45736 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–21113 Filed 9–29–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2017–0254; FRL–9968– 

61–Region 6] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is granting a petition 

submitted by Samsung Austin 

Semiconductor (Samsung) to exclude 

from hazardous waste control (or delist) 

a certain solid waste. This final rule 

responds to the petition submitted by 

Samsung to have the copper filter cake 

from the electroplating process 

excluded, or delisted from the definition 

of a hazardous waste. The Copper filter 

cake is listed as F006, wastewater 

treatment sludges from electroplating 

operations. The basis of the listing is 

cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, 

and cyanide (complexed). After careful 

analysis and evaluation of comments 

submitted by the public, the EPA has 

concluded that the petitioned wastes are 

not hazardous waste when disposed of 

in Subtitle D landfills. This exclusion 

applies to the copper filter cake 

generated at Samsung Austin 

Semiconductor’s Austin, Texas facility. 

Accordingly, this final rule excludes the 

petitioned waste from the requirements 

of hazardous waste regulations under 

the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed of 

in Subtitle D landfills, but imposes 

testing conditions to ensure that the 

future-generated wastes remain 

qualified for delisting. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

October 2, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–RCRA–2017–0254. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. 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, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information regarding the 

Samsung Austin Semiconductor 

petition, contact Michelle Peace at 214– 

665–7430 or by email at 

peace.michelle@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this section is organized 

as follows: 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA finalizing? 

B. Why is EPA approving this delisting? 

C. What are the limits of this exclusion? 

D. How will Samsung Austin 

Semiconductor manage the waste if it is 

delisted? 

E. When is the final delisting exclusion 

effective? 

F. How does this final rule affect states? 

II. Background 

A. What is a ‘‘delisting’’? 

B. What regulations allow facilities to 

delist a waste? 

C. What information must the generator 

supply? 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste Data 

A. What waste and how much did 

Samsung Austin Semiconductor petition 

EPA to delist? 

B. How did Samsung Austin 

Semiconductor sample and analyze the 

waste data in this petition? 

IV. Public Comments Received on the 

Proposed Exclusion 

Who submitted comments on the proposed 

rule? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA finalizing? 

The EPA is finalizing: 

(1) The decision to grant Samsung 

Austin Semiconductor’s petition to have 

its copper filter cake excluded, or 

delisted, from the definition of a 

hazardous waste, subject to certain 

continued verification and monitoring 

conditions; and 

(2) To use the Delisting Risk 

Assessment Software v.3.0.35 to 

evaluate the potential impact of the 

petitioned waste on human health and 

the environment. The Agency used this 

model to predict the concentration of 

hazardous constituents released from 

the petitioned waste, once it is 

disposed. 

After evaluating the petition, EPA 

proposed a rule, on July 14, 2017, to 

exclude the Samsung Austin 

Semiconductor copper filter cake waste 

from the lists of hazardous wastes under 

§§ 261.31 and 261.32. There were no 

comments received on this rulemaking. 

B. Why is EPA approving this delisting? 

Samsung’s petition requests an 

exclusion from the F006 waste listing 

pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. 

Samsung does not believe that the 

petitioned waste meets the criteria for 

which EPA listed it. Samsung also 

believes no additional constituents or 

factors could cause the waste to be 

hazardous. EPA’s review of this petition 

included consideration of the original 

listing criteria and the additional factors 

required by the Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). 

See section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1)–(4) 

(hereinafter all sectional references are 

to 40 CFR unless otherwise indicated). 

In making the initial delisting 

determination, EPA evaluated the 

petitioned waste against the listing 

criteria and factors cited in 

§ 261.11(a)(2) and (3). Based on this 

review, EPA agrees with the petitioner 

that the waste is non-hazardous, with 

respect to the original listing criteria. If 

EPA had found, based on this review, 

that the waste remained hazardous 

based on the factors for which the waste 

was originally listed, EPA would have 

proposed to deny the petition. EPA 

evaluated the waste with respect to 

other factors or criteria to assess 

whether there is a reasonable basis to 

believe that such additional factors 

could cause the waste to be hazardous. 

EPA considered whether the waste is 

acutely toxic, the concentration of the 

constituents in the waste, their tendency 

to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their 

persistence in the environment once 

released from the waste, plausible and 

specific types of management of the 

petitioned waste, the quantities of waste 

generated, and waste variability. EPA 

believes that the petitioned waste does 

not meet the listing criteria and thus 

should not be a listed waste. EPA’s 

proposed decision to delist waste from 

Samsung is based on the information 

submitted in support of this rule, 

including descriptions of the wastes and 

analytical data from the Austin, Texas 

facility. 

C. What are the limits of this exclusion? 

This exclusion applies to the waste 

described in the petition only if the 

requirements described in Table 1 of 

part 261, appendix IX and the 

conditions contained herein are 

satisfied. The conditional exclusion 

applies to 750 cubic yards of copper 

filter cake sludge generated annually 

from the Samsung Austin 

Semiconductor facility in Austin, TX. 

D. How will Samsung Austin 

Semiconductor manage the waste if it is 

delisted? 

Storage containers of the copper filter 

cake will be transported to an 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 45737 

authorized, solid waste landfill (e.g., 

RCRA Subtitle D landfill, commercial/ 

industrial solid waste landfill, etc.) for 

disposal. Any plans for recycling must 

be addressed through the Hazardous 

Waste Recycling regulations. 

E. When is the final delisting exclusion 

effective? 

This rule is effective October 2, 2017. 

The Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 amended section 

3010 of RCRA to allow rules to become 

effective in less than six months when 

the regulated community does not need 

the six-month period to come into 

compliance. That is the case here 

because this rule reduces, rather than 

increases, the existing requirements for 

persons generating hazardous wastes. 

These reasons also provide a basis for 

making this rule effective immediately, 

upon publication, under the 

Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 553(d). 

F. How does this final rule affect states? 

Because EPA is issuing this exclusion 

under the Federal RCRA delisting 

program, only states subject to Federal 

RCRA delisting provisions would be 

affected. This would exclude two 

categories of States: States having a dual 

system that includes Federal RCRA 

requirements and their own 

requirements, and States who have 

received our authorization to make their 

own delisting decisions. 

Here are the details: We allow states 

to impose their own non-RCRA 

regulatory requirements that are more 

stringent than EPA’s, under section 

3009 of RCRA. These more stringent 

requirements may include a provision 

that prohibits a Federally issued 

exclusion from taking effect in the State. 

Because a dual system (that is, both 

Federal (RCRA) and State (non-RCRA) 

programs) may regulate a petitioner’s 

waste, we urge petitioners to contact the 

State regulatory authority to establish 

the status of their wastes under the State 

law. 

EPA has also authorized some States 

(for example, Louisiana, Georgia, 

Illinois) to administer a delisting 

program in place of the Federal 

program, that is, to make State delisting 

decisions. Therefore, this exclusion 

does not apply in those authorized 

States. If Samsung Austin 

Semiconductor transports the petitioned 

waste to or manages the waste in any 

State with delisting authorization, 

Samsung Austin Semiconductor must 

obtain delisting authorization from that 

State before they can manage the waste 

as nonhazardous in the State. 

II. Background 

A. What is a delisting? 

A delisting petition is a request from 

a generator to EPA or another agency 

with jurisdiction to exclude from the list 

of hazardous wastes, wastes the 

generator does not consider hazardous 

under RCRA. 

B. What regulations allow facilities to 

delist a waste? 

Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, 

facilities may petition the EPA to 

remove their wastes from hazardous 

waste control by excluding them from 

the lists of hazardous wastes contained 

in §§ 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, 

§ 260.20 allows any person to petition 

the Administrator to modify or revoke 

any provision of parts 260 through 266, 

268 and 273 of title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations. Section 260.22 

provides generators the opportunity to 

petition the Administrator to exclude a 

waste on a ‘‘generator-specific’’ basis 

from the hazardous waste lists. 

C. What information must the generator 

supply? 

Petitioners must provide sufficient 

information to EPA to allow the EPA to 

determine that the waste to be excluded 

does not meet any of the criteria under 

which the waste was listed as a 

hazardous waste. In addition, the 

Administrator must determine, where 

he/she has a reasonable basis to believe 

that factors (including additional 

constituents) other than those for which 

the waste was listed could cause the 

waste to be a hazardous waste, that such 

factors do not warrant retaining the 

waste as a hazardous waste. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste Data 

A. What waste and how much did 

Samsung Austin Semiconductor petition 

EPA to delist? 

In November 2015, Samsung 

petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists 

of hazardous wastes contained in 

§§ 261.31 and 261.32, filter cake (F006) 

generated from its facility located in 

Austin, Texas. The waste falls under the 

classification of listed waste pursuant to 

§§ 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, in its 

petition, Samsung requested that EPA 

grant a conditional exclusion for 750 

cubic yards of F006 filter cake. 

The 40 CFR part 261 appendix VII 

hazardous constituents which are the 

basis for listing can be found in 

Table 1. 

TABLE 1—EPA WASTE CODES FOR

COPPER FILTER CAKE AND THE

BASIS FOR LISTING

Waste code Basis for listing 

F006 ............. Cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, cyanide 

(complexed). 

B. How did Samsung Austin 

Semiconductor sample and analyze the 

waste data in this petition? 

To support its petition, Samsung 

Austin Semiconductor submitted: 

(1) Historical information on waste 

generation and management practices; 

and 

(2) Analytical results from eight 

samples for total and TCLP 

concentrations of compounds of 

concern (COC)s; 

TABLE 2—ANALYTICAL RESULTS/MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATION COPPER FILTER CAKE SAMSUNG

AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, AUSTIN, TEXAS

Constituent 

Maximum total 

concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Maximum 

TCLP 

concentration 

(mg/L) 

Maximum 

TCLP delisting 

level 

(mg/L) 

Acetone .................................................................................................................................. 0.0013 0.24 2070.0 

Arsenic ................................................................................................................................... 3.6 0.098 1.66 

Barium .................................................................................................................................... 5.30 0.13 100.0 

Cadmium ................................................................................................................................ 0.75 0.004 0.362 

Carbon disulfide ..................................................................................................................... 2.7 0.043 224.75 

Chromium .............................................................................................................................. 42 0.12 5.0 

Chromium(VI) (+6) ................................................................................................................. 1.7 0.072 5.0 

Cobalt ..................................................................................................................................... 1.6 0.035 1.36 

Copper ................................................................................................................................... 14600 5.4 97.1 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
45738 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2—ANALYTICAL RESULTS/MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATION COPPER FILTER CAKE SAMSUNG

AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, AUSTIN, TEXAS—Continued 

Constituent 

Maximum total 

concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Maximum 

TCLP 

concentration 

(mg/L) 

Maximum 

TCLP delisting 

level 

(mg/L) 

Lead ....................................................................................................................................... 6.3 0.11 2.45 

Nickel ..................................................................................................................................... 25.7 0.078 53.8 

Selenium ................................................................................................................................ 1.4 0.072 1.0 

Silver ...................................................................................................................................... 0.95 0.0012 5.0 

Thallium ................................................................................................................................. 1.7 ND 0.1458 

Tin .......................................................................................................................................... 7.6 ND 22.5 

Toluene .................................................................................................................................. 2.5 ND 60.1 

Vanadium ............................................................................................................................... 25.8 0.014 14.36 

Zinc ........................................................................................................................................ 43.0 0.21 797 

Notes: These levels represent the highest constituent concentration found in any one sample and does not necessarily represent the specific 

level found in one sample. 

IV. Public Comments Received on the 

Proposed Exclusion 

Who submitted comments on the 

proposed rule? 

The EPA received no public 

comments on the July 14, 2017, 

proposed rule. 

V. 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 sections 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 

section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule 

will affect only a particular facility, 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 

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 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 section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. As required by 

section 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 section 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 section 

801 because this is a rule of particular 

applicability. Executive Order (E.O.) 

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 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 an authorized, solid waste 

landfill (e.g., RCRA Subtitle D landfill, 

commercial/industrial solid waste 

landfill, etc.). 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. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 45739 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste, Recycling, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

6921(f). 

Dated: September 19, 2017. 

Wren Stenger, 

Director, Multimedia Division, Region 6. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND 

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 261 

continues to read as follows: 

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

6922, 6924(y) and 6938. 

■ 2. In table 1 of appendix IX to part 261 

add the entry ‘‘Samsung’’ in 

alphabetical order 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 

*******

Samsung .......... Austin, TX ......... Copper Filter Cake (EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers F006) generated at a maximum rate of 750 cubic 

yards annually. 

For the exclusion to be valid, Samsung must implement a verification testing program for each of the 

waste streams that meets the following Paragraphs: 

(1) Delisting Levels: 

All concentrations for those constituents must not exceed the maximum allowable concentrations in 

mg/l specified in this paragraph. 

Copper Filter Cake. Leachable Concentrations (mg/l): Acetone—2070.0; Arsenic—1.66; Barium—100.0; 

Cadmium—0.362; Carbon Disulfide—224.75; Chromium—5.0; Chromium (VI)—5.0; Cobalt—1.36; Copper—97.1; Lead—2.45; Nickel—53.8; Selenium—1.0; Silver—5.0; Thallium—0.01458; Tin—22.5; Toluene—60.1; Vanadium—14.36; Zinc—797 

(2) Waste Holding and Handling: 

(A) Waste classification as non-hazardous cannot begin until compliance with the limits set in paragraph (1) for the Copper Filter cake is verified. 

(B) If constituent levels in any sample and retest sample taken by Samsung exceed any of the 

delisting levels set in paragraph (1) for the Copper Filter cake, Samsung must do the following: 

(i) notify EPA in accordance with paragraph (5) and 

(ii) manage and dispose the Copper Filter cake as hazardous waste generated under Subtitle C 

of RCRA. 

(3) Testing Requirements: 

Samsung must perform analytical testing by sampling and analyzing the Copper Filter cake as follows: 

(i) Collect a representative sample of the Copper Filter cake for analysis of all constituents listed 

in paragraph (1) prior to disposal. 

(ii) The samples for the annual testing shall be a representative sample, 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 Samsung Copper filter cake is representative for all constituents listed in paragraph (1). 

(4) Data Submittals: 

Samsung must submit the information described below. If Samsung 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). 

Samsung must: 

(A) Submit the data obtained through paragraph 3 to the Section Chief, 6MM–RP, Multimedia Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202, 

within the time specified. All supporting data can be submitted on CD–ROM or comparable electronic media. 

(B) Compile records of analytical data from paragraph (3), summarized, and maintained on-site for a 

minimum of five years. 

(C) Furnish these records and data when either EPA or the State of Texas requests them for inspection. 

(D) Send along with all data a signed copy of the following certification statement, to attest to the truth 

and accuracy of the data submitted: 

‘‘Under civil and criminal penalty of law for the making or submission of false or fraudulent statements 

or representations (pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Federal Code, which include, but 

may not be limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 6928), I certify that the information contained 

in or accompanying this document is true, accurate and complete. 

As to the (those) identified section(s) of this document for which I cannot personally verify its (their) 

truth and accuracy, I certify as the company official having supervisory responsibility for the persons 

who, acting under my direct instructions, made the verification that this information is true, accurate 

and complete. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
45740 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Facility Address Waste description 

If any of this information is determined by EPA in its sole discretion to be false, inaccurate or incomplete, and upon conveyance of this fact to the company, I recognize and agree that this exclusion of 

waste will be void as if it never had effect or to the extent directed by EPA and that the company 

will be liable for any actions taken in contravention of the company’s RCRA and CERCLA obligations premised upon the company’s reliance on the void exclusion.’’ 

(5) Reopener: 

(A) If any time after disposal of the delisted waste Samsung possesses or is otherwise made aware of 

any environmental data (including but not limited to underflow water data or ground water monitoring data) or any other data relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent identified 

for the delisting verification testing is at level higher than the delisting level allowed by the Division 

Director in granting the petition, then the facility must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data. 

(B) If either the verification testing (and retest, if applicable) of the waste does not meet the delisting 

requirements in paragraph 1, Samsung must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data. 

(C) If Samsung fails to submit the information described in paragraphs (5),(6)(A) or (6)(B) or if any 

other information is received from any source, the Division Director will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires EPA action to protect human health and/or 

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

(D) If the Division Director determines that the reported information requires action by EPA, the Division Director will notify the facility in writing of the actions the Division Director believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the 

proposed action and a statement providing the facility with an opportunity to present information as 

to why the proposed EPA action is not necessary. The facility shall have 10 days from receipt of the 

Division Director’s notice to present such information. 

(E) Following the receipt of information from the facility described in paragraph (6)(D) or (if no information is presented under paragraph (6)(D)) the initial receipt of information described in paragraphs 

(5), (6)(A) or (6)(B), the Division Director will issue a final written determination describing EPA actions that are necessary to protect human health and/or the environment. Any required action described in the Division Director’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Division Director provides otherwise. 

(6) Notification Requirements: 

Samsung must do the following before transporting the delisted waste. Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting petition and a possible revocation of the decision. 

(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) For onsite disposal, a notice should be submitted to the State to notify the State that disposal of 

the delisted materials has begun. 

(C) Update one-time written notification, if it ships the delisted waste into a different disposal facility. 

(D) Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting exclusion and a possible 

revocation of the decision. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–21112 Filed 9–29–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 161020985–7181–02] 

RIN 0648–XF712 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of Atka 

Mackerel in the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; reallocation. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is reallocating the 

projected unused amount of the 2017 

Atka mackerel incidental catch 

allowance (ICA) for the Bering Sea 

subarea and Eastern Aleutian district 

(BS/EAI) to the Amendment 80 

cooperative allocations in the Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands management 

area (BSAI). This action is necessary to 

allow the 2017 total allowable catch of 

Atka mackerel in the BSAI to be fully 

harvested. 

DATES: Effective 12 hrs Alaska local time 

(A.l.t.), September 27, 2017 through 

2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Whitney, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fishery in the 

BSAI according to the Fishery 

Management Plan for Groundfish of the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area (FMP) prepared by 

the North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council under authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. 

Regulations governing fishing by U.S. 

vessels in accordance with the FMP 

appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 

and 50 CFR part 679. 

The 2017 Atka mackerel ICA for the 

BS/EAI is 1,000 metric tons (mt) and 

2017 Atka mackerel total allowable 

catch allocated to the Amendment 80 

cooperatives is 26,694 mt as established 

by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES