41720 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

13. Technical Standards 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. 

This proposed rule involves the 

establishment of an RNA. This proposed 

rule is categorically excluded from 

further review under paragraph 34(g) of 

Figure 2–1 of the Commandant 

Instruction. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. 

We seek any comments or information 

that may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add § 165.T01–0394 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T01–0394 Regulated Navigation 

Area; Original Waldo-Hancock Bridge 

Removal, Penobscot River, Bucksport, ME. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

Regulated Navigation Area (RNA): All 

navigable waters of Penobscot River 

between Bucksport, ME and Verona, 

ME, from surface to bottom, within a 

300 yard radius of position 44°33′38′′ N, 

068°48′05′′ W. 

(b) Regulations. 

(1) The general regulations contained 

in 33 CFR 165.10, 165.11, and 165.13 

apply within the RNA. 

(2) In accordance with the general 

regulations, entry into or movement 

within this zone, during periods of 

enforcement, is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Sector Northern New England (COTP). 

(3) Persons and vessels may request 

permission to enter the RNA during 

periods of enforcement by contacting 

the COTP or the COTP’s on-scene 

representative on VHF–16 or via phone 

at 207–767–0303. 

(4) During periods of enforcement, a 

speed limit of five knots will be in effect 

within the regulated area and all vessels 

must proceed through the area with 

caution and operate in such a manner as 

to produce no wake. 

(5) During periods of enforcement, 

vessels must comply with all directions 

given to them by the COTP or the 

COTP’s on-scene representative. The 

‘‘on-scene representative’’ of the COTP 

is any Coast Guard commissioned, 

warrant or petty officer who has been 

designated by the COTP to act on the 

COTP’s behalf. The on-scene 

representative may be on a Coast Guard 

vessel; Maine State Police, Maine 

Marine Patrol or other designated craft; 

or may be on shore and communicating 

with vessels via VHF–FM radio or 

loudhailer. Members of the Coast Guard 

Auxiliary may be present to inform 

vessel operators of this regulation. 

(6) During periods of enforcement, 

upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard 

vessel by siren, radio, flashing light or 

other means, the operator of the vessel 

must proceed as directed. 

(7) All other relevant regulations, 

including but not limited to the Rules of 

the Road (33 CFR part 84—subchapter 

E, Inland Navigational Rules) remain in 

effect within the regulated area and 

must be strictly followed at all times. 

(c) Enforcement Period. This 

regulation is enforceable 24 hours a day 

from 5 a.m. on September 1, 2012 until 

11:59 p.m. on June 30, 2013. 

(1) Prior to commencing or 

suspending enforcement of this 

regulation, the COTP will give notice by 

appropriate means to inform the 

affected segments of the public, to 

include dates and times. Such means of 

notification will include, but are not 

limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners 

and Local Notice to Mariners. 

(2) Violations of this RNA may be 

reported to the COTP at 207–767–0303 

or on VHF–Channel 16. 

Dated: June 29, 2012. 

D.B. Abel, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, 

First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2012–17221 Filed 7–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R01–RCRA–2012–0447; FRL–9699–4] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ‘‘the Agency’’ 

or ‘‘we’’ in this preamble) is proposing 

to grant a petition submitted by 

International Business Machines 

Corporation (IBM), in Essex Junction, 

Vermont to exclude (or ‘‘delist’’) up to 

3,150 cubic yards per calendar year of 

F006 wastewater treatment sludge 

generated by IBM’s Industrial Waste 

Treatment System from the list of 

hazardous wastes. 

The Agency has tentatively decided to 

grant the petition based on an 

evaluation of waste-specific information 

provided by IBM. This proposed 

decision, if finalized, would 

conditionally exclude the petitioned 

waste from the requirements of 

hazardous waste regulations under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). 

This exclusion would be valid only 

when the wastewater treatment sludge 

is disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill 

which is permitted, licensed, or 

otherwise authorized by a State to 

manage industrial solid waste. 

If finalized, EPA would conclude that 

IBM’s petitioned waste is nonhazardous 

with respect to the original listing 

criteria and that there are no other 

factors which would cause the waste to 

be hazardous. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 15, 2012. EPA will 

stamp comments received after the close 

of the comment period as late. These 

late comments may not be considered in 

formulating a final decision. Any person 

may request a hearing on the proposed 

decision by filing a request to EPA by 

July 31, 2012. The request must contain 

the information prescribed in 40 CFR 

260.20(d). 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 41721 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

RCRA–2012–0447 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: leitch.sharon@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0647, to the 

attention of Sharon Leitch. 

4. Mail: Sharon Leitch, RCRA Waste 

Management and UST Section, Office of 

Site Remediation and Restoration 

(OSRR07–1), US EPA Region 1, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 

02109–3912. 

5. Hand Delivery: Sharon Leitch, 

RCRA Waste Management and UST 

Section, Office of Site Remediation and 

Restoration (OSRR07–1), U.S. EPA 

Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, 7th floor, 

Boston, MA 02109–3912. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. Please 

contact Sharon Leitch at (617) 918– 

1647. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–RCRA–2012– 

0447. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Region 1 Library, 5 Post Office 

Square, 1st floor, Boston, MA 02109– 

3912; by appointment only; tel: (617) 

918–1990. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sharon Leitch, RCRA Waste 

Management and UST Section, Office of 

Site Remediation and Restoration, (Mail 

Code: OSRR07–1), EPA Region 1, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 

02109–3912; telephone number: (617) 

918–1647; fax number (617) 918–0647; 

email address: leitch.sharon@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this section is organized 

as follows: 

I. Overview Information 

II. Background 

A. What is a listed waste? 

B. What is a delisting petition? 

C. What factors must EPA consider in 

deciding whether to grant a delisting 

petition? 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste 

Information and Data 

A. What waste did IBM petition EPA to 

delist? 

B. How does IBM generate the waste? 

C. How did IBM sample and analyze the 

petitioned waste? 

D. What were the results of IBM’s analysis 

of the waste? 

E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of 

delisting this waste? 

F. What did EPA conclude about IBM’s 

waste? 

IV. Conditions for Exclusion 

A. When would EPA finalize the proposed 

delisting exclusion? 

B. How will IBM manage the waste if it is 

delisted? 

C. With what conditions must the 

petitioner comply? 

D. What happens if IBM violates the terms 

and conditions of the exclusion? 

V. How would this action affect the states? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview Information 

The EPA is proposing to grant a 

petition submitted by International 

Business Machines Corporation (IBM) 

located in Essex Junction, Vermont to 

exclude or delist an annual volume of 

3,150 cubic yards of F006 wastewater 

treatment sludge from the lists of 

hazardous waste set forth in Title 40 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (40 

CFR) 261.31. IBM claims that the 

petitioned waste does not meet the 

criteria for which EPA listed it, and that 

there are no additional constituents or 

factors which could cause the waste to 

be hazardous. 

Based on the EPA’s evaluation 

described in section III, in which we 

reviewed the description of the process 

which generates the waste and the 

analytical data submitted by IBM, we 

agree with the petitioner that the waste 

is nonhazardous. We believe that the 

petitioned waste does not meet the 

criteria for which the waste was listed, 

and that there are no other factors which 

might cause the waste to be hazardous. 

II. Background 

A. What is a listed waste? 

The EPA published an amended list 

of hazardous wastes from nonspecific 

and specific sources on January 16, 

1981, as part of its final and interim 

final regulations implementing § 3001 of 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). The EPA has amended this 

list several times and publishes it in 40 

CFR 261.31 and 261.32. 

We list these wastes as hazardous 

because: (1) They typically and 

frequently exhibit one or more of the 

characteristics of hazardous wastes 

identified in subpart C of part 261 (that 

is, ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, 

and toxicity) or (2) they meet the criteria 

for listing contained in § 261.11(a)(2) or 

(3). 

B. What is a delisting petition? 

Individual waste streams may vary 

depending on raw materials, industrial 

processes, and other factors. Thus, 

while a waste described in the 

regulations generally is hazardous, a 

specific waste from an individual 

facility meeting the listing description 

may not be. 

The procedure to exclude or delist a 

waste in 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 

allows a person, or a facility, to submit 

a petition to the EPA or to an authorized 

state demonstrating that a specific waste 

from a particular generating facility is 

not hazardous. 

In a delisting petition, the petitioner 

must show that a waste does not meet 

any of the criteria for listed wastes in 40 

CFR 261.11 and that the waste does not 

exhibit any of the hazardous waste 

characteristics of ignitability, reactivity, 

corrosivity, or toxicity. The petitioner 

must present sufficient information for 

the Agency to decide whether any 

factors in addition to those for which 

the waste was listed warrant retaining it 

as a hazardous waste. (See § 260.22, 42 

United States Code—U.S.C.—6921(f) 

and the background documents for the 

listed wastes.) 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41722 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

If a delisting petition is granted, the 

generator remains obligated under 

RCRA to confirm that the waste remains 

nonhazardous. 

C. What factors must EPA consider in 

deciding whether to grant a delisting 

petition? 

In reviewing this petition, we 

considered the original listing criteria 

and the additional factors required by 

the Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See 

§ 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 

40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)–(4). We evaluated 

the petitioned waste against the listing 

criteria and factors cited in 

§ 261.11(a)(2) and (3). 

Besides considering the criteria in 40 

CFR 260.22(a), 261.11(a)(2) and (3), 42 

U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background 

documents for the listed wastes, EPA 

must consider any factors (including 

additional constituents), other than 

those for which we listed the waste, if 

these additional factors could cause the 

waste to be hazardous. 

Our tentative decision to delist waste 

from IBM’s facility is based on our 

evaluation of the waste for factors or 

criteria which could cause the waste to 

be hazardous. These factors included: 

(1) Whether the waste is considered 

acutely toxic; (2) the toxicity of the 

constituents; (3) the concentration of the 

constituents in the waste; (4) the 

tendency of the constituents to migrate 

and to bioaccumulate; (5) the 

persistence in the environment of any 

constituents once released from the 

waste; (6) plausible and specific types of 

management of the petitioned waste; (7) 

the quantity of waste produced; and (8) 

waste variability. 

EPA must also consider as hazardous 

wastes, mixtures containing listed 

hazardous wastes and wastes derived 

from treating, storing, or disposing of 

listed hazardous waste. See 40 CFR 

261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i), called the 

‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derived-from’’ rules, 

respectively. Mixture and derived-from 

wastes are also eligible for exclusion but 

remain hazardous until excluded. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste 

Information and Data 

A. What waste did IBM petition EPA to 

delist? 

On July 11, 2008, IBM petitioned EPA 

to exclude from the list of hazardous 

wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31, 

F006 Industrial Waste Treatment Plant 

(IWTP) sludge generated from its facility 

located in Essex Junction, Vermont. 

F006 is defined in § 261.31 as 

‘‘Wastewater treatment sludges from 

electroplating operations * * *’’ IBM 

claims that the petitioned waste does 

not meet the criteria for which F006 was 

listed (i.e., cadmium, hexavalent 

chromium, nickel and complexed 

cyanide) and that there are no other 

factors which would cause the waste to 

be hazardous. Specifically, the petition 

request is for a standard exclusion for 

3,150 cubic yards per calendar year of 

WWTP sludge. 

B. How does IBM generate the waste? 

The sludge IBM generates is from the 

combination of three separate 

wastewater treatment processes at the 

facility. Those processes include: the 

industrial waste treatment plant (IWTP) 

process; the biological wastewater 

treatment plant (BWTP) process; and the 

chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) 

microfiltration process. The sludge is 

primarily sludge from the IWTP, this 

waste stream receives discharges from 

chemical wafer and mask manufacturing 

cleaning, etching, and stripping, 

photolithography waste, chemical 

etching and mechanical polishing, air 

abatement scrubbers, effluent from the 

CMP and BWTP treatment systems, 

wafer rinse, and facility maintenance 

operations. The industrial wastewaters 

also include rinse waters from copper 

electroplating manufacturing operations 

and wastewaters from acid etching of a 

thin platinum film and the subsequent 

rinse step (the copper and platinum 

wastewaters total less the 0.1 percent of 

the overall wastewater treated). The 

biological waste streams include 

sanitary wastewaters, dilute organic 

waste (DOW) and concentrated waste 

(CW). The DOW waste stream receives 

discharges from chemical wafer 

cleaning and stripping, Deep UltraViolet photolithography waste, air 

abatement adsorber decant waters, and 

facility chilled water and boiler 

maintenance operations. The CW stream 

consists of waste from semiconductor 

and mask manufacturing 

photolithography develop steps, 

chemical wafer cleaning, etching, and 

stripping operations, and parts 

decontamination. The CMP 

microfiltration waste stream consists of 

wastewater from chemical/mechanical 

polishing tools used in semiconductor 

manufacturing. The CMP wastewaters 

also include copper sulfate plating bath 

solutions (totaling less than 0.1 percent 

of the wastewater treated through the 

CMP system). The sludges from these 

three processes are combined, 

thickened/conditioned, and pressed to 

generate the F006 waste stream. 

C. How did IBM sample and analyze the 

petitioned waste? 

To support its petition, IBM 

submitted: (1) Facility information on 

production processes and waste 

generation processes; (2) Historical 

sampling data of the IWTP sludge; (3) 

Analytical results from four samples for 

total concentrations for volatiles (SW– 

846 Method 8260B), semi volatiles (SW– 

846 Method 8270C) and metals (SW– 

846 Method 6010B except for mercury— 

SW–846 Method 7471A and selenium— 

SW–846 Method 7010), for compounds 

of concern (COCs); and (4) Analytical 

results from four samples for Toxicity 

Characteristic Leaching Procedure 

(TCLP) extract values for volatiles (SW– 

846 Method 8260B), semi volatiles (SW– 

846 Method 8270C) and metals (SW– 

846 Method 6010B except for mercury— 

SW–846 Method 7470 and selenium— 

SM 3113B) for COCs. 

IBM generated the sampling data used 

in the Delisting Risk Assessment 

Software (DRAS) under a Quality 

Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) that was 

approved by EPA, Region 1 on January 

27, 2011. Therefore, EPA believes that 

the sampling procedures used by IBM 

satisfy EPA’s criteria for collecting 

representative samples of the F006 

waste. 

D. What were the results of IBM’s 

analysis of the waste? 

EPA believes that IBM’s analytical 

characterization provides a reasonable 

basis to grant IBM’s petition for an 

exclusion of the wastewater treatment 

sludge. Furthermore, EPA believes the 

data submitted in support of the petition 

show that the sludge is non-hazardous. 

Analytical data for the wastewater 

treatment sludge samples were used in 

the DRAS to develop delisting levels. 

The data summaries for the total 

detected constituents are as follows: 

(mg/kg) Arsenic—7.5; Barium—39; 

Chromium—290; Lead—5.6; Mercury— 

0.067; and Nickel—49. The data 

summary for the TCLP detected 

constituents are as follows: (mg/l) 

Nickel—0.11 (all other constituents 

were non-detect). Note that the above 

levels represent the highest constituent 

concentration found in any one sample. 

All analytical data for the volatiles and 

semi-volatiles samples were non-detect. 

E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of 

delisting this waste? 

For this delisting determination, we 

assumed that the waste would be 

disposed in a Subtitle D landfill and we 

considered transport of waste 

constituents through groundwater, 

surface water and air. We evaluated 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 41723 

IBM’s petitioned waste using the 

Agency’s Delisting Risk Assessment 

Software (DRAS) described in 65 FR 

58015 (September 27, 2000), 65 FR 

75637 (December 4, 2000), and 73 FR 

28768 (May 19, 2008) to predict the 

maximum allowable concentrations of 

hazardous constituents that may be 

released from the petitioned waste after 

disposal and determined the potential 

impact of the disposal of IBM’s 

petitioned waste on human health and 

the environment. To predict the 

potential for release to groundwater 

from landfilled wastes and subsequent 

routes of exposure to a receptor, the 

DRAS uses dilution attenuation factors 

derived from EPA’s Composite Model 

for Leachate Migration and 

Transformation Products (EPACMTP). 

From a release to groundwater, the 

DRAS considers routes of exposure to a 

human receptor of ingestion of 

contaminated groundwater, inhalation 

from groundwater while showering and 

dermal contact from groundwater while 

bathing. 

From a release to surface water by 

erosion of waste from an open landfill 

into stormwater run-off, DRAS evaluates 

the exposure to a human receptor by 

fish ingestion and ingestion of drinking 

water. From a release of waste particles 

and volatile emissions to air from the 

surface of an open landfill, DRAS 

considers routes of exposure of 

inhalation of volatile constituents, 

inhalation of particles, and air 

deposition of particles on residential 

soil and subsequent ingestion of the 

contaminated soil by a child. The 

technical support document and the 

user’s guide to DRAS are included in 

the docket. 

At a target cancer risk of 1 × 10¥5 and 

a target hazard quotient of 1.0, the 

DRAS program determined maximum 

allowable concentrations for each 

constituent in both the waste and the 

leachate at an annual waste volume of 

3,150 cubic yards. 

We used the maximum estimated 

annual waste volume and the maximum 

reported total and TCLP leachate 

concentrations as inputs to estimate the 

constituent concentrations in the 

groundwater, soil, surface water or air. 

If, using an appropriate analytical 

method, a constituent was not detected 

in any sample, it was considered not to 

be present in the waste. 

F. What did EPA conclude about IBM’s 

waste? 

The maximum reported 

concentrations of the hazardous 

constituents found in this waste are 

presented above in section D. The 

maximum allowable constituent 

concentrations as determined by the 

DRAS are as follows: (mg/l) Nickel— 

32.4. The maximum allowable 

constituent concentrations for the 

remaining constituents are based on the 

toxicity characteristic in 40 CFR 261 

Subpart C: (mg/l) Arsenic—5.0; 

Barium—100.0; Cadmium—1.0; 

Chromium—5.0; Lead—5.0; and, 

Mercury—0.2. The concentrations of all 

constituents in both the waste and the 

leachate are below the allowable 

concentrations. We, therefore, conclude 

that IBM’s wastewater treatment sludge 

is not a substantial or potential hazard 

to human health and the environment 

when disposed of in a Subtitle D 

landfill. 

We, therefore, propose to grant an 

exclusion for this waste. If this 

exclusion is finalized, IBM must dispose 

of this waste in a Subtitle D landfill 

permitted, licensed or otherwise 

authorized by a state, and will remain 

obligated to verify that the waste meets 

the allowable concentrations set forth 

here. IBM must also continue to 

determine whether the waste is 

identified in subpart C of 40 CFR 

pursuant to § 261.11(c). 

IV. Conditions for Exclusion 

A. When would EPA finalize the 

proposed delisting exclusion? 

HSWA specifically requires the EPA 

to provide notice and an opportunity for 

comment before granting or denying a 

final exclusion. Thus, EPA will not 

make a final decision or grant an 

exclusion until it has addressed all 

timely public comments on today’s 

proposal, including any at public 

hearings. 

Since this rule would reduce the 

existing requirements for persons 

generating hazardous wastes, the 

regulated community does not need a 

six-month period to come into 

compliance in accordance with § 3010 

of RCRA as amended by HSWA. 

B. How will IBM manage the waste if it 

is delisted? 

If the petitioned waste is delisted, 

IBM must dispose of it in a Subtitle D 

landfill which is permitted, licensed, or 

otherwise authorized by a state to 

manage industrial waste. 

C. With what conditions must the 

petitioner comply? 

The petitioner, IBM, must comply 

with the conditions which will be in 40 

CFR part 261, Appendix IX, Table 1. 

The text below gives the rationale and 

details of those requirements. 

(1) Delisting Levels: 

This paragraph provides the levels of 

constituents for which IBM must test 

the WWTP sludge, below which these 

wastes would be considered nonhazardous. EPA selected the set of 

constituents specified in paragraph (1) 

of 40 CFR part 261, Appendix IX, Table 

1, (the exclusion language) based on 

information in the petition. EPA 

compiled the constituents list from the 

composition of the waste, descriptions 

of IBM’s treatment process, previous test 

data provided for the waste, and the 

respective health-based levels used in 

delisting decision-making. These 

delisting levels correspond to the 

allowable levels measured in the TCLP 

concentrations. 

(2) Waste Holding and Handling: 

The purpose of this paragraph is to 

ensure that IBM manages and disposes 

of any WWTP sludge that contains 

hazardous levels of inorganic and 

organic constituents according to 

Subtitle C of RCRA. Managing the 

WWTP sludge as a hazardous waste 

until initial verification testing is 

performed will protect against improper 

handling of hazardous material. Unless 

and until EPA concurs that the initial 

verification data collected under 

paragraph (3) supports the data 

provided in the petition, the exclusion 

will not cover the petitioned waste. The 

exclusion is effective upon publication 

in the Federal Register but the disposal 

as non-hazardous waste cannot begin 

until two quarters of verification 

sampling is completed and an approval 

is obtained from EPA. 

(3) Verification Testing Requirements: 

IBM must implement a verification 

testing program on the WWTP sludge to 

assure that the sludge does not exceed 

the maximum levels specified in 

paragraph (1) of the exclusion language. 

The first part of the verification testing 

program is the quarterly testing of 

representative samples of the WWTP 

sludge during the first year of waste 

generation (two quarters prior to 

obtaining written EPA approval and two 

additional quarters). The proposed 

testing would verify that IBM operates 

a treatment facility where the 

constituent concentrations of the WWTP 

sludge do not exhibit unacceptable 

temporal and spatial levels of toxic 

constituents. IBM would begin quarterly 

sampling 30 days after the final 

exclusion as described in paragraph 

(3)(A) of the exclusion language. 

Consequently this program will ensure 

that the sludge is evaluated in terms of 

variation in constituent concentrations 

in the waste over time. Following two 

consecutive quarters of sampling where 

the levels of constituents do not exceed 

the levels in paragraph (1), IBM can 

then manage and dispose of the sludge 

as non-hazardous in accordance with all 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41724 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

applicable solid waste regulations 

following EPA approval. If EPA 

determines that the data collected under 

this paragraph does not support the data 

provided in the petition, the exclusion 

will not cover the generated wastes. IBM 

must then prove through a new 

demonstration that its waste meets the 

conditions of the exclusion. 

The second part of the verification 

testing program is the annual testing of 

representative samples of the WWTP 

sludge, per paragraph (3)(B) of the 

exclusion language. To confirm that the 

characteristics of the waste do not 

change significantly over time, IBM 

must continue to analyze a 

representative sample of the waste on an 

annual basis. Annual testing requires 

analyzing the full list of constituents in 

paragraph (1) of the exclusion language. 

If operating conditions change as 

described in paragraph (4) of the 

exclusion language, IBM must reinstate 

all testing in paragraph (1) of the 

exclusion language. IBM must then 

prove through a new demonstration that 

its waste meets the conditions of the 

exclusion. If the annual testing of the 

waste does not meet the delisting 

requirements in paragraph (1), IBM 

must notify EPA according to the 

requirements in paragraph (6) of the 

exclusion language. The facility must 

provide sampling results that support 

the rationale that the delisting exclusion 

should not be withdrawn. 

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: 

Paragraph (4) of the exclusion 

language would allow IBM the 

flexibility of modifying its processes (for 

example, changes in equipment or 

operating conditions). However, if 

significant changes to the manufacturing 

or treatment process described in the 

petition, or the chemicals used in the 

manufacturing or treatment process are 

made, then IBM must prove that the 

modified process(es)/chemicals will not 

affect the composition or type of waste 

generated and must request approval 

from EPA. EPA will determine if these 

changes will result in additional COCs. 

IBM must manage wastes generated 

during the new process demonstration 

as hazardous waste until it has obtained 

written approval from EPA and 

paragraph (3) of the exclusion language 

is satisfied. 

(5) Data Submittals and 

Recordkeeping: 

To provide appropriate 

documentation that IBM’s WWTP 

sludge is meeting the delisting levels, 

IBM must submit reports to EPA as 

specified in the conditions, and must 

compile, summarize, and keep delisting 

records on-site for a minimum of five 

years. It must keep all analytical data 

obtained through paragraph (3) of the 

exclusion language including quality 

control information for five years. 

Paragraph (5) of the exclusion language 

requires that IBM furnish the data upon 

request for inspection by any employee 

or representative of EPA or the State of 

Vermont. 

If the proposed exclusion is made 

final, it will apply only to 3,150 cubic 

yards per calendar year of wastewater 

treatment sludge generated at IBM after 

successful verification testing. 

EPA would require IBM to file a new 

delisting petition under the following 

circumstances: 

(a) If it generates waste volumes 

greater than 3,150 cubic yards per 

calendar year of WWTP sludge. IBM 

must manage these greater volumes as 

hazardous unless and until EPA grants 

a new exclusion. 

EPA may review and approve changes 

in writing or alternatively may require 

IBM to file a new delisting petition 

under any of the following 

circumstances: 

(b) If it significantly alters the 

wastewater treatment process; 

(c) If it significantly changes from the 

current manufacturing process(es) 

described in the International Business 

Machines petition; or 

(d) If it makes any changes that could 

affect the composition or type of waste 

generated such that the changes would 

cause any of the constituents in 

paragraph (1) of the exclusion language 

to potentially be above the delisting 

levels or would introduce any new 

constituents into the waste. 

(6) Reopener: 

The purpose of paragraph (6) of the 

exclusion language is to require IBM to 

disclose new or different information 

related to a condition at the facility or 

disposal of the waste, if it is pertinent 

to the delisting. This provision will 

allow EPA to reevaluate the exclusion, 

if a source provides new or additional 

information to EPA. EPA will evaluate 

the information on which EPA based the 

decision to see if it is still correct, or if 

circumstances have changed so that the 

information is no longer correct or 

would cause EPA to deny the petition, 

if presented. 

This provision expressly requires IBM 

to report differing site conditions or 

assumptions used in the petition in 

addition to failure to meet the annual 

testing conditions within 10 days of 

discovery. If EPA discovers such 

information itself or from a third party, 

it can act on it as appropriate. The 

language being proposed is similar to 

those provisions found in RCRA 

regulations governing no-migration 

petitions at § 268.6. 

EPA believes it has the authority 

under RCRA and the Administrative 

Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 

(1978) et seq., to reopen a delisting 

decision when it receives new 

information that calls into question the 

assumptions underlying the delisting. 

EPA believes a clear statement of its 

authority in delistings is merited in light 

of EPA’s experience. See Reynolds 

Metals Company at 62 FR 37694 and 62 

FR 63458 where the delisted waste 

leached at greater concentrations in the 

environment than the concentrations 

predicted when conducting the TCLP, 

thus leading EPA to repeal the delisting. 

If an immediate threat to human health 

and the environment presents itself, 

EPA will continue to address these 

situations on a case-by-case basis. 

Where necessary, EPA will make a good 

cause finding to justify emergency 

rulemaking. See APA section 553(b). 

(7) Notification Requirements: 

In order to adequately track wastes 

that have been delisted, EPA is 

requiring that IBM provide a one-time 

written notification to any state 

regulatory agency through which or to 

which the delisted waste is being 

transported. IBM must provide this 

notification 60 days before commencing 

this activity. In addition to providing 

this notification, IBM is advised to 

verify with each state the status of EPA’s 

delisting decision under state law (see 

the discussion in Section V. for 

specifics). 

D. What happens if IBM violates the 

terms and conditions of the exclusion? 

If IBM violates the terms and 

conditions established in the exclusion, 

the wastes in question would not be 

exempt from Subtitle C since this is a 

conditional exclusion, and thus they 

would be subject to hazardous waste 

management requirements. EPA also 

could then initiate procedures to 

withdraw the exclusion. Where there is 

an immediate threat to human health 

and the environment, EPA will evaluate 

the need for enforcement activities on a 

case-by-case basis. EPA expects IBM to 

conduct the appropriate waste analysis 

and comply with the criteria explained 

above in paragraph (1) of the exclusion. 

V. How would this action affect the 

states? 

EPA is issuing this exclusion under 

the Federal RCRA delisting program. 

Thus, upon the exclusion being 

finalized, the wastes covered will be 

removed from Subtitle C control under 

the Federal RCRA program. This will 

mean, first, that the wastes will be 

delisted in any State or territory where 

the EPA is directly administering the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 41725 

RCRA program (e.g., Iowa, Indian 

Country). However, whether the wastes 

will be delisted in States which have 

been authorized to administer the RCRA 

program will vary depending upon the 

authorization status of the States and 

the particular requirements regarding 

delisted wastes in the various States. 

While Vermont has been authorized 

to generally administer the Federal 

RCRA program, it has not sought or 

obtained authorization to delist Federal 

listed wastes. See 58 FR 26243 (May 3, 

1993). Instead, the Vermont Hazardous 

Waste Regulation section 7–217(c) 

specifies that ‘‘the Administrator of EPA 

shall retain the authority to exclude 

such wastes.’’ By letter dated April 12, 

2012, the Vermont Department of 

Environmental Conservation has 

confirmed that Vermont interprets this 

regulation to mean that upon the EPA 

making a delisting determination 

(regarding a federally regulated waste), 

the delisting determination takes effect 

within that State. Thus, this delisting 

determination will apply within 

Vermont with no further action required 

by the State. 

Like Vermont, some other generally 

authorized States have not received 

authorization for delisting. Thus, the 

EPA makes delisting determinations for 

such States. However, RCRA allows 

states to impose their own regulatory 

requirements that are more stringent 

than EPA’s, under § 3009 of RCRA. 

These more stringent requirements may 

include a provision that prohibits a 

federally issued exclusion from taking 

effect in the state, or that requires a 

State concurrence before the Federal 

exclusion takes effect, or that allows the 

State to add conditions to any Federal 

exclusion. We urge the petitioner to 

contact the state regulatory authority in 

each State to or through which it may 

wish to ship its wastes to establish the 

status of its wastes under the state’s 

laws. 

EPA has also authorized some states 

to administer a delisting program in 

place of the Federal program, that is, to 

make state delisting decisions. In such 

states, the state delisting requirements 

operate in lieu of the Federal delisting 

requirements. Therefore, this exclusion 

does not apply in those authorized 

states unless the state makes the rule 

part of its authorized program. If IBM 

transports the federally excluded waste 

to or manages the waste in any state 

with delisting authorization, IBM must 

obtain a delisting authorization from 

that state before it can manage the waste 

as non-hazardous in that state. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review ’’ (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is 

not of general applicability and 

therefore, is not a regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). This 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it 

applies to a particular facility only. 

Because this rule is of particular 

applicability relating to a particular 

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or 

to §§ 202, 204, and 205 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

(Pub. L. 104–4). Because this rule will 

affect only a particular facility, it will 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as specified in § 203 of 

UMRA. Because this rule will affect 

only a particular facility, this proposed 

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 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’, 

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. 

Similarly, because this rule will affect 

only a particular facility, this proposed 

rule does not have tribal implications, 

as specified in Executive Order 13175, 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. This rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

basis for this belief is that the Agency 

used DRAS, which considers health and 

safety risks to children, to calculate the 

maximum allowable concentrations for 

this rule. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. This rule does not involve 

technical standards; thus, the 

requirements of § 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not 

apply. As required by § 3 of Executive 

Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’, (61 

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary 

steps to eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, 

and provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct. 

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 to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Section 804 

exempts from § 801 the following types 

of rules: (1) Rules of particular 

applicability; (2) rules relating to agency 

management or personnel; and (3) 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 § 801 

because this is a rule of particular 

applicability. Executive Order (EO) 

12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) 

establishes Federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Its main 

provision directs Federal agencies, to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. The Agency’s risk 

assessment did not identify risks from 

management of this material in a 

Subtitle D landfill. Therefore, EPA 

believes that any populations in 

proximity of the landfills used by this 

facility should not be adversely affected 

by common waste management 

practices for this delisted waste. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41726 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste, Recycling, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: § 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

6921(f). 

Dated: June 20, 2012. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 

CFR part 261 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. Amend Table 1 of Appendix IX to 

part 261 by adding the following waste 

stream in alphabetical order by facility 

‘‘IBM Corporation’’ to read as follows: 

Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes 

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22 

TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

*******

IBM Corporation .......... Essex Junction, VT ..... Wastewater Treatment Sludge (Hazardous Waste No. F006) generated at a maximum annual 

rate of 3,150 cubic yards per calendar year and disposed of in a Subtitle D Landfill which 

is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized by a state to accept the delisted wastewater 

treatment sludge. 

IBM must implement a testing program that meets the following conditions for the exclusion 

to be valid: 

1. Delisting Levels: All leachable concentrations for the following constituents must not exceed the following levels (mg/L for TCLP): Arsenic—5.0; Barium—100.0; Cadmium—1.0; 

Chromium—5.0; Lead—5.0; Mercury 0.2; and, Nickel—32.4. 

2. Waste Handling and Holding: (A)IBM must manage as hazardous all WWTP sludge generated until it has completed initial verification testing described in paragraph (3)(A) and 

valid analyses show that paragraph (1) is satisfied and written approval is received by 

EPA. (B) Levels of constituents measured in the samples of the WWTP sludge that do not 

exceed the levels set forth in paragraph (1) for two consecutive quarterly sampling events 

are non-hazardous. After approval is received from EPA, IBM can manage and dispose of 

the non-hazardous WWTP sludge according to all applicable solid waste regulations. (C) 

Not withstanding having received the initial approval from EPA, if constituent levels in a 

later sample exceed any of the Delisting Levels set in paragraph (1), from that point forward, IBM must treat all the waste covered by this exclusion as hazardous until it is demonstrated that the waste again meets the levels in paragraph (1). IBM must manage and 

dispose of the waste generated under Subtitle C of RCRA from the time that it becomes 

aware of any exceedance. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 41727 

TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued 

Facility Address Waste description 

3. Verification Testing Requirements: IBM must perform sample collection and analyses in 

accordance with the approved Quality Assurance Project Plan dated January 27, 2011. All 

samples shall be representative composite samples according to appropriate methods. As 

applicable to the method-defined parameters of concern, analyses requiring the use of 

SW–846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11 must be used without substitution. As applicable, the SW–846 methods might include Methods 0010, 0011, 0020, 

0023A, 0030, 0031, 0040, 0050, 0051, 0060, 0061, 1010A, 1020B, 1110A, 1310B, 1311, 

1312, 1320, 1330A, 9010C, 9012B, 9040C, 9045D, 9060A, 9070A (uses EPA Method 

1664, Rev. A), 9071B, and 9095B. Methods must meet Performance Based Measurement 

System Criteria in which the Data Quality Objectives are to demonstrate that samples of 

the IBM sludge are representative for all constituents listed in paragraph (1). To verify that 

the waste does not exceed the specified delisting concentrations, for one year after the 

final exclusion is granted, IBM must perform quarterly analytical testing by sampling and 

analyzing the WWTP sludge as follows: (A) Quarterly Testing: (i) Collect two representative 

composite samples of the WWTP sludge at quarterly intervals after EPA grants the final 

exclusion. The first composite samples must be taken within 30 days after EPA grants the 

final approval. The second set of samples must be taken at least 30 days after the first set. 

(ii) Analyze the samples for all constituents listed in paragraph (1). Any waste regarding 

which a composite sample is taken that exceeds the delisting levels listed in paragraph (1) 

for the sludge must be disposed as hazardous waste in accordance with the applicable 

hazardous waste requirements from the time that IBM becomes aware of any exceedance. 

(iii) Within thirty (30) days after taking each quarterly sample, IBM will report its analytical 

test data to EPA. If levels of constituents measured in the samples of the sludge do not exceed the levels set forth in paragraph (1) of this exclusion for two consecutive quarters, 

and EPA concurs with those findings, IBM can manage and dispose the non-hazardous 

sludge according to all applicable solid waste regulations. (B) Annual Testing: (i) If IBM 

completes the quarterly testing specified in paragraph (3) above and no sample contains a 

constituent at a level which exceeds the limits set forth in paragraph (1), IBM may begin 

annual testing as follows: IBM must test two representative composite samples of the 

wastewater treatment sludge (following the same protocols as specified for quarterly sampling, above) for all constituents listed in paragraph (1) at least once per calendar year. (ii) 

The samples for the annual testing taken for the second and subsequent annual testing 

events shall be taken within the same calendar month as the first annual sample taken. (iii) 

IBM shall submit an annual testing report to EPA with its annual test results, within thirty 

(30) days after taking each annual sample. The annual testing report also shall include the 

total amount of waste in cubic yards disposed during the calendar year. 

4. Changes in Operating Conditions: If IBM significantly changes the manufacturing or treatment process described in the petition, or the chemicals used in the manufacturing or treatment process, it must notify the EPA in writing and may no longer handle the wastes generated from the new process as non-hazardous unless and until the wastes are shown to 

meet the delisting levels set in paragraph(1), IBM demonstrates that no new hazardous 

constituents listed in appendix VIII of part 261 have been introduced, and IBM has received written approval from EPA to manage the wastes from the new process under this 

exclusion. While the EPA may provide written approval of certain changes, if there are 

changes that the EPA determines are highly significant, the EPA may instead require IBM 

to file a new delisting petition. 

5. Data Submittals and Recordkeeping: IBM must submit the information described below. If 

IBM fails to submit the required data within the specified time or maintain the required 

records on-site for the specified time, EPA, at its discretion, will consider this sufficient 

basis to reopen the exclusion as described in paragraph (6). IBM must: (A) Submit the 

data obtained through paragraph (3) to the Chief, RCRA Waste Management & UST Section, U.S. EPA Region 1, (OSRR07–1), 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 

02109–3912, within the time specified. All supporting data can be submitted on CD–ROM 

or some comparable electronic media; (B) Compile, summarize, and maintain on site for a 

minimum of five years and make available for inspection records of operating conditions, 

including monthly and annual volumes of WWTP sludge generated, analytical data, including quality control information and, copies of the notification(s) required in paragraph (7); 

(C) Submit with all data a signed copy of the certification statement in 40 CFR 

260.22(i)(12). 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41728 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued 

Facility Address Waste description 

6. Reopener Language: (A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, IBM possesses or 

is otherwise made aware of any environmental data (including but not limited to leachate 

data or groundwater monitoring data) or any other relevant data to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent is at a concentration in the leachate higher than the specified 

delisting concentration, then IBM must report such data, in writing, to the Regional Administrator and to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Secretary within 10 days of first 

possessing or being made aware of that data. (B) Based on the information described in 

paragraph (A) and any other information received from any source, the Regional Administrator will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires 

Agency action to protect human health or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect 

human health and the environment. (C) If the Regional Administrator determines that the 

reported information does require Agency action, the Regional Administrator will notify IBM 

in writing of the actions the Regional Administrator believes are necessary to protect 

human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed 

action and a statement providing IBM with an opportunity to present information as to why 

the proposed Agency action is not necessary or to suggest an alternative action. IBM shall 

have 30 days from the date of the Regional Administrator’s notice to present the information. (D) If after 30 days IBM presents no further information or after a review of any submitted information, the Regional Administrator will issue a final written determination describing the Agency actions that are necessary to protect human health or the environment. Any required action described in the Regional Administrator’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Regional Administrator provides otherwise. 

7. Notification Requirements: IBM must do the following before transporting the delisted 

waste: (A) Provide a one-time written notification to any state Regulatory Agency to which 

or through which it will transport the delisted waste described above for disposal, 60 days 

before beginning such activities. (B) Update the one-time written notification if it ships the 

delisted waste into a different disposal facility. Failure to provide this notification will result 

in a violation of the delisting petition and a possible revocation of the decision. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–17272 Filed 7–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Chapters II, III, IV, V, and VI 

RIN 0648–XC012 

Plan for Periodic Review of 

Regulations 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) requires that the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) periodically 

review existing regulations that have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

such as small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. This plan describes how 

NMFS will perform this review and 

describes the regulations that are being 

proposed for review during the current 

review-cycle. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by NMFS by August 15, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by 0648– 

XC012 by any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal 

www.regulations.gov. To submit 

comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, 

first click the ‘‘submit a comment’’ icon, 

then enter 0648–XC012. Locate the 

document you wish to comment on 

from the resulting list and click on the 

‘‘Submit a Comment’’ icon on the right 

of that line. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Wendy Morrison, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, NOAA, Office of 

Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 

(mark outside of envelope ‘‘Comments 

on 610 review’’). 

• Fax: 301–713–1193; Attn: Wendy 

Morrison. 

Instructions: Comments must be 

submitted by one of the above methods 

to ensure that the comments are 

received, documented, and considered 

by NMFS. Comments sent by any other 

method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered. All comments received are 

a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted for public viewing 

on www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted 

voluntarily by the sender will be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wendy Morrison, (301) 427–8504, for 

questions on rules under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

listed in items 1 through 72; and 

Heather Coll, (301) 427–8455, for 

questions on rules under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

listed in items 73 through 76. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601, requires that 

Federal agencies take into account how 

their regulations affect ‘‘small entities,’’ 

including small businesses, small 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS