        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0531-200618(b); FRL-8233-7]
        Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Tennessee: Memphis/Shelby County Area Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan for the Carbon Monoxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted in final form on May 17, 2006. The SIP revision provides the second 10-year carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance plan for the Memphis/Shelby County Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Area. The second 10-year maintenance plan includes a new motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) for CO for the year 2017. EPA is proposing to approve this SIP revision, including the new 2017 MVEB for carbon monoxide, because it satisfies the requirement of the Clean Air Act for the second 10-year maintenance plan for the Memphis/Shelby County Area.
          In addition, in this rulemaking, EPA is providing information on the status of its transportation conformity adequacy determination for the new MVEB for the year 2017 that is contained in the second 10-year CO maintenance plan for the Memphis/Shelby County Area.
          In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before November 24, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0531, by one of the following methods:
          1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          2. E-mail: louis.egide@epa.gov, or benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.
          3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
          4. Mail: “EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0531”, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
          5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Egide Louis of the Regulatory Development Section or Lynorae Benjamin of the Air Quality Modeling and Transportation Section at the Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.

          Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Egide N. Louis telephone number is (404) 562-9240. He can be reached also via electronic mail at louis.egide@epa.gov. Lynorae Benjamin's telephone number is (404) 562-9040 and her electronic mail is benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For additional information see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

          Dated: October 6, 2006.
          A. Stanley Meiburg,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

      [FR Doc. E6-17800 Filed 10-24-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 600
        [I.D. 031401E]
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs)

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notification of a proposal for EFPs to conduct experimental fishing; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS announces that the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has made a preliminary determination to issue an EFP that would allow six vessels to conduct fishing operations otherwise restricted by the regulations governing the fisheries of the northeastern United States.  The Maine Department of Marine Resources (Maine DMR) has submitted an application for the issuance of EFPs to six commercial longline and tub trawl vessels.  The EFPs would allow six federally permitted vessels to fish for and possess Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) within a portion of the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank Regulated Mesh Area in excess of the possession limit.  The EFP would also authorize these vessels to land legal-sized Atlantic halibut for commercial sale in excess of the landing limit.  The purpose of the experiment is to continue the collection of data on the distribution, relative abundance, migration, stock definition, mortality rates, stock size, yield, and other significant biological reference points of Atlantic halibut to be used in the long-term management of the species.  Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs.

          DATES:

          Comments on this notification must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES) on or before April 11, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments should be sent to Patricia Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.  Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on EFP Proposal.”  Comments may also be sent via facisimile (fax) to (978) 281-9135.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Allison Ferreira, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9103.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Maine DMR submitted an industry cooperative proposal on November 14, 2000, for six EFPs to fish for and possess Atlantic halibut in a portion of the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank Regulated Mesh Area.  The proposed experiment is a continuation of an experimental fishery conducted in 2000 to gather biological information on Atlantic halibut to be used in the long-term management of this species.
        The study would occur from April 1 through May 31, 2001, and take place in the eastern Gulf of Maine in an area defined by the following coordinates:

            Area Point
            N. Latitude
            W. Longitude

            HAL 1
            Mainland Maine Coastline
            69° 00″

            HAL 2
            43° 12.3″
            69° 00″

            HAL 3
            43° 58.3″
            67° 21.5″

            HAL 4*

            Mainland Maine Coastline and U.S./Canada Maritime Boundary
            Mainland Maine Coastline and U.S./Canada Maritime Boundary

            *Between points HAL 3 and HAL 4, the area follows the U.S./Canada maritime boundary.

        The industry collaborative experiment involves Maine DMR, with consultation provided by the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center (Center).  The experiment proposes to continue the collection of data on the distribution, relative abundance, migration, stock definition, mortality rates, stock size, yield, and other significant biological reference points of Atlantic halibut in the eastern Gulf of Maine.  In addition, the experiment would collect information on age and growth, size and sex composition, and rate and onset of sexual maturity.
        The gear to be used during the experiment would consist of traditional longline and tub trawl gear.  Vessels would be limited to a maximum number of 700 hooks per boat, and restricted to using circle hooks no smaller than 14/0 in size.
        The maximum number of vessels participating in the experiment at a given time would be six, and the maximum number of Atlantic halibut to be harvested would be 1,080 fish--the amount of halibut requested for the 2000 experimental fishery.  The maximum number of fish that could be harvested equates to 180 fish per vessel (1,080 divided by 6).  Maine DMR has further proposed that each vessel be given a 50-fish total allowable catch (TAC).  Once this TAC is reached, each vessel would be restricted to landing six fish per vessel per day, the same as for the 2000 experiment.
        Logbooks would be used to obtain information on length of all halibut caught, whether retained or released, time and place of all halibut caught, tag number (as applicable), amount of gear used, bait type used, and identification and measurement on any other species caught as bycatch.  For all halibut that are retained, stomachs and gonads would be preserved, otoliths extracted, and the corresponding fish length recorded.  All halibut less than 36 inches (91.44 cm) total length (TL) would be sampled for scales, measured, tagged and released.  Only legal-sized halibut would be retained for commercial sale.

        Training in the procedures for collecting this information would be provided by Maine DMR and/or Center personnel.  All participants would also be required to complete a training program in the tagging and release of Atlantic halibut.  Maine Sea Grant will provide this training program, with the assistance and guidance of the Pacific Halibut Commission.  All participants in the experimental fishery would be required to sample retained halibut for otoliths and non-retained halibut for scales, as well as other biological information, or samples as requested by Maine DMR and/or the Center.
        Vessels may be required to carry onboard observers as requested by NMFS and Maine DMR.  Onboard observers will be trained by Maine DMR and/or Center personal in the protocols of the experiment.  Maine DMR observer staff, Maine Sea Grant staff and University of Maine students would be utilized as observers for this experiment.
        EFPs would be issued to up to six participating federally permitted vessels at any one time to exempt them from landing and possession limits for Atlantic halibut.  These EFPs would also authorize the vessels to land for commercial sale Atlantic halibut that conform with the minimum size requirement of 36 inches (91.44 cm) TL.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: March 21, 2001.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-7542 Filed 3-26-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 600
        [Docket No. 031031272-3272-01; I.D. 102903A]
        RIN 0648-AR76
        Fisheries of the United States; Essential Fish Habitat

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; consideration of revision to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) guidelines; reopening of the comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          In a document published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2003, NMFS requested comments on potential revisions to the EFH guidelines.  The comment period for the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) closed on January 26, 2004.  The intent of this document is to announce the reopening of the public comment period.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. eastern standard time on or before April 26, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments must be sent to Rolland A. Schmitten, Director, Office of Habitat Conservation, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, F/HC - EFH ANPR, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.  Comments may also be sent via fax to (301) 427-2570 or by e-mail to 0648-AR76@noaa.gov.  Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: 0648-AR76.  The EFH guidelines can be located online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/essentialfishhabitat8.htm or within the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 600.805 to 600.930.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Karen Abrams at (301) 713-4300 (ext. 149) or David MacDuffee at (301) 713-4300 (ext. 155).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        As announced in the Federal Register on December 11, 2003 (68 FR 69070), NMFS requested comments on potential revisions to the EFH guidelines.  The comment period closed on January 26, 2004.  While NMFS received several comments expressing opinions about whether the EFH guidelines should be revised, NMFS was also asked to lengthen the comment period beyond the original 45 days.  As one of the functions of the EFH guidelines is to assist the Fishery Management Councils (Councils) in identifying and conserving EFH, and only one Council had the ability to provide substantive comments, NMFS has decided to reopen the comment period to allow the public and the Councils an additional opportunity to comment on the EFH guidelines.  The agency believes these additional comments will aid in the evaluation of the EFH guidelines.  Comments received between January 26, 2004 and the date of this notice will be given full consideration by NMFS.
        Background
        In January 2002, NMFS promulgated a final rule (67 FR 2343) that established guidelines (50 CFR 600.805 to 600.930) to assist the Councils and the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) in the description and identification of EFH in fishery management plans (FMPs), the identification of adverse effects to EFH, and the identification of actions required to conserve and enhance EFH.  The final rule also detailed procedures the Secretary (acting though NMFS), other Federal agencies, and the Councils will use to coordinate, consult, or provide recommendations on Federal and state actions that may adversely affect EFH. Such guidelines promulgated through regulation were mandated in the 1996 amendments incorporated into the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(b)(1)(A)).  The intended effect of the guidelines is to promote the protection, conservation, and enhancement of EFH.

        After a 5-year public process, NMFS finalized the EFH guidelines in 2002.  Nevertheless, NMFS recognized that a great deal of interest remained from various stakeholders in how to integrate habitat considerations into fishery management.  As a result of this interest, NMFS committed to evaluating the efficacy of the EFH guidelines as they are implemented, to apply the lessons learned from such implementation as appropriate, and to consider changing the regulations if warranted through an appropriate public process.
        NMFS recognizes that implementation of the Act’s EFH provisions is complex and requires considerable species and habitat information not always equally available across species or geography.  In addition, NMFS recognizes that not all habitats exhibit the same characteristics, and that implementation of the EFH guidelines continues to attract public interest from its stakeholders.
        Given ongoing interest in EFH and NMFS’ commitment to evaluate the efficacy of the EFH guidelines through an appropriate public process, NMFS solicits input from the public regarding (1) whether the EFH guidelines (50 CFR 600.805 to 600.930) should be revised, and (2) if revisions are desired, what parts of the guidelines should be revised, how should they be revised, and why.  NMFS will use this information in determining whether to proceed with a revision to the EFH guidelines, and, if so, the issues to be addressed.
        This ANPR has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: February 19, 2004.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 04-4149 Filed 2-24-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 261
        [EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0254; FRL-9964-71-Region 6]
        Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing to grant a petition submitted by Samsung Austin Semiconductor (Samsung) to exclude (or delist) the sludge generated from the electroplating process from the lists of hazardous wastes. EPA used the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) Version 3.0.47 in the evaluation of the impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the environment.

          DATES:
          We will accept comments until August 14, 2017. We will stamp comments received after the close of the comment period as late. These late comments may or may not be considered in formulating a final decision. Your requests for a hearing must reach EPA by July 31, 2017. The request must contain the information prescribed in 40 CFR 260.20(d) (hereinafter all CFR cites refer to 40 CFR unless otherwise stated).

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0254, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          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.

          Your requests for a hearing must reach EPA by July 31, 2017. The request must contain the information described in § 260.20(d).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Samsung submitted a petition under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22(a). Section 260.20 allows any person to petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through 266, 268 and 273. Section 260.22(a) specifically provides generators the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a “generator specific” basis from the hazardous waste lists.
        EPA bases its proposed decision to grant the petition on an evaluation of waste-specific information provided by the petitioner. This decision, if finalized, would conditionally exclude the petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
        If finalized, EPA would conclude that Samsung's petitioned waste is non-hazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. EPA would also conclude that Samsung's process minimizes short-term and long-term threats from the petitioned waste to human health and the environment.
        Table of Contents
        The information in this section is organized as follows:

          I. Overview Information
          A. What action is EPA proposing?
          B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this delisting?
          C. How will Samsung manage the waste if it is delisted?
          D. When would the proposed delisting exclusion be finalized?
          E. How would this action affect the states?
          II. Background
          A. What is the history of the delisting program?
          B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a petitioner?
          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 wastes did Samsung petition EPA to delist?
          B. Who is Samsung and what process does it use to generate the petitioned waste?
          C. How did Samsung sample and analyze the data in this petition?
          D. What were the results of Samsung's sample analysis?

          E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?

          F. What did EPA conclude about Samsung's analysis?
          G. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?
          H. What is EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition?
          IV. Next Steps
          A. With what conditions must the petitioner comply?
          B. What happens if Samsung violates the terms and conditions?
          V. Public Comments
          A. How can I as an interested party submit comments?
          B. How may I review the docket or obtain copies of the proposed exclusions?
          VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. Overview Information
        A. What action is EPA proposing?
        EPA is proposing to approve the delisting petition submitted by Samsung to have the Copper filter cake 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).
        B. Why is EPA proposing to approve 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 (a)(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. How will Samsung manage the waste if it is delisted?

        If the copper filter cake is delisted, contingent upon approval of the delisting petition, storage containers with copper filter cake will be transported to an 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.
        D. When would the proposed delisting exclusion be finalized?
        RCRA section 3001(f) specifically requires EPA to provide a notice and an opportunity for comment before granting or denying a final exclusion. Thus, EPA will not grant the exclusion until it addresses all timely public comments (including those at public hearings, if any) on this proposal.
        RCRA section 3010(b)(1) at 42 USCA 6930(b)(1), allows rules to become effective in less than six months when the regulated facility does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the case here, because this rule, if finalized, would reduce the existing requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes.
        EPA believes that this exclusion should be effective immediately upon final publication because a six-month deadline is not necessary to achieve the purpose of section 3010(b), and a later effective date would impose unnecessary hardship and expense on this petitioner. These reasons also provide good cause for making this rule effective immediately, upon final publication, under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
        E. How would this action affect the 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 states which have received authorization from EPA to make their own delisting decisions.
        EPA allows states to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929. 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, EPA urges 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, Oklahoma, Georgia, Illinois) to administer a RCRA 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 unless that state makes the rule part of its authorized program. If Samsung transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any state with delisting authorization, Samsung must obtain delisting authorization from that state before it can manage the waste as non-hazardous in the state.
        II. Background
        A. What is the history of the delisting program?
        EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its final and interim final regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA. EPA has amended this list several times and published it in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32.
        EPA lists these wastes as hazardous because: (1) The wastes 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), (2) the wastes meet the criteria for listing contained in § 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3), or (b) the wastes are mixed with or derived from the treatment, storage or disposal of such characteristic and listed wastes and which therefore become hazardous under § 261.3(a)(2)(iv) or (c)(2)(i), known as the “mixture” or “derived-from” rules, respectively.

        Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste described in these regulations or resulting from the operation of the mixture or derived-from rules generally is hazardous, a specific waste from an individual facility may not be hazardous.
        For this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion procedure, called delisting, which allows persons to prove that EPA should not regulate a specific waste from a particular generating facility as a hazardous waste.
        B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a petitioner?
        A delisting petition is a request from a facility to EPA or an authorized state to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes. The facility petitions EPA because it does not consider the wastes hazardous under RCRA regulations.
        In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that wastes generated at a particular facility do not meet any of the criteria for which the waste was listed. The criteria for which EPA lists a waste are in part 261 and further explained in the background documents for the listed waste.
        In addition, under 40 CFR 260.22, a petitioner must prove that the waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (that is, ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and present sufficient information for EPA to decide whether factors other than those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a hazardous waste. (See part 261 and the background documents for the listed waste.)
        Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm whether their waste remains non-hazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics even if EPA has “delisted” the waste.
        C. What factors must EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a delisting petition?
        Besides considering the criteria in 40 CFR 260.22(a) and § 3001(f) of RCRA, 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 EPA listed the waste, if a reasonable basis exists that these additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous.
        EPA must also consider as hazardous waste mixtures containing listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or disposing of listed hazardous waste. See § 261.3(a)(2)(iii and iv) and (c)(2)(i), called the “mixture” and “derived-from” rules, respectively. These wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain hazardous wastes until excluded. See 66 FR 27266 (May 16, 2001).
        III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
        A. What waste did Samsung 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.
        B. Who is Samsung and what process does it use to generate the petitioned waste?
        Samsung Austin Semiconductor (SAS) operates a semiconductor manufacturing facility located at 12100 Samsung Blvd. in Austin, Texas. SAS manufactures semiconductors used in logic chips for various applications, including cellular phones and tablet PCs. The SAS facility consists of two wafer manufacturing operations. The Main Fab, Mod 1 area was constructed in June 2007 as a 300 mm NANO Flash Fab. The Fab that was constructed in 1998 was decommissioned and subsequently upgraded to convert it from a trailing-edge DRAM Fab to a copper back end of the line (BEOL) Fab for the support of the adjacent Main Fab operations (CuFab). The integrated SAS operations are capable of manufacturing 3X NANO technology and copper interconnects. In addition, the Main Fab, Mod 2 area was constructed in May 2011 to manufacture 45X Nanotechnology for logic chips for various applications.
        Since 2007, SAS's manufacturing process has used copper during wafer fabrication to enhance electron migration and reduce the width of the circuitry of the microprocessors. The copper application is performed in a copper metallization process, in which copper is applied to the wafer in an electroplating operation. Electric current is applied to copper anodes in an acidic bath to deposit a microscopic layer of copper on selected portions of the wafer. Following the electroplating operation, wafers go through a second bath prior to entering the etching step. The etching step is performed to clean the edges of the wafer. Silica slurry is then used to flatten the surface of the wafer. Wastewater from these processes is treated in the copper wastewater (CuWW) treatment system that is part of the plant's industrial wastewater treatment (IWT) system. Sludge generated in the CuWW treatment system is collected in a tank that feeds a plate and frame filter press. The sludge that is processed in the filter press generates a filter cake which falls from the filter press into a roll-off for storage onsite in a less than 90-day waste storage unit. The filter cake is transported off-site to a hazardous waste landfill for disposal.
        C. How did Samsung sample and analyze the data in this petition?
        To support its petition, Samsung submitted: Historical information on waste generation and management practices; and analytical results from eight samples for total and TCLP concentrations of compounds of concern (COC)s.
        D. What were the results of Samsung's analysis?

        EPA believes that the descriptions of the Samsung analytical characterization provide a reasonable basis to grant Samsung's petition for an exclusion of the filter cake sludge. EPA believes the data submitted in support of the petition show the filter cake is non-hazardous. Analytical data for the filter cake samples were used in the DRAS to develop delisting levels. The data summaries for COCs are presented in Table I. EPA has reviewed the sampling procedures used by Samsung and has determined that it satisfies EPA criteria for collecting representative samples of the variations in constituent concentrations in the filter cake. In addition, the data submitted in support of the petition show that constituents in Samsung's waste are presently below health-based levels used in the delisting decision-making. EPA believes that Samsung has successfully demonstrated that the copper filter cake is non-hazardous.

          Table 1—Analytical Results/Maximum Allowable Delisting Concentration
          [Copper Filter Cake, Samsung Austin Semiconductor, Austin, Texas]

            Constituent
            Maximum totalconcentration
              (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

            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.

        E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting the waste?

        For this delisting determination, EPA used such information gathered to identify plausible exposure routes (i.e. groundwater, surface water, air) for hazardous constituents present in the petitioned waste. EPA determined that disposal in a surface impoundment is the most reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario for Samsung's petitioned waste. EPA applied the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) described in 65 FR 58015 (September 27, 2000) and 65 FR 75637 (December 4, 2000), 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 Samsung's petitioned waste on human health and the environment. A copy of this software can be found on the world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/reg5rcra/wptdiv/hazardous/delisting/dras-software.html. In assessing potential risks to groundwater, EPA used the maximum waste volumes and the maximum reported extract concentrations as inputs to the DRAS program to estimate the constituent concentrations in the groundwater at a hypothetical receptor well down gradient from the disposal site. Using the risk level (carcinogenic risk of 10-5 and non-cancer hazard index of 1.0), the DRAS program can back-calculate the acceptable receptor well concentrations (referred to as compliance-point concentrations) using standard risk assessment algorithms and EPA health-based numbers. Using the maximum compliance-point concentrations and EPA's Composite Model for Underflow water Migration with Transformation Products (EPACMTP) fate and transport modeling factors, the DRAS further back-calculates the maximum permissible waste constituent concentrations not expected to exceed the compliance-point concentrations in groundwater.
        EPA believes that the EPACMTP fate and transport model represents a reasonable worst-case scenario for possible groundwater contamination resulting from disposal of the petitioned waste in a surface impoundment, and that a reasonable worst-case scenario is appropriate when evaluating whether a waste should be relieved of the protective management constraints of RCRA Subtitle C. The use of some reasonable worst-case scenarios resulted in conservative values for the compliance-point concentrations and ensures that the waste, once removed from hazardous waste regulation, will not pose a significant threat to human health or the environment.

        The DRAS also uses the maximum estimated waste volumes and the maximum reported total concentrations to predict possible risks associated with releases of waste constituents through surface pathways (e.g. volatilization from the impoundment). As in the above groundwater analyses, the DRAS uses the risk level, the health-based data and standard risk assessment and exposure algorithms to predict maximum compliance-point concentrations of waste constituents at a hypothetical point of exposure. Using fate and transport equations, the DRAS uses the maximum compliance-point concentrations and back-calculates the maximum allowable waste constituent concentrations (or “delisting levels”).
        In most cases, because a delisted waste is no longer subject to hazardous waste control, EPA is generally unable to predict, and does not presently control, how a petitioner will manage a waste after delisting. Therefore, EPA currently believes that it is inappropriate to consider extensive site-specific factors when applying the fate and transport model. EPA does control the type of unit where the waste is disposed. The waste must be disposed in the type of unit the fate and transport model evaluates.
        The DRAS results which calculate the maximum allowable concentration of chemical constituents in the waste are presented in Table I. Based on the comparison of the DRAS and TCLP Analyses results found in Table I, the petitioned waste should be delisted because no constituents of concern tested are likely to be present or formed as reaction products or by-products in Samsung waste.
        F. What did EPA conclude about Samsung's waste analysis?

        EPA concluded, after reviewing Samsung's processes that no other hazardous constituents of concern, other than those for which tested, are likely to be present or formed as reaction products or by-products in the waste. In addition, on the basis of explanations and analytical data provided by Samsung, pursuant to § 260.22, EPA concludes that the petitioned waste does not exhibit any of the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity. See §§ 261.21, 261.22 and 261.23, respectively.
        G. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?

        During the evaluation of Samsung's petition, EPA also considered the potential impact of the petitioned waste via non-groundwater routes (i.e., air emission and surface runoff). With regard to airborne dispersion in particular, EPA believes that exposure to airborne contaminants from Samsung's petitioned waste is unlikely. Therefore, no appreciable air releases are likely from Samsung's waste under any likely disposal conditions. EPA evaluated the potential hazards resulting from the unlikely scenario of airborne exposure to hazardous constituents released from Samsung's waste in an open landfill. The results of this worst-case analysis indicated that there is no substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the environment from airborne exposure to constituents from Samsung's Copper Filter cake.
        H. What is EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition?
        The descriptions of Samsung's hazardous waste process and analytical characterization provide a reasonable basis for EPA to grant the exclusion. The data submitted in support of the petition show that constituents in the waste are below the leachable concentrations (see Table I). EPA believes that Samsung's Filter cake sludge will not impose any threat to human health and the environment.
        Thus, EPA believes Samsung should be granted an exclusion for the Filter cake sludge. EPA believes the data submitted in support of the petition show Samsung's Filter cake sludge is non-hazardous. The data submitted in support of the petition show that constituents in Samsung's waste is presently below the compliance point concentrations used in the delisting decision and would not pose a substantial hazard to the environment. EPA believes that Samsung has successfully demonstrated that the Filter cake sludge is non-hazardous.
        EPA therefore, proposes to grant an exclusion to Samsung in Austin, Texas, for the copper filter cake described in its petition. EPA's decision to exclude this waste is based on descriptions of the treatment activities associated with the petitioned waste and characterization of the copper filter cake.
        If EPA finalizes the proposed rule, EPA will no longer regulate the petitioned waste under parts 262 through 268 and the permitting standards of part 270.
        IV. Next Steps
        A. With what conditions must the petitioner comply?
        The petitioner, Samsung, must comply with the requirements 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 Samsung must test the Copper filter cake, below which these wastes would be considered non-hazardous. EPA selected the set of inorganic and organic 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 inorganic and organic constituents list from the composition of the waste, descriptions of Samsung'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 Samsung manages and disposes of any Copper Filter cake that contains hazardous levels of inorganic and organic constituents according to Subtitle C of RCRA. Managing the copper filter cake as a hazardous waste until the verification testing is performed will protect against improper handling of hazardous material. If EPA determines that the data collected under this paragraph do not support the data provided for 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 cannot begin until the verification sampling is completed.
        (3) Verification Testing Requirements
        Samsung must complete a rigorous verification testing program on the filter cake to assure that the solids do not exceed the maximum levels specified in paragraph (1) of the exclusion language. This verification program will occur as wastes are removed from the roll off box and scheduled for disposal. The volume of wastes removed from the roll off boxes may not exceed 750 cubic yards of sludge material annually. Any copper filter cake waste in excess of 750 cubic yards must be disposed as hazardous wastes. If EPA determines that the data collected under this paragraph do not support the data provided for the petition, the exclusion will not cover the generated wastes. If the data from the verification testing program demonstrate that the Filter cake meet the delisting levels, Samsung may commence disposing of the copper filter cake. EPA will notify Samsung in writing, if and when it begins and ends disposal of the copper filter cake.
        (4) Data Submittals
        To provide appropriate documentation that Samsung's Copper filter cake meet the delisting levels, Samsung must compile, summarize, and keep delisting records on-site for a minimum of five years. It should keep all analytical data obtained through paragraph (3) of the exclusion language including quality control information for five years. Paragraph (4) of the exclusion language requires that Samsung furnish these data upon request for inspection by any employee or representative of EPA or the State of Texas.
        If the proposed exclusion is made final, it will apply only to 750 cubic yards of Copper Filter cake generated at the Samsung Austin Refinery after successful verification testing. EPA would require Samsung to file a new delisting petition for waste generated in excess of the 750 cubic yards and treat the solids as hazardous waste.
        Samsung must manage waste volumes greater than as generated wet 750 cubic yards of the Copper Filter cake as hazardous until EPA grants a new exclusion.

        When this exclusion becomes final, Samsung's management of the wastes covered by this petition would be relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction, the Copper Filter cake from Samsung will be disposed of in an authorized, solid waste landfill (e.g. RCRA Subtitle D landfill, commercial/industrial solid waste landfill, etc.).
        (5) Reopener

        The purpose of paragraph (6) of the exclusion language is to require Samsung 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. Samsung must also use this procedure, if the waste sample in the annual testing fails to meet the levels found in paragraph (1). 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 Samsung 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 that 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. EPA may 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 § 553 (b).
        (6) Notification Requirements
        In order to adequately track wastes that have been delisted, EPA is requiring that Samsung provide a one-time notification to any state regulatory agency through which or to which the delisted waste is being carried. Samsung must provide this notification sixty (60) days before commencing this activity.
        B. What happens if Samsung violates the terms and conditions?
        If Samsung violates the terms and conditions established in the exclusion, EPA will start 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 Samsung to conduct the appropriate waste analysis and comply with the criteria explained above in paragraph (1) of the exclusion.
        V. Public Comments
        A. How can I as an interested party submit comments?

        EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision. Please send three copies of your comments. Send two copies to Kishor Fruitwala, Section Chief (6MM-RP), Multimedia Division, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202. Identify your comments at the top with this regulatory docket number: “EPA-R6-RCRA-2017-0254, Samsung Austin Semiconductor Copper Filter Cake Delisting.” You may submit your comments electronically to Michelle Peace at peace.michelle@epa.gov.

        You should submit requests for a hearing to Kishor Fruitwala, Section Chief (6MM-RP), Multimedia Division, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202.
        B. How may I review the docket or obtain copies of the proposed exclusions?

        You may review the RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule at the Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202. It is available for viewing in EPA Freedom of Information Act Review Room from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for appointments. The public may copy material from any regulatory docket at no cost for the first 100 pages, and at fifteen cents per page for additional copies. Docket materials may be available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov and you may also request the electronic files of the docket which do not appear on regulations.gov.
        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 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 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 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 (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 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.

          Lists 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: June 15, 2017.
          Wren Stenger,
          Director, Multimedia Division, Region 6.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

        1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and 6938.

        2. 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 as 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.

              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, anytime 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. 2017-14829 Filed 7-13-17; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        33 CFR Part 117
        [Docket No. USCG-2017-0162]
        RIN 1625-AA09
        Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Nanticoke River, Seaford, DE

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that governs the SR 13 Bridge across the Nanticoke River, mile 39.6, in Seaford, DE. This proposal will require the bridge to open on signal every Saturday and Sunday during the winter season, if at least 24 hours notice is given. This action is necessary to balance bridge operations and maintenance with the existing needs of navigation.

          DATES:
          Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 5, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0162 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

          See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Mr. Martin A. Bridges, Fifth Coast Guard District (dpb), at (757) 398-6422, email Martin.A.Bridges@uscg.mil.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Table of Abbreviations

          CFR Code of Federal Regulations
          DHS Department of Homeland Security
          FR Federal Register
          NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
          § Section
          U.S.C. United States Code

        II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

        The US 13 Bridge across the Nanticoke River, Mile 39.6, in Seaford, DE, owned and operated by the Delaware Department of Transportation, has a vertical clearance of three feet above mean high water in the closed-to-navigation position. There is a monthly average of three bridge openings on Saturdays and Sundays, from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., from November 1 through March 31, which allow one or more vessels to transit through the bridge during each opening. The bridge is normally maintained in the closed position, due to the volume of vehicular traffic crossing the bridge. The current operating schedule is published in 33 CFR 117.243(b). The Coast Guard's authority to make a permanent change to a drawbridge operating schedule is contained in 33 CFR 117.8.
        The Nanticoke River is predominately used by recreational vessels and pleasure craft. Data contained in the bridge tender logs provided by the Delaware Department of Transportation documenting the three-year average number of bridge openings, maximum number of bridge openings, and weekend bridge openings between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., by month and overall for 2014 through 2016, is presented below.

            Month
            Averageopenings

            Maximumopenings

            Proposedweekends
              average
              openings
              7:30 a.m.-
              3:30 p.m.

            January
            11
            31
            3

            February
            1
            3
            1

            March
            21
            53
            4

            April
            72
            91
            N/A

            May
            138
            192
            N/A

            June
            150
            168
            N/A

            July
            280
            175
            N/A

            August
            198
            223
            N/A

            September
            144
            214
            N/A

            October
            51
            66
            N/A

            November
            8
            13
            5

            December
            1
            4
            1

            Monthly
            89
            223
            3

            Daily
            3
            7
            <1

        This proposed modification of the operating schedule for the bridge is designed to balance bridge operations and maintenance with the existing needs of navigation.
        III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
        The Delaware Department of Transportation requested to modify the operating regulation for the bridge, due to the limited number of requested openings of the bridge on Saturday and Sunday, from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., from November 1 through March 31, over approximately the past three years. The data presented in the table above demonstrates that the requested modification may be implemented with de minimis impact to navigation. The modification requested will require the bridge to open on signal on Saturday and Sunday; from 7:31 a.m. to 3:29 p.m., from November 1 through March 31, if at least 24 hours notice is given. All other provisions of 33 CFR 117.243(b) will remain the same.
        IV. Regulatory Analyses
        We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
        A. Regulatory Planning and Review
        Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
        This is not considered a significant regulatory action. This determination is based on the findings that: (1) The potential impact is small, given the limited number of vessels requiring a bridge opening during the time frame of the proposed modification, and (2) vessels will be able to transit through the bridge during the time frame of the proposed modification, given the bridge will open on signal, if at least 24 hours notice is given.
        B. Impact on Small Entities
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605 (b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The potential impact to all vessels is small, given the limited number of vessels requiring a bridge opening during the time frame of the proposed modification. All vessels will be able to transit through the bridge during the time frame of the proposed modification, given the bridge will open on signal, if at least 24 hours notice is given.

        If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

        Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

        C. Collection of Information
        This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
        D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government
        A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

        Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
        E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
        F. Environment
        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.l (series), which guides 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 which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32) (e), of the Instruction.
        Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32) (e), of the Instruction, a Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) and a Memorandum for the Record (MFR) are not required for this rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
        G. Protest Activities

        The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.
        V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
        We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

        We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

        We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

        Documents mentioned in this notice and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

          List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
          Bridges.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

          PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

          1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
             33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

          2. Revise § 117.243(b) to read as follows:

            § 117.243
            Nanticoke River.

            (b) The draw of the SR 13 Bridge, mile 39.6, in Seaford shall:
            (1) Open on signal, except from 6 p.m. to 8 a.m., from April 1 through October 31; from November 1 through March 31, Monday to Friday and on Saturday and Sunday from 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m., if at least four hours notice is given.
            (2) Open on signal, on Saturday and Sunday, from 7:31 a.m. through 3:29 p.m., from November 1 through March 31, if at least 24 hours notice is given.

          Dated: June 21, 2017.
          M.L. Austin,
          Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.

      [FR Doc. 2017-14068 Filed 7-3-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 9110-04-P