
be
processed
without
this
XL
project.
In
considering
the
cost
savings
and
paperwork
reduction
associated
with
this
XL
project,
it
is
important
to
consider
the
potential
impacts
if
this
pilot
project
proves
successful
and
the
regulatory
flexibility
(
i.
e.,
the
exemption
of
the
copper
metallization
unit
from
the
listing
description
of
F006
wastes)
is
promulgated
on
a
national
basis.
The
conversion
to
the
copper
metallization
process
represents
significant
operational
cost
savings
for
IBM.
As
a
result,
on
a
national
level
the
overall
cost
(
and
paperwork)
reduction
that
would
be
realized
may
be
quite
significant,
assuming
this
innovative
technology
(
or
a
similar
one)
is
adopted
by
more
semiconductor
manufacturers.
While
there
is
little
question
that
a
national
exemption
patterned
after
this
site­
specific
exemption
would
result
in
cost
and
paperwork
reductions,
because
of
the
variability
in
how
States
implement
their
waste
taxes,
or
other
mechanisms
for
raising
revenues
based
on
the
hazardous
wastes
generated
in
the
State,
it
is
difficult
to
estimate
a
projected
savings
on
such
taxes
on
a
national
level.

H.
What
Are
the
Terms
of
the
IBM
Vermont
XL
Project
and
How
Will
They
Be
Enforced?
As
stated
earlier,
to
allow
for
the
implementation
of
the
XL
pilot
project,
EPA
is
today
modifying
the
current
regulatory
framework
in
40
CFR
261.4(
b)
to
provide
a
site­
specific
exemption
for
IBM's
copper
metallization
process
from
the
narrative
description
for
F006
listed
hazardous
waste
(
see
40
CFR
261.31(
a)),
thus
removing
the
F006
listing
designation
from
the
sludges
generated
by
the
treatment
of
the
wastewaters
generated
by
the
copper
metallization
process.
VTDEC
likewise
intends
to
modify
its
State
hazardous
waste
program
to
allow
for
the
same
removal
of
the
F006
listing
designation
from
the
wastewater
treatment
sludge.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
Agency
intends
that
the
exemption
will
apply
to
all
the
wastewater
treatment
sludge
resulting
from
the
treatment
of
the
copper
metallization
rinsewaters
at
the
site,
including
those
sludges
that
are
in
the
process
of
being
generated,
sludges
that
result
from
rinsewaters
already
in
the
wastewater
treatment
system,
and
sludges
that
have
been
removed
from
the
wastewater
treatment
system
and
are
being
stored
pending
off­
site
transportation.
Through
the
development
of
the
Final
Project
Agreement
(
FPA),
IBM
has
agreed
to
comply
with
several
key
criteria
as
conditions
for
this
exemption,
which
are
included
in
the
regulatory
text
of
the
exemption.
These
conditions
are
focused
on
proving
the
environmental
benefits
of
removing
the
F006
listing
from
the
wastewater
treatment
sludges
(
or
the
inappropriateness
of
designating
these
wastewater
treatment
sludges
F006
hazardous
waste)
and
to
gather
the
data
and
other
information
that
would
allow
the
Agency
to
make
a
determination
regarding
the
possible
future
adoption
of
this
site­
specific
exemption
as
a
nationwide
generic
exemption.
IBM
has
also
agreed
to
commit
to
a
good
faith
effort
to
achieve
several
goals
related
to
superior
environmental
performance.
(
Note
that
while
achieving
these
goals
is
not
being
proposed
as
a
condition
of
the
exemption
due
to
their
uncertain
nature,
an
evaluation
of
the
success
of
this
XL
pilot
project
will
certainly
be
influenced
by
IBM's
success
in
achieving
their
stated
goals,
as
well
as
the
effort
expended
to
achieve
the
goals.)
As
conditions
of
the
site­
specific
exemption,
IBM
must
report
on
the
following:
(
1)
IBM
must
analyze
the
plating
bath
and
rinsewaters
generated
from
the
copper
metallization
process.
The
analysis
must
be
conducted
on
samples
that
are
representative
of
rinsewaters
and
plating
baths
associated
with
all
the
tools
that
are
converted
to
the
copper
metallization
process
and
will
measure
for
the
presence
of
volatiles,
semivolatiles
and
metals
(
using
the
methods
specified
in
40
CFR
part
264,
appendix
IX)
in
both
the
plating
bath
and
rinsewaters.
IBM
must
collect,
analyze
and
submit
this
data
twice
a
year
(
by
January
15
and
July
15
of
each
year).
(
2)
In
addition,
IBM
must
report
on
the
status
of
the
greenhouse
gas
emission
reduction
project
at
the
facility.
This
will
include
greenhouse
gas
reductions
achieved
from
the
conversion
to
the
copper
metallization
process
and
IBM's
additional
voluntary
initiative
to
reduce
greenhouse
gas
emissions
from
its
other
chamber
cleaning
processes.
IBM
will
track
usage
of
C2F6,
the
primary
PFC
used
in
the
chamber
cleaning
operation,
and
estimate
the
reduction
in
PFC
emissions
based
on
the
reduction
in
chemical
usage.
Likewise,
IBM
will
provide
similar
data
for
the
chemicals
that
replace
the
C2F6,
specifically,
dilute
nitrogen
trifluoride
(
NF3),
and
dilute
C2F6,
including
the
quantity
of
NF3
used
in
the
cleaning
process,
and
the
carbon
equivalent
potential
of
the
NF3
to
calculate
the
global
warming
impact
of
the
converted
processes.
IBM
will
report
on
the
number
of
chambers
converted
during
the
reporting
period
and
remaining
to
be
converted
to
achieve
the
site
global
warming
gas
emission
reduction
goal
along
with
an
update
of
the
calculated
greenhouse
gas
emission
reductions
for
the
facility,
both
in
terms
of
total
mass
emitted
and
mass
emitted
normalized
to
production.
4
Submissions
of
these
data
are
likewise
due
twice
a
year,
by
January
15
and
July
15
in
conjunction
with
the
plating
bath
and
rinsewater
analyses.
In
addition,
IBM
commits
to
monitor
copper
concentrations
in
its
wastewater
effluent
for
conformance
with
their
current
NPDES
(
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System)
permit.
IBM's
stated
goal
is
to
maintain
copper
concentrations
in
the
effluent
discharge
of
less
than
40%
of
the
discharge
limit.

I.
How
Long
Will
This
Project
Last
and
When
Will
It
Be
Completed?
This
project
will
be
in
effect
for
five
years
from
the
date
that
the
final
rulemaking
becomes
effective
(
the
latter
of
the
EPA
final
rule
or
the
VTDEC
final
rule)
unless
it
is
terminated
earlier
or
extended
by
all
Project
Signatories
(
if
the
FPA
is
extended,
the
comments
and
input
of
stakeholders
will
be
sought
and
a
Federal
Register
document
will
be
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
08:
38
Sep
11,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00020
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
12SER1.
SGM
pfrm04
PsN:
12SER1
54963
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
177
/
Tuesday,
September
12,
2000
/
Rules
and
Regulations
published).
Any
Project
Signatory
may
terminate
its
participation
in
this
project
at
any
time
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
set
forth
in
the
FPA.
The
project
will
be
completed
at
the
conclusion
of
the
five­
year
anniversary
of
the
final
rulemaking
or
at
a
time
earlier
or
later
determined
by
the
amount
of
information
gathered
to
date
and
the
interest
of
the
parties
involved.
Upon
completion
of
the
project
term,
EPA
and
VTDEC
commit
to
evaluating
the
project.
If
the
project
results
indicate
that
it
was
a
success,
EPA
will
consider
transferring
the
regulatory
flexibility
(
or
some
similar
flexibility)
to
the
national
RCRA
program
(
through
rulemaking
procedures).
Should
the
project
results
indicate
that
the
project
was
not
successful,
EPA
will
promulgate
a
rule
to
remove
the
site­
specific
exemption.
Absent
any
regulatory
action
on
the
part
of
the
Agency,
the
implementing
rule
(
i.
e.,
the
site­
specific
exemption)
will
remain
in
effect
as
long
as
IBM
continues
to
meet
its
conditions
(
i.
e.,
EPA
and
VTDEC
intend
to
allow
IBM
to
continue
operating
under
the
sitespecific
rule).
However,
as
for
any
conditional
exemption,
if
at
any
time,
should
IBM
fail
to
meet
the
conditions
of
the
site­
specific
exemption,
the
exemption
is
not
applicable.
Also,
the
Agency
may
promulgate
a
rule
to
withdraw
the
exemption
at
any
time,
subject
to
the
procedures
agreed
to
in
the
Final
Project
Agreement
(
FPA),
including,
but
not
limited
to,
a
substantial
failure
on
the
part
of
any
Project
Signatory
to
comply
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
FPA
or
if
the
exemption
becomes
inconsistent
with
future
statutory
or
regulatory
requirements.

IV.
Additional
Information
A.
How
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.

B.
Is
a
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
Required?
The
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.,
generally
requires
an
agency
to
conduct
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
unless
the
agency
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
not­
forprofit
enterprises,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.
This
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
because
it
only
affects
the
IBM
facility
in
Essex
Junction,
VT
and
it
is
not
a
small
entity.
Therefore,
EPA
certifies
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.

C.
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
and
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
801
because
this
is
a
rule
of
particular
applicability.
D.
Is
an
Information
Collection
Request
Required
for
This
Project
Under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act?

This
action
applies
only
to
one
facility,
and
therefore
requires
no
information
collection
activities
subject
to
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
and
therefore
no
information
collection
request
(
ICR)
will
be
submitted
to
OMB
for
review
in
compliance
with
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501,
et
seq.

E.
Does
This
Project
Trigger
the
Requirements
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act?

Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Public
Law
104
 
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
Federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
to
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
costeffective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
of
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
As
noted
above,
this
rule
is
applicable
only
to
one
facility
in
Vermont.
EPA
has
determined
that
this
rule
contains
no
regulatory
requirements
that
might
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
08:
38
Sep
11,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00021
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
12SER1.
SGM
pfrm04
PsN:
12SER1
54964
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
177
/
Tuesday,
September
12,
2000
/
Rules
and
Regulations
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.
EPA
has
also
determined
that
this
rule
does
not
contain
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
expenditures
of
$
100
million
or
more
for
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
the
private
sector
in
any
one
year.
Thus,
today's
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
sections
202
and
205
of
the
UMRA.

F.
RCRA
&
Hazardous
and
Solid
Waste
Amendments
of
1984
1.
Applicability
of
Rules
in
Authorized
States
Under
section
3006
of
RCRA,
EPA
may
authorize
qualified
States
to
administer
and
enforce
the
RCRA
program
for
hazardous
waste
within
the
State.
(
See
40
CFR
part
271
for
the
standards
and
requirements
for
authorization.)
States
with
final
authorization
administer
their
own
hazardous
waste
programs
in
lieu
of
the
Federal
program.
Following
authorization,
EPA
retains
enforcement
authority
under
sections
3008,
7003
and
3013
of
RCRA.
After
authorization,
Federal
rules
written
under
RCRA
(
non­
HSWA),
no
longer
apply
in
the
authorized
state
except
for
those
issued
pursuant
to
the
Hazardous
and
Solid
Waste
Act
Amendments
of
1984
(
HSWA).
New
Federal
requirements
imposed
by
those
rules
do
not
take
effect
in
an
authorized
State
until
the
State
adopts
the
requirements
as
State
law.
In
contrast,
under
section
3006(
g)
of
RCRA,
new
requirements
and
prohibitions
imposed
by
HSWA
take
effect
in
authorized
States
at
the
same
time
they
take
effect
in
nonauthorized
States.
EPA
is
directed
to
carry
out
HSWA
requirements
and
prohibitions
in
authorized
States
until
the
State
is
granted
authorization
to
do
so.

2.
Effect
on
Vermont
Authorization
Today's
rule,
will
be
promulgated
pursuant
to
non­
HSWA
authority,
rather
than
HSWA.
Vermont
has
received
authority
to
administer
most
of
the
RCRA
program;
thus,
authorized
provisions
of
the
State's
hazardous
waste
program
are
administered
in
lieu
of
the
Federal
program.
Vermont
has
received
authority
to
administer
the
regulations
that
specifically
identify
hazardous
wastes
by
listing
them.
As
a
result,
the
rule
to
modify
the
listing
for
F006
hazardous
waste
would
not
be
effective
in
Vermont
until
the
State
adopts
the
modification.
It
is
EPA's
understanding
that
subsequent
to
the
promulgation
of
this
rule,
Vermont
intends
to
propose
rules
or
other
legal
mechanisms
to
provide
the
exemption
for
the
copper
metallization
process
from
the
F006
listing
description.
EPA
may
not
enforce
these
requirements
until
it
approves
the
State
requirements
as
a
revision
to
the
authorized
State
program.

G.
How
Does
This
Rule
Comply
with
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks?
The
Executive
Order
13045,
``
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks''
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(
1)
Is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant,''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866;
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
Agency
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.
This
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
it
is
not
an
economically
significant
rule,
as
defined
by
Executive
Order
12866,
and
because
it
does
not
involve
decisions
based
on
environmental
health
or
safety
risks.

H.
Does
This
Rule
Comply
With
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism?
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled:
``
Federalism''
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.''
Under
section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications,
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs,
and
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
State
and
local
governments,
or
EPA
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
regulation.
EPA
may
also
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications
and
that
preempts
State
law,
unless
the
Agency
consults
with
the
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
regulation.
This
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States.
Or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
level
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
The
exemption
outlined
in
today's
rule
will
not
take
effect
unless
Vermont
chooses
to
adopt
the
rule
or
other
legal
implementing
mechanism.
Thus,
the
requirements
of
section
6
of
the
Executive
Order
do
not
apply
to
this
rule.
Although
section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
rule,
EPA
did
fully
coordinate
and
consult
with
the
state
and
local
officials
in
developing
this
rule.

I.
How
Does
This
Rule
Comply
With
Executive
Order
13084:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
?

Under
Executive
Order
13084,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
that
significantly
or
uniquely
affects
the
communities
of
Indian
tribal
governments,
and
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs
on
those
communities,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
the
tribal
governments.
If
the
mandate
is
unfunded,
EPA
must
provide
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
in
a
separately
identified
section
of
the
preamble
to
the
rule,
a
description
of
the
extent
of
EPA's
prior
consultation
with
representatives
of
affected
tribal
governments,
a
summary
of
the
nature
of
their
concerns,
and
a
statement
supporting
the
need
to
issue
the
regulation.
In
addition,
Executive
Order
13084
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
effective
process
permitting
elected
and
other
representatives
of
Indian
tribal
governments
to
provide
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
on
matters
that
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
their
communities.
Today's
rule
does
not
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
the
communities
of
Indian
tribal
governments.
There
are
no
communities
of
Indian
tribal
governments
located
in
the
vicinity
of
the
facility.
Accordingly,
the
requirements
of
section
3(
b)
of
Executive
Order
13084
do
not
apply
to
this
rule.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
08:
38
Sep
11,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00022
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
12SER1.
SGM
pfrm04
PsN:
12SER1
54965
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
177
/
Tuesday,
September
12,
2000
/
Rules
and
Regulations
J.
Does
This
Rule
Comply
With
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
?

As
noted
in
the
proposed
rule,
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
did
not
consider
the
use
of
any
voluntary
consensus
standards.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
261
Environmental
protection,
Hazardous
materials,
Waste
treatment
and
disposal,
Recycling.

Dated:
September
1,
2000.
Carol
M.
Browner,
Administrator.

For
the
reasons
set
forth
in
the
preamble,
part
261
of
Chapter
I
of
Title
40
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
to
be
amended
as
follows:

PART
261
 
IDENTIFICATION
AND
LISTING
OF
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
261
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
6905,
6912(
a),
6921,
6922,
6924(
y),
and
6938.
2.
Section
261.4
is
amended
by
adding
paragraph
(
b)(
16)
to
read
as
follows:

§
261.4
Exclusions.

*
*
*
*
*
(
b)
*
*
*
(
16)
Sludges
resulting
from
the
treatment
of
wastewaters
(
not
including
spent
plating
solutions)
generated
by
the
copper
metallization
process
at
the
International
Business
Machines
Corporation
(
IBM)
semiconductor
manufacturing
facility
in
Essex
Junction,
VT,
are
exempt
from
the
F006
listing,
provided
that:
(
i)
IBM
provides
the
Agency
with
semi­
annual
reports
(
by
January
15
and
July
15
of
each
year)
detailing
constituent
analyses
measuring
the
concentrations
of
volatiles,
semivolatiles
and
metals
using
methods
presented
in
part
264,
appendix
IX
of
this
chapter
of
both
the
plating
solution
utilized
by,
and
the
rinsewaters
generated
by,
the
copper
metallization
process;
(
ii)
IBM
provides
the
agency
with
semi­
annual
reports
(
by
January
15
and
July
15
of
each
year),
through
the
year
2004,
or
when
IBM
has
achieved
its
facility­
wide
goal
of
a
40%
reduction
in
greenhouse
gas
emissions
from
a
1995
base
year
(
when
normalized
to
production),
whichever
is
first,
that
contain
the
following:
(
A)
Estimated
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
and
estimated
greenhouse
gas
emission
reductions.
Greenhouse
gas
emissions
will
be
reported
in
terms
of
total
mass
emitted
and
mass
emitted
normalized
to
production;
and
(
B)
The
number
of
chemical
vapor
deposition
chambers
used
in
the
semiconductor
manufacturing
production
line
that
have
been
converted
to
either
low
flow
C2F6
or
NF3
during
the
reporting
period
and
the
number
of
such
chambers
remaining
to
be
converted
to
achieve
the
facility
goal
for
global
warming
gas
emission
reductions.
(
iii)
No
significant
changes
are
made
to
the
copper
metallization
process
such
that
any
of
the
constituents
listed
in
40
CFR
part
261,
appendix
VII
as
the
basis
for
the
F006
listing
are
introduced
into
the
process.
*
*
*
*
*
[
FR
Doc.
00
 
23239
Filed
9
 
11
 
00;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
U
GENERAL
SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
41
CFR
Parts
101
 
6
and
102
 
5
[
FPMR
Amendment
A
 
55]

RIN
3090
 
AH08
Home­
to­
Work
Transportation
AGENCY:
Office
of
Governmentwide
Policy,
GSA.
ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
The
General
Services
Administration
(
GSA)
is
revising
Federal
Property
Management
Regulations
(
FPMR)
by
moving
coverage
on
the
official
use
of
Government
passenger
carriers
between
residence
and
place
of
employment
(
i.
e.
home­
towork
transportation)
into
the
Federal
Management
Regulation
(
FMR).
A
crossreference
is
added
to
the
FPMR
to
direct
readers
to
the
coverage
in
the
FMR.
The
FMR
is
written
in
plain
language
to
provide
agencies
with
updated
regulatory
material
that
is
easy
to
read
and
understand.

EFFECTIVE
DATE:
September
12,
2000.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
James
B.
Vogelsinger,
Federal
Vehicle
Policy
Division
(
MTV),
202
 
501
 
1764
or
e­
mail
at
vehicle.
policy@
gsa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

A.
Background
As
parts
of
the
FPMR
are
rewritten,
they
are
being
moved
into
the
Federal
Management
Regulation
(
FMR).
Subpart
101
 
6.4
of
the
Federal
Property
Management
Regulations
(
FPMR)
has
been
rewritten
as
a
part
of
GSA's
regulatory
initiative
to
update,
streamline,
and
clarify
the
FPMR.
During
this
rewriting
process,
GSA
surveyed
the
Federal
Fleet
Policy
Council
(
FEDFLEET)
members
in
November
1999
and
considered
the
comments
received.
The
scope
provision
of
the
current
regulation
in
subpart
101
 
6.400
states
that
the
rule
does
not
apply
to
use
of
a
Government
passenger
carrier
in
conjunction
with
official
travel
in
performing
temporary
duty
(
TDY)
assignments.
In
redrafting
the
regulation,
GSA
revised
the
structure
of
the
rule.
While
the
scope
of
this
final
rule
states
that
the
regulation
governs
the
use
of
Government
passenger
carriers
to
transport
employees
between
their
homes
and
place
of
work,
the
rule
still
does
not
apply
to
the
use
of
a
Government
passenger
carrier
in
conjunction
with
official
travel
in
performing
temporary
duty
(
TDY)
assignments,
or
permanent
change
of
station
(
PCS)
travel,
as
is
made
clear
in
§
102
 
5.20
of
this
final
rule.
GSA
occasionally
receives
inquiries
about
the
tax
implications
for
employees
using
Government
passenger
carriers
for
transportation
between
their
residence
and
place
of
employment.
Agencies
and
employees
should
examine
their
tax
responsibilities
and
consult
the
Internal
Revenue
Service
as
needed.
Another
subject
about
which
GSA
receives
questions
involves
Government
contractor
use
of
Government
passenger
carriers.
While
this
regulation,
in
most
provisions,
addresses
Federal
officers
or
employees
exclusively,
41
CFR
102
 
34.230
states
that
an
agency
cannot
authorize
a
Government
contractor
to
use
motor
vehicles
between
residence
and
place
of
employment
unless
authorized
in
accordance
with
31
U.
S.
C.
1344
and
this
regulation.

B.
Executive
Order
12866
GSA
has
determined
that
this
final
rule
is
not
a
significant
regulatory
action
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
08:
38
Sep
11,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00023
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
12SER1.
SGM
pfrm04
PsN:
12SER1
