[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 134 (Friday, July 14, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32519-32527]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14829]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Your requests for a hearing must reach EPA by July 31, 2017. The
request must contain the information described in Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.
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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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
Sec. Sec.  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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Maximum total   Maximum TCLP    Maximum TCLP
                           Constituent                             concentration   concentration     delisting
                                                                      (mg/kg)         (mg/L)       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 Sec.
260.22, EPA concludes that the petitioned waste does not exhibit any of
the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or
toxicity. See Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    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<PHONE_NUMBER> 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

0
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.

0
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 Sec. Sec.  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


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 17 (Thursday, January 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4068-4070]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1584]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66209; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-02]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Reformatting
the Fee Schedule

January 20, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''), \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 9, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to relocate various fees within the Fee
Schedule and provide more detail in the Table of Contents in order to
group fees with other similar types of fees.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXPHLX/Filings/, at the principal office of the Exchange and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to relocate various fees
within the Fee Schedule and add more detail to the Table of Contents to
group fees so that those fees may be easily located within the Fee
Schedule. The Exchange is not proposing any substantive amendments, but
rather proposes to merely rearrange text within the Fee Schedule and
add detail to the Table of Contents.
    Specifically, the Exchange is proposing revisions to the Table of
Contents, Section IV, entitled ``PIXL Pricing'', Section VI, entitled
``Access Service, Cancellation, Membership, Regulatory and other
Fees'', and Section VIII, entitled, ``Other Member Fees,'' as specified
below.
Table of Contents
    The Exchange proposes to amend the title of Section IV ``PIXL
Pricing'' to ``Other Transaction Fees'' and also add three subsections:
(1) A. PIXL Pricing; (2) B. Cancellation Fee; and (3) C. Options
Regulatory Fee. The Exchange

is proposing to amend the title of Section VI ``Access Service,
Cancellation, Membership, Regulatory and other Fees'' to ``Member
Fees'' and also add three subsections: (1) A. Permit and Registration
Fees; (2) B. Streaming Quote Trader (``SQT'') Fees; and (3) C. Remote
Streaming Quote Trader (``RSQT'') Fees. The Exchange also proposes to
amend Section VII, which is currently reserved, as ``Other Member
Fees'' and also add four subsections: (1) A. Options Trading Floor
Fees; (2) B. Port Fees; (3) C. FINRA Fees; and (4) D. Appeal Fees.
Section IV. PIXL Pricing
    The Exchange proposes to rename Section IV as ``Other Transaction
Fees.'' The PIXL Pricing will remain in this Section as subsection A.
The Exchange also proposes to add a subsection B for Cancellation Fees
and a subsection C for the Options Regulatory Fees. The Cancellation
Fees and the Options Regulatory Fees are currently located in Section
VI, Access Service, Cancellation, Membership, Regulatory, and other
Fees. The Exchange believes that these transaction fees are better
suited to newly titled Section IV, Other Transaction Fees, because
these fees would be located with other transaction fees in the front
portion of the Fee Schedule.
Section VI. Access Service, Cancellation, Membership, Regulatory and
Other Fees
    The Exchange proposes to rename Section VI as ``Membership Fees.''
Currently Section VI contains numerous types of Fees including the:
Cancellation Fee, Real-time Risk Management Fee, Options Regulatory
Fee, Permit and Registration Fees,\3\ Streaming Quote Trader (``SQT'')
Fees, Remote Streaming Quote Trader (``RSQT'') Fees, Options Trading
Floor Fees,\4\ Port Fees,\5\ FINRA Fees \6\ and Appeal Fees.\7\ The
Exchange proposes to relocate the Cancellation Fee and the Options
Regulatory Fee to newly named Section IV, Other Transaction Fees, as
mentioned above. The Exchange proposes to create a subsection A for
Permit and Registration Fees, a subsection B for SQT Fees and a
subsection C for RSQT Fees. All other fees, including the Options
Trading Floor Fees, Port Fees, FINRA Fees and Appeal Fees, will be
relocated to a newly titled Section VII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Permit and Registration Fees include the: Permit Fee,
Application Fee, Application Fee for Lapsed Applications, Transfer
of Affiliation Fee, Account Fee, Initiation Fee, Inactive Nominee
Fee and Clerk Fee.
    \4\ The Options Trading Floor Fees include the: Trading/
Administrative Booths; Specialist Post Fee, Floor Facility Fees,
Computer Equipment Services, Repairs and Replacements, Computer
Relocation Requests and Controller Space Fee.
    \5\ Port Fees include the: Order Entry Port Fee; Active SQF Port
Fee and Real-Time Risk Management Fee, which is noted herein.
    \6\ FINRA Fees include the: Continuing Education Fee, CRD
Processing Fee, Disclosure Processing Fee; Annual System Processing
Fee and Fingerprint Card Processing Fees.
    \7\ The Appeal Fees include the: Review/Process Subordinated
Loans Fees, Forum Fee Pursuant to Rule 60 and the Review Fee
Pursuant to Rule 124.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section VII. Reserved
    The Exchange proposes to rename Section VII, which is currently
reserved, as ``Other Member Fees.'' The Exchange proposes to relocate
the Options Trading Floor Fees, \8\ Port Fees,\9\ FINRA Fees \10\ and
Appeal Fees \11\ from Section VI. The Exchange proposes to group these
fees into four subsections: A subsection A for Options Floor Fees, a
subsection B for Port Fees, a subsection C for FINRA Fees and a
subsection D for Appeal Fees for ease of reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See note 4.
    \9\ See note 5.
    \10\ See note 6.
    \11\ See note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \13\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest, by organizing its Rules in such a way as to make them easy to
locate by grouping transaction fees with other transaction fees and
creating other categories of fees, such as Options Trading Floor Fees,
Port Fees and Appeals Fees, which provide members an ability to view
fees, which may be applicable to them, in one section or subsection of
the Fee Schedule. The Exchange believes that also enhancing the Table
of Contents, by renaming certain sections and adding subsections,
provides greater clarity to the Fee Schedule and allows members to
readily locate fees within the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\14\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-Phlx-2012-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2012-02. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the

proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2012-02 and should be
submitted on or before February 16, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-1584 Filed 1-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P