Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Manufacturing (Import) Exemption for the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), 18471-18477 [2014-07393]
Download as PDF
18471
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
pistachio; and plum, prune, fresh at 0.04
ppm, stating that the proposed residue
level for each commodity was derived
using the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
MRL calculation procedures. EPA does
not concur that these are the appropriate
outputs from the OECD MRL calculation
procedures. All residue values for all
crops (not including processed
commodities) are less than the
analytical method limit of quantitation
(LOQ) of 0.01 ppm. When all inputs for
a commodity are less than the LOQ, also
known as ‘‘censored’’ values, the OECD
calculator recommends a tolerance level
at the method LOQ. Therefore, to be
consistent with the OECD MRL
calculation procedures, EPA is
recommending that a tolerance of 0.01
ppm be established for almond; cherry,
sweet; fig; pear; pistachio; and plum,
prune, fresh.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of forchlorfenuron, (N-(2chloro-4-pyridinyl)-N-phenylurea), in or
on almond; cherry, sweet; fig; pear;
pistachio; and plum, prune, fresh at 0.01
ppm and in or on almond, hulls at 0.15
ppm. In addition, EPA is removing from
40 CFR 180.569(a)(2) the temporary
tolerances, which are superseded by the
permanent tolerances being established
in today’s action.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This final rule establishes tolerances
under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the
Agency. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has exempted these types
of actions from review under Executive
Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this final rule
has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211,
entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive
Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997). This final rule does not
contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require
any special considerations under
Executive Order 12898, entitled
‘‘Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:28 Apr 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
Since tolerances and exemptions that
are established on the basis of a petition
under FFDCA section 408(d), such as
the tolerance in this final rule, do not
require the issuance of a proposed rule,
the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
This final rule directly regulates
growers, food processors, food handlers,
and food retailers, not States or tribes,
nor does this action alter the
relationships or distribution of power
and responsibilities established by
Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such,
the Agency has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct
effect on States or tribal governments,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States or tribal
governments, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian
tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined
that Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and Executive Order 13175,
entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply
to this final rule. In addition, this final
rule does not impose any enforceable
duty or contain any unfunded mandate
as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
This action does not involve any
technical standards that would require
Agency consideration of voluntary
consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Dated: March 21, 2014.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
VII. Congressional Review Act
[FR Doc. 2014–07103 Filed 4–1–14; 8:45 am]
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will
submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. In § 180.569:
a. Revise paragraph (a) introductory
text.
■ b. Add alphabetically the
commodities to the table in paragraph
(a).
■ c. Remove paragraph (a)(2).
The revision and additions read as
follows:
■
■
§ 180.569 Forchlorfenuron; tolerances for
residues.
(a) General. Tolerances are
established for residues of
forchlorfenuron, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table below.
Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified below is to be determined by
measuring only forchlorfenuron (N-(2chloro-4-pyridinyl)-N-phenylurea).
Parts per
million
Commodity
Almond ......................................
Almond, hulls ............................
0.01
0.15
*
*
*
*
Cherry, sweet ...........................
Fig .............................................
*
0.01
0.01
*
*
*
*
Pear ..........................................
Pistachio ...................................
Plum, prune, fresh ....................
*
0.01
0.01
0.01
*
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 761
[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–0396; FRL–9908–98–
OSWER]
RIN 2050–AG79
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs):
Manufacturing (Import) Exemption for
the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\02APR1.SGM
02APR1
18472
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency)
is taking direct final action on a petition
from the United States Defense Logistics
Agency (DLA) to import foreignmanufactured polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). For purposes of the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),
‘‘manufacture’’ is defined to include the
import of chemical substances into the
customs territory of the United States.
With certain exceptions, section 6(e)(3)
of TSCA bans the manufacture,
processing, and distribution in
commerce of PCBs. One of these
exceptions is TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B),
which gives EPA authority to grant
petitions to import PCBs into the
customs territory of the United States
for a period of up to 12 months,
provided EPA can make certain findings
by rule. On April 23, 2013, EPA
received a petition from DLA, a
component of the United States
Department of Defense (DoD), to import
foreign-manufactured PCBs that DoD
currently owns in Japan for disposal in
the United States. EPA is granting DLA’s
petition as of July 1, 2014. This decision
to grant the petition allows DLA to
manufacture (i.e., import) certain PCBs
for disposal. EPA has granted two
previous exemptions in 2003 and 2007
to DLA for similar petitions to import
PCBs for disposal. Without an
exemption granted by EPA, DLA would
not be allowed to import the PCB waste
to the U.S. for proper disposal. In fact,
if the exemption is not granted, it is very
likely that DLA will not be able to find
any country willing to accept and
properly dispose of the PCB waste.
DATES: This direct final rule will be
effective July 1, 2014 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse
written comment or a request for an
informal hearing (per 40 CFR part 750,
subpart B) by May 2, 2014 If adverse
comments or a request for an informal
hearing are received, EPA will publish
a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register informing the public that this
rule will not take effect based on the
direct final rule. EPA will then address
all public comments in any subsequent
final rule based on the proposed rule
which accompanies this direct final
rule.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
RCRA–2013–0396, by one of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: rcra-docket@epa.gov.
Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
RCRA–2013–0396.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:28 Apr 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
• Mail: RCRA Docket, Mail Code
28221T, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–
0396. Please include two copies.
• Hand Delivery: Please deliver two
copies to the EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), WJC West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket’s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–
0396. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the RCRA Docket is (202)
566–0270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kelly Greene, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery, (MC:
5304P), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20460, Phone:
703–347–0363; or by email:
greene.kelly@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?
II. Does this action apply to me?
III. Background
IV. Findings Necessary To Grant Petitions
A. No Unreasonable Risk Finding
B. Good Faith Efforts Finding
V. Final Disposition of This Exemption
Petition
A. The Petition: April 23, 2013 Petition To
Import PCBs Located in Japan
B. EPA’s Final Decision on the Petition:
April 23, 2013 Petition; EPA Is Granting
This Petition
VI. References
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
B. Congressional Review Act
I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?
EPA is publishing this rule as a direct
final rule because the Agency views this
action as noncontroversial and EPA
anticipates no adverse comments since
EPA has granted two previous
exemptions to DLA for similar petitions
to import PCB waste (68 FR 4934 and
72 FR 53152) (Ref. 2, 3). EPA received
no adverse comments or requests for an
informal hearing for either of the
previous two DLA petitions, the last of
which was granted on September 18,
2007. In the absence of an exemption,
import of the waste identified by the
petitioner would be banned from being
imported into the customs territory of
the United States by section 6(e)(3) of
TSCA. The petition, dated April 23,
2013, is for an exemption to import for
proper disposal certain PCBs under the
control of DLA that are currently in use
or storage in Japan (Ref. 1).
Additionally, EPA believes that a direct
final rule will expedite processing of an
import exemption and the proper
disposal of the PCB wastes, further
reducing risks from long term storage
overseas.
If EPA receives adverse comment, we
will publish a timely withdrawal in the
E:\FR\FM\02APR1.SGM
02APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register informing the public
that the rule will not take effect based
on the direct final rule. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at
this time. If an informal hearing is
requested, the Agency will publish the
place and time of the hearing. Public
comments will be accepted for one week
after the close of the informal hearing.
If we receive adverse comments, after
withdrawing the direct final rule, we
will address all public comments in any
subsequent final rule based on the
accompanying proposed rule.
If the Agency does not receive adverse
comments or a request for an informal
hearing, this direct final rule will take
effect on July 1, 2014.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
II. Does this action apply to me?
This action applies to the petitioner,
the U.S. Defense Logistics Agency.
However, you may be potentially
affected by this action if you process,
distribute in commerce, or dispose of
the PCB waste imported by DLA, i.e.,
you are an EPA-permitted PCB waste
handler. Potentially affected categories
and entities include, but are not
necessarily limited to:
• Waste treatment and disposal North
American Industrial Classification
System ((NAICS) code 5622), e.g.,
facilities that store or dispose of PCB
waste.
• Materials recovery facilities (NAICS
code 56292), e.g., facilities that process
and/or recycle metals.
• Public administration (NAICS code
92), e.g., the petitioning agency (i.e.,
DLA).
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities potentially
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this section could
also be affected. The NAICS codes have
been provided to assist you and others
in determining whether this action
might apply to certain entities. To
determine whether you or your business
may be affected by this action, you
should carefully examine the
applicability provisions in 40 CFR part
761. If you have any questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person
listed under the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
III. Background
Section 6(e)(3)(A) of TSCA prohibits
the manufacture, processing, and
distribution in commerce of PCBs,
except for the distribution in commerce
of PCBs that were sold for purposes
other than resale before April 1, 1979.
Section 6(e)(1) of TSCA also authorizes
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:28 Apr 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
EPA to regulate the disposal of PCBs
consistent with the provisions in section
6(e)(2) and (3) of TSCA.
Section 6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA, however,
stipulates that any person may petition
the EPA Administrator for an exemption
from the prohibition on the
manufacture, processing, and
distribution in commerce of PCBs. The
Administrator may by rule grant an
exemption if the Administrator finds
that:
(i) An unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment would not
result, and (ii) good faith efforts have
been made to develop a chemical
substance which does not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or
environment and which may be
substituted for such polychlorinated
biphenyl. (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(3)(B)(i)–
(ii)).
The Administrator may prescribe
terms and conditions for an exemption
and may grant an exemption for a
period of not more than one year from
the date the petition is granted. In
addition, section 6(e)(4) of TSCA
requires that a rule under section
6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA be promulgated in
accordance with sections 6(c)(2), (3) and
(4) of TSCA, which provide for
publication of a proposed rule, the
opportunity for written comments and
an informal hearing, if requested, and
publication of a final rule.
EPA’s procedures for rulemaking
under section 6 of TSCA are found
under 40 CFR part 750. This part
includes Subpart B—Interim Procedural
Rules for Manufacturing Exemptions,
which describes the required content for
manufacturing exemption petitions and
the procedures that EPA follows in
rulemaking regarding these petitions.
These rules are codified at 40 CFR
750.10 through 750.21.
IV. Findings Necessary To Grant
Petitions
A. No Unreasonable Risk Finding
Before granting an exemption
petition, section 6(e)(3)(B)(i) of TSCA
requires the Administrator to find that
granting an exemption would not result
in an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or to the environment. EPA
expects a petitioner to demonstrate in
its petition that the activity will not
pose an unreasonable risk. (See 40 CFR
750.11.)
To determine whether a risk is
unreasonable, EPA balances the
probability that harm will occur to
health or to the environment against the
benefits to society from granting or
denying each petition. See generally, 15
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
18473
U.S.C. 2605(c)(1). Specifically, EPA
considers the following factors:
1. Effects of PCBs on human health
and the environment. In deciding
whether to grant an exemption, EPA
considers the magnitude of exposure
and the effects of PCBs on humans and
the environment. The following
discussion summarizes EPA’s
assessment of these factors. A more
complete discussion of human health
and environmental effects of PCBs is
provided in the advance notice of
proposed rulemaking for the
reassessment of PCB use authorizations
in the Federal Register of April 7, 2010
(75 FR 17645) (Ref. 5). The Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) Toxicological Profile for PCBs
(2000) has also provided a recent review
of PCB human health and
environmental effects (Ref. 6).
a. Health effects. EPA has determined
that PCBs cause significant human
health effects, including cancer
(classified as a probable human
carcinogen), immune system
suppression, liver damage, skin
irritation, and endocrine disruption.
PCBs exhibit neurotoxicity, as well as
reproductive and developmental
toxicity. PCBs are readily absorbed
through the skin and are absorbed at
even faster rates when inhaled. Because
PCBs are stored in animal fatty tissue,
humans are also exposed to PCBs
through ingestion of animal products.
b. Environmental effects. Certain PCB
congeners are among the most stable
chemicals known, and decompose very
slowly once they are released into the
environment. PCBs are absorbed and
stored in the fatty tissue of higher
organisms as they bioaccumulate up the
food chain through invertebrates, fish,
and mammals. Significantly,
bioaccumulated PCBs appear to be even
more toxic than those found in the
ambient environment, since the more
toxic PCB congeners are more persistent
and thus more likely to be retained.
PCBs also have reproductive and other
toxic effects in aquatic organisms, birds,
and mammals.
c. Risks. Toxicity and exposure are
the two basic components of risk. EPA
has concluded that exposure of humans
or the environment to PCBs may be
significant, depending on such factors
as the quantity of PCBs involved in the
exposure and the effect of exposure.
Minimizing exposure to PCBs should
minimize potential risk. As shown
through the 40 CFR Part 761 regulations
that detail proper disposal and storage
options, EPA has previously determined
that some activities, including the
disposal of PCBs, pose no unreasonable
risks. Other activities, such as long-term
E:\FR\FM\02APR1.SGM
02APR1
18474
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
storage of PCB waste, are generally
considered by EPA to pose unreasonable
risks.
2. Benefits and costs. The benefits to
society of granting an exemption vary,
depending on the activity for which the
exemption is requested. The reasonably
ascertainable costs of denying an
exemption vary, depending on the
individual petition. As discussed in
Section V of this preamble, EPA has
taken benefits and costs into
consideration when evaluating this
exemption petition.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
B. Good Faith Efforts Finding
Section 6(e)(3)(B)(ii) of TSCA requires
the Administrator to find that ‘‘good
faith efforts have been made to develop
a chemical substance which does not
present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment and which
may be substituted for [PCBs].’’ EPA
expects a petitioner to demonstrate in
its petition how this standard is met.
(See 40 CFR 750.11.) EPA considers
several factors in determining whether
good faith efforts have been made. For
each petition, EPA considers the kind of
exemption the petitioner is requesting
and whether the petitioner can
demonstrate that time and effort have
been expended to develop or search for
a substitute. In each case, the burden is
on the petitioner to show specifically
what was done to substitute non-PCB
material for PCBs or to show why it was
not feasible to substitute non-PCBs for
PCBs.
To satisfy this finding for requests for
an exemption to import PCBs for
disposal, a petitioner must show why
such activities should occur in the
United States and what steps have been
taken to develop a substitute. While
requiring a petitioner to demonstrate
that good faith efforts to develop a
substitute for PCBs makes sense when
dealing with exemption petitions for
traditional manufacture and distribution
in commerce, the issue of the
development of substitute chemicals
seems to have little bearing on whether
to grant a petition for exemption that
would allow the import into the United
States for disposal of PCB waste.
However, because section 6(e)(3)(B)
allows a petitioner to request an
exemption from any of the prohibitions
listed in section 6(e)(3)(A), EPA believes
that it is appropriate to apply the
standard in a way that is relevant to the
particular exemption requested.
Therefore, EPA believes that the
relevant ‘‘good faith’’ issue for an
exemption request to import PCBs for
disposal in the customs territory of the
United States is whether the disposal of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:28 Apr 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
the waste could and/or should occur
outside the United States.
V. Final Disposition of This Exemption
Petition
A. The Petition: April 23, 2013 Petition
To Import PCBs Located in Japan
On April 23, 2013, DLA submitted a
petition seeking a 1-year exemption to
import PCBs and PCB Items currently in
storage at U.S. military installations in
Japan (Ref. 1). DLA estimates that as
much as 1,014,222 pounds of waste
contaminated with PCBs could be
generated in Japan through the calendar
year 2014. The material in Japan
consists of transformers (drained and
un-drained), large and small capacitors,
voltage regulators, switches,
electromagnets, circuit breakers,
reclosers, electrical cable, electric light
ballasts, used dielectric fluids
containing PCBs, and PCB-contaminated
soil and debris (e.g., rags, small parts,
packaging materials). Ninety four
percent of the waste is at PCB
concentrations below 50 ppm. Details of
the particular amounts and
concentrations DLA is petitioning to
import can be found in Attachment 1 of
the DLA petition, which can be found
in the docket. EPA has concluded that
import of DLA’s PCBs will not cause a
shortage of domestic PCB storage or
disposal capacity. In addition, EPA has
concluded that the amounts of PCBs
available for import are small in
comparison to domestic generation, and
pose little threat of overwhelming
domestic disposal capacity. (Ref. 4)
1. Information regarding no
unreasonable risk provided by the
petitioner. DLA will package, transport,
treat, and dispose of these PCBs in the
same manner as PCBs identified in its
previous petitions, which EPA granted
in 2003 and 2007 to allow the import of
up to 4,293,621 and 1,328,428 pounds
of waste contaminated with PCBs,
respectively (Ref. 2, 3). Specifically,
DLA notes its adherence to applicable
modal and inter-modal national and/or
international packaging, marking,
labeling and shipping paper regulations,
such as the United Nations (UN)
Performance Oriented Packaging (POP)
standards, the International Maritime
Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code/
International Maritime Organization
(IMO) requirements, the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
Technical Instructions, requirements of
the International Air Transport
Association (IATA), UN
Recommendations on the Transport of
Dangerous Goods Code, and provisions
of the Hazardous Materials Regulations
at 49 CFR 100–199. DLA further notes
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
that proper handling and shipping will
include blocking, bracing, over packing,
and inclusion of spill containment
devices, as required by applicable
transportation regulations.
DLA further indicates that it will
handle and dispose of all PCBs and PCB
Items in conformance with the PCB
regulations at 40 CFR Part 761. DLA has
considerable experience and expertise
in awarding and administering disposal
contracts for PCBs and PCB Items in the
U.S. and will award contracts with
commercial firms in accordance with all
applicable Federal procurement statutes
and the Federal Acquisition Regulations
(FAR). DLA additionally notes that only
companies with the required Federal
and/or state-permits for the
transportation, storage, treatment and
disposal of PCBs and PCB Items would
be considered as eligible for award of
such contracts. DLA’s exemption
petition does not request to limit the
storage, treatment or disposal of PCBs
and PCB Items imported from Japan to
management at a particular facility;
rather DLA requests that any storage,
treatment, or disposal facility that has
the appropriate Federal and/or state
permits for PCBs and PCB Items and for
which DLA has entered a contract be
allowed to manage these materials.
DLA notes that it and its contractors
have extensive experience in safely
returning PCBs and PCB Items to the
United States for treatment and
disposal, and that DLA has returned
several million pounds of PCBs and PCB
Items for compliant disposal in the
United States, including 3.6 million
pounds of foreign-manufactured PCBs
and PCB Items imported under the two
previously granted exemptions.1
Throughout the course of this
experience, DLA has used the same
standards and procedures discussed
above without spills or safety problems
affecting human health or the
environment.
2. Information regarding good faith
efforts provided by the petitioner. DLA
states in its petition that disposal of its
PCBs and PCB Items in Japan is not an
available disposal option.
As DLA noted in its exemption
request, there are significant
impediments to disposal on DOD
military installations in Japan. As noted
in the DLA petition, while there may
exist certain mobile technology capable
of treating some of the PCBs and PCB
Items generated by United States
military forces in Japan, there are also
significant impediments to obtaining the
1 As noted previously, DLA had authority to
import up to 5.5 million pounds of PCBs and PCB
Items.
E:\FR\FM\02APR1.SGM
02APR1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
permits that would be required to have
that technology approved for use on
United States military installations,
where residual wastes and metals would
still need to be taken off-installation for
disposal. Complicating the situation
further is that any transfer or sale of
property from the U.S. military
installations into Japanese commerce is
considered an ‘‘import’’ of property.
Japan has banned the importation of
PCBs and PCB Items at any detectable
concentration including concentrations
below the very stringent 0.5 ppm level
at which Japan regulates domestic PCBs.
DLA’s market research suggested a
potential could exist for disposal of
some limited waste streams in newly
permitted Japanese facilities (i.e., ‘‘offinstallation’’ disposal). However, DLA
has not been able to identify any change
in Japanese law that would allow offinstallation disposal in Japan nor the
existence of any properly permitted
vendor or technology that would be
currently available to properly treat the
DOD generated PCBs and PCB Items
within the confines of the United States
installations in Japan. Accordingly, onsite treatment does not present a
reasonable alternative to the import of
these wastes for proper disposal in the
United States in compliance with TSCA
Section 6(e)(3).
DLA further notes that disposal of this
waste in another country is not a viable
option. DLA cites its 1999 Report to
Congress as background on the
difficulty it faces in finding suitable
disposal alternatives for PCBs and PCB
Items generated or owned by DOD
overseas. In particular, DLA discusses
the difficulty of shipping waste from
Japan to other countries as a result of
the Basel Convention. Prior to its
previous petitions, DLA and its primary
disposal contractor made extensive
contacts over a period of several years
with Japanese officials and disposal
facilities in numerous locations outside
the United States in an effort to identify
firms who could dispose of such PCBs
and PCB Items while satisfying the
Basel Convention requirements. At that
time, the DOD also consulted at length
with the State Department officials in
Japan and in the United States whose
responsibilities include international
environmental matters. The variety of
problems identified in these contacts
regarding overseas disposal of certain
PCB Items resulted in a consensus that
use of existing facilities in other
developed countries was not a
reasonable alternative. Even if other
countries had the physical capacity to
accept these wastes, non-governmental
organizations might be expected to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:28 Apr 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
oppose the DOD’s disposal of its waste
in third countries (that is, countries
other than Japan and the United States)
because the United States has the
technical capability to properly dispose
of the hazardous materials itself.
DLA concludes that its diligent but so
far unsuccessful attempts to locate
appropriate disposal sites outside the
United States demonstrate its good faith
efforts to pursue alternatives to disposal
within the United States and fulfill the
requirements of TSCA 6(e)(3)(B).
B. EPA’s Final Decision on the Petition:
April 23, 2013 Petition; EPA Is Granting
This Petition
1. No unreasonable risk
determination. EPA finds generally that
the disposal of imported PCBs and PCB
Items at an EPA-approved PCB disposal
facility poses no unreasonable risks as
these facilities have been approved on
the basis of that standard. In addition,
as with the previous two petitions, EPA
concurs with DLA’s assessment that
transportation of this waste will pose no
unreasonable risk if conducted in
accordance with all applicable laws and
regulations. Therefore, for the following
reasons, EPA finds that there is no
unreasonable risk from importing the
PCBs and PCB Items by DLA from Japan
to the United States for disposal, as
outlined below.
i. PCBs are hazardous and pose a
potential risk to health and the
environment. Proper disposal would
reduce PCB-associated risks.
ii. Risk results from a combination of
exposure (likelihood, magnitude and
duration) and the probability of effects
occurring under the conditions of
exposure. Because the probability of a
transport accident occurring is low (Ref.
4), the likelihood of exposure to PCBs is
commensurately low. Consequently, the
probability of adverse effects to human
health or the environment is low.
iii. The PCB-containing materials will
be packaged in a manner consistent
with Federal, State, and local
regulations addressing the risks
associated with the storage and
transportation of hazardous wastes. In
addition, PCB waste will be
continuously monitored during the
water transport from Japan to the United
States. Contingency plans are required
by the International Maritime Dangerous
Goods Code and DOT to be in place
before and after the import of PCBcontaining items to the United States.
Moreover, the PCB Items that will be
transported to the United States
generally have a low combustion
likelihood, which will make the
probability of fires low. Together, these
contingency measures will minimize
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
18475
exposure to humans and the
environment in the event of an accident
or emergency during ocean transport.
iv. Given the aforementioned
information, the exposure likelihood,
frequency, and duration are so low that
even though PCBs are considered to be
highly hazardous, any risk resulting
from the combined exposure and hazard
potential is expected to be low to
human health or the environment.
v. The potential for human health
risks are further mitigated by the limited
duration of exposure. PCBs are most
hazardous following long-term (chronic)
exposures. Under the transport scenario
proposed, any exposures to humans
(i.e., accidental or emergency situation)
would be of very short duration. Hence,
the low probability of exposure
occurring combined with the short-term
duration of exposure, should one occur,
further supports a qualitative
conclusion that there is no unreasonable
risk to human health.
vi. The long-term concern is the
potential for accumulation in the
ecological environment. Under a worst
case scenario where all of the PCBs were
released due to an unforeseen and
highly unlikely catastrophic event
during transport, PCB-exposed
biological receptors could be adversely
affected. However, this scenario is
highly unlikely because it would require
a complete failure of all safeguards that
will be in place. Furthermore, the
alternative of storing the PCBs
indefinitely seems to pose more risk
than transport. Moreover, should an
accident occur, emergency response
authorities would be invoked to mitigate
and/or remediate exposures.
2. Good faith efforts to find substitutes
met. Section 6(e)(3)(B)(ii) of TSCA
requires the Administrator to make an
additional finding, that ‘‘good faith
efforts have been made to develop a
chemical substance that does not
present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment and which
may be substituted for such
polychlorinated biphenyl.’’ EPA has
interpreted this provision to require that
a petitioner has the burden of
demonstration that it has made the
requisite good faith efforts. (See 40 CFR
750.11.)
EPA finds that DLA has demonstrated
good faith efforts to find alternatives to
disposal of this PCB waste in the United
States. EPA acknowledges the
restrictions to disposing of this waste in
Japan. DLA has also explored exporting
this waste to other countries as an
alternative. However, DLA has
indicated, and EPA acknowledges, the
peculiar circumstances of DOD’s PCBs
and PCB Items, which, while present in
E:\FR\FM\02APR1.SGM
02APR1
18476
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
one country (i.e., Japan), are generated
by another country’s government,
leading to significant difficulty in
providing Basel Convention notification
to third party countries. Given these
difficulties, EPA concurs with DLA’s
conclusion that disposal in a third
country (that is, countries other than
Japan and the United States) is not a
viable alternative for this waste.
3. Benefits of Granting the Petition
i. Avoiding the risks of long-term
storage. EPA believes that granting the
petition to DLA to import 1,014,222
pounds of waste contaminated with
PCBs (94% of which is less than 50
ppm) will benefit the United States and
the environment in general. As DLA
notes, the continued long-term storage
of PCB waste on U.S. military facilities
in Japan poses risks to U.S. personnel
and the environment—risks that can be
eliminated through the action finalized
in the petition.
ii. Ensuring proper and safe disposal.
Granting the petition allows the United
States to accept responsibility for the
PCBs and PCB Items it generates by
assuring proper and safe disposal in
domestic permitted disposal facilities.
iii. Ensuring the safety of Japanese
citizens. EPA considers the reduction of
risk to Japanese citizens to be
advantageous, especially in light of the
heightened concerns over PCBs in that
country. Granting the petition is the
only practical mechanism to remove
this waste from Japan; otherwise, the
U.S. military would be required to
explain to its Japanese hosts that it
cannot remove its own toxic waste from
their country because U.S. law does not
allow the waste to be sent to the United
States.
For these reasons, EPA finds DLA has
satisfied the exemption criteria of TSCA
section 6(e)(3)(B) and is granting the
petition.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
VI. References
1. DOD, DLA. Petition from David
Rodriguez, Director to EPA. Subject: Petition
to the United Sates Environmental Protection
Agency For an Exemption Under the Toxic
Substances Control Act to Import
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) and PCB
Items for Disposal. April 23, 2013. 19 pp.
2. EPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated Biphenyls;
Manufacturing (Import) Exemption. Final
Rule. Federal Register (72 FR 53152, April
30, 2007) (FRL–8143–4). Available online at
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/
2007/09/18/E7-18345/polychlorinatedbiphenyls-manufacturing-import-exemption,
Document ID: EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0042–
0008.
3. EPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated Biphenyls;
Manufacturing (Import) Exemptions. Final
Rule. Federal Register (68 FR 4934, January
31, 2003) (FRL–7288–6). Available online at
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:28 Apr 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
https://www.federalregister.com/Browse/
Document/usa/na/fr/2003/1/31/03-2344,
Document ID: EPA–HQ–OPPT–2002–0013–
0041.
4. EPA, OPPT. Disposal of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls; Import for Disposal. Final Rule.
Federal Register (61 FR 11096, March 18,
1996) (FRL–5354–8). Available online at
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/1996/
March/Day-18/pr-24122.txt.html.
5. EPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs); Reassessment of Use Authorizations.
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Federal Register (75 FR 17645, April 7, 2010)
(FRL–8811–7). Available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, Document ID: EPA–
HQ–OPPT–2009–0757–0001.
6. The U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs) (November 2000).
Available online at https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/
toxprofiles/tp17.pdf.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
As explained above, this action will
only grant an exemption for one year for
the DLA to import PCB waste from
military operations in Japan. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under the terms of Executive
Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993), and is therefore not subject to
review under Executive Orders 12866
and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• contains no Federal mandates
under the provisions of Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(2 U.S.C. 1531–1538), for State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector
and contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely
affect small governments;
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132: Federalism (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999);
• does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175:
Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), because, as
the rule does not make any substantive
changes, it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law;
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not subject to Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)),
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
because it is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866;
• does not involve technical
standards, thus the requirements of
§ 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply; and
• does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations under
Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994) because it does not affect the level
of protection provided to human health
or the environment.
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of today’s rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
that is primarily engaged in hazardous
waste treatment and disposal as defined
by NAICS code 562211, with annual
receipts of less than 12.5 million dollars
(based on Small Business
Administration size standards); (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s direct final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule merely allows DOD to
bring its PCB waste back to the U.S.
from Japan for proper disposal.
B. Congressional Review Act
This action is subject to the
Congressional Review Act, and EPA will
submit a rule report to each House of
the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. Under the
CRA, a ‘‘major rule’’ cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a
E:\FR\FM\02APR1.SGM
02APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 761
Environmental protection, Hazardous
substances, and Polychlorinated
biphenyls.
Dated: March 25, 2014.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 761—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 761
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2611,
2614, and 2616.
Subpart E—[Amended]
2. Section 761.80 is amended by
revising paragraph (j) to read as follows:
■
§ 761.80 Manufacturing, processing and
distribution in commerce exemptions.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) The Administrator grants the
United States Defense Logistics
Agency’s April 23, 2013 petition for an
exemption for 1 year beginning on July
1, 2014, to import up to 1,014,222
pounds of PCBs and PCB Items stored
or in use in Japan as identified in its
petition for disposal.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–07393 Filed 4–1–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
41 CFR Part 102–42
[FMR Change 2014–01; FMR Case 2014–
102–1; Docket No. 2014–0006; Sequence
No. 1]
RIN 3090–AJ43
Federal Management Regulation;
Change in Consumer Price Index
Minimal Value
Office of Governmentwide
Policy, GSA.
ACTION: Final rule.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
AGENCY:
The public law regarding the
receipt and disposition of foreign gifts
and decorations requires that at 3-year
intervals following January 1, 1981,
minimal value for foreign gifts be
redefined in regulations prescribed by
the Administrator of General Services,
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:28 Apr 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
in consultation with the Secretary of
State, to reflect changes in the
Consumer Price Index for the
immediately preceding 3-year period.
The required consultation has been
completed and the minimal value has
been increased to mean $375 or less as
of January 1, 2014.
DATES: Effective: April 2, 2014.
Applicability: This final rule applies
to all foreign gifts received on or after
January 1, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
clarification of content, contact Mr.
Robert Holcombe, Director, Asset
Management Policy Division (202–501–
3828). For information pertaining to
status or publication schedules, contact
the U.S. General Services
Administration, Regulatory Secretariat
Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW.,
2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405–0001,
202–501–4755.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Beginning
in 1984 the definition for ‘‘minimal
value’’ for foreign gifts and decorations
has been redefined through the rule
making process based on public law and
the change in consumer price index for
the preceding three years. During the
three years preceding 1996, the
‘‘minimal value’’ was defined as
$225.00. Subsequently, the definition of
‘‘minimal value’’ has been redefined
under the following Federal Property
Management Regulation (FPMR) and
Federal Management Regulation (FMR)
amendments: FPMR Amendment H–
193, dated November 26, 1996; FPMR
Amendment H–202, dated March 22,
1999; FMR Amendment B–1, dated
September 4, 2002; FMR Amendment
2005–1, FMR Case 2004–102–8, dated
January 12, 2005; FMR Amendment
2008–03, FMR Case 2008–102–1, dated
February 8, 2008; and, FMR Change
2011–01, FMR Case 2011–102–1, dated
May 25, 2011. During that time frame
the ‘‘minimal value’’ increased in 1996
from $245.00 to $350.00 in 2011. This
current revision to the definition of
‘‘minimal value’’ will increase the value
to $375.00.
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and
13563 direct agencies to assess all costs
and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
18477
flexibility. This is not a significant
regulatory action and, therefore, was not
subject to review under Section 6(b) of
E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, dated September 30, 1993. This
rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C.
804.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
within the meaning of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.,
because the revisions are not considered
substantive. This final rule is also
exempt from the Regulatory Flexibility
Act per 5 U.S.C. 553 (a)(2) because it
applies to agency management.
However, this final rule is being
published to provide transparency in
the promulgation of Federal policies.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does
not apply because the final rule does not
impose information collection
requirements that require the approval
of the Office of Management and Budget
under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
D. Small Business Reform Act
This final rule is exempt from
Congressional review under 5 U.S.C.
801 since it does not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency
parties.
List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 102–42
Conflict of interests, Decorations,
medals, awards, Foreign relations,
Government property, Government
property management.
Dated: February 28, 2014.
Dan Tangherlini,
Administrator of General Services.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 41 CFR part 102–42 is
amended as follows:
PART 102–42—UTILIZATION,
DONATION, AND DISPOSAL OF
FOREIGN GIFTS AND DECORATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 102–
42 is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390 (40
U.S.C. 486(c)); sec. 515, 91 Stat. 862 (5 U.S.C.
7342).
§ 102–42.10
[Amended]
2. Amend § 102–42.10, in the
definition of ‘‘Minimal value’’, by
removing ‘‘$350’’ and adding ‘‘$375’’ in
its place.
■
[FR Doc. 2014–07369 Filed 4–1–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–14–P
E:\FR\FM\02APR1.SGM
02APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18471-18477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07393]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 761
[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0396; FRL-9908-98-OSWER]
RIN 2050-AG79
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Manufacturing (Import)
Exemption for the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18472]]
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency)
is taking direct final action on a petition from the United States
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to import foreign-manufactured
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). For purposes of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), ``manufacture'' is defined to include the import of
chemical substances into the customs territory of the United States.
With certain exceptions, section 6(e)(3) of TSCA bans the manufacture,
processing, and distribution in commerce of PCBs. One of these
exceptions is TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B), which gives EPA authority to
grant petitions to import PCBs into the customs territory of the United
States for a period of up to 12 months, provided EPA can make certain
findings by rule. On April 23, 2013, EPA received a petition from DLA,
a component of the United States Department of Defense (DoD), to import
foreign-manufactured PCBs that DoD currently owns in Japan for disposal
in the United States. EPA is granting DLA's petition as of July 1,
2014. This decision to grant the petition allows DLA to manufacture
(i.e., import) certain PCBs for disposal. EPA has granted two previous
exemptions in 2003 and 2007 to DLA for similar petitions to import PCBs
for disposal. Without an exemption granted by EPA, DLA would not be
allowed to import the PCB waste to the U.S. for proper disposal. In
fact, if the exemption is not granted, it is very likely that DLA will
not be able to find any country willing to accept and properly dispose
of the PCB waste.
DATES: This direct final rule will be effective July 1, 2014 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment or a
request for an informal hearing (per 40 CFR part 750, subpart B) by May
2, 2014 If adverse comments or a request for an informal hearing are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public that this rule will not take effect based on the
direct final rule. EPA will then address all public comments in any
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule which accompanies this
direct final rule.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2013-0396, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
Email: rcra-docket@epa.gov. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-RCRA-2013-0396.
Mail: RCRA Docket, Mail Code 28221T, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0396. Please include two
copies.
Hand Delivery: Please deliver two copies to the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2013-0396. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, WJC
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA
Docket is (202) 566-0270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Greene, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, (MC:
5304P), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703-
347-0363; or by email: greene.kelly@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?
II. Does this action apply to me?
III. Background
IV. Findings Necessary To Grant Petitions
A. No Unreasonable Risk Finding
B. Good Faith Efforts Finding
V. Final Disposition of This Exemption Petition
A. The Petition: April 23, 2013 Petition To Import PCBs Located
in Japan
B. EPA's Final Decision on the Petition: April 23, 2013
Petition; EPA Is Granting This Petition
VI. References
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
B. Congressional Review Act
I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?
EPA is publishing this rule as a direct final rule because the
Agency views this action as noncontroversial and EPA anticipates no
adverse comments since EPA has granted two previous exemptions to DLA
for similar petitions to import PCB waste (68 FR 4934 and 72 FR 53152)
(Ref. 2, 3). EPA received no adverse comments or requests for an
informal hearing for either of the previous two DLA petitions, the last
of which was granted on September 18, 2007. In the absence of an
exemption, import of the waste identified by the petitioner would be
banned from being imported into the customs territory of the United
States by section 6(e)(3) of TSCA. The petition, dated April 23, 2013,
is for an exemption to import for proper disposal certain PCBs under
the control of DLA that are currently in use or storage in Japan (Ref.
1). Additionally, EPA believes that a direct final rule will expedite
processing of an import exemption and the proper disposal of the PCB
wastes, further reducing risks from long term storage overseas.
If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the
[[Page 18473]]
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect based on the direct final rule. Any parties interested in
commenting must do so at this time. If an informal hearing is
requested, the Agency will publish the place and time of the hearing.
Public comments will be accepted for one week after the close of the
informal hearing. If we receive adverse comments, after withdrawing the
direct final rule, we will address all public comments in any
subsequent final rule based on the accompanying proposed rule.
If the Agency does not receive adverse comments or a request for an
informal hearing, this direct final rule will take effect on July 1,
2014.
II. Does this action apply to me?
This action applies to the petitioner, the U.S. Defense Logistics
Agency. However, you may be potentially affected by this action if you
process, distribute in commerce, or dispose of the PCB waste imported
by DLA, i.e., you are an EPA-permitted PCB waste handler. Potentially
affected categories and entities include, but are not necessarily
limited to:
Waste treatment and disposal North American Industrial
Classification System ((NAICS) code 5622), e.g., facilities that store
or dispose of PCB waste.
Materials recovery facilities (NAICS code 56292), e.g.,
facilities that process and/or recycle metals.
Public administration (NAICS code 92), e.g., the
petitioning agency (i.e., DLA).
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities potentially affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this section could also
be affected. The NAICS codes have been provided to assist you and
others in determining whether this action might apply to certain
entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by
this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions
in 40 CFR part 761. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
III. Background
Section 6(e)(3)(A) of TSCA prohibits the manufacture, processing,
and distribution in commerce of PCBs, except for the distribution in
commerce of PCBs that were sold for purposes other than resale before
April 1, 1979. Section 6(e)(1) of TSCA also authorizes EPA to regulate
the disposal of PCBs consistent with the provisions in section 6(e)(2)
and (3) of TSCA.
Section 6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA, however, stipulates that any person may
petition the EPA Administrator for an exemption from the prohibition on
the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of PCBs. The
Administrator may by rule grant an exemption if the Administrator finds
that:
(i) An unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment
would not result, and (ii) good faith efforts have been made to develop
a chemical substance which does not present an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or environment and which may be substituted for such
polychlorinated biphenyl. (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(3)(B)(i)-(ii)).
The Administrator may prescribe terms and conditions for an
exemption and may grant an exemption for a period of not more than one
year from the date the petition is granted. In addition, section
6(e)(4) of TSCA requires that a rule under section 6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA
be promulgated in accordance with sections 6(c)(2), (3) and (4) of
TSCA, which provide for publication of a proposed rule, the opportunity
for written comments and an informal hearing, if requested, and
publication of a final rule.
EPA's procedures for rulemaking under section 6 of TSCA are found
under 40 CFR part 750. This part includes Subpart B--Interim Procedural
Rules for Manufacturing Exemptions, which describes the required
content for manufacturing exemption petitions and the procedures that
EPA follows in rulemaking regarding these petitions. These rules are
codified at 40 CFR 750.10 through 750.21.
IV. Findings Necessary To Grant Petitions
A. No Unreasonable Risk Finding
Before granting an exemption petition, section 6(e)(3)(B)(i) of
TSCA requires the Administrator to find that granting an exemption
would not result in an unreasonable risk of injury to health or to the
environment. EPA expects a petitioner to demonstrate in its petition
that the activity will not pose an unreasonable risk. (See 40 CFR
750.11.)
To determine whether a risk is unreasonable, EPA balances the
probability that harm will occur to health or to the environment
against the benefits to society from granting or denying each petition.
See generally, 15 U.S.C. 2605(c)(1). Specifically, EPA considers the
following factors:
1. Effects of PCBs on human health and the environment. In deciding
whether to grant an exemption, EPA considers the magnitude of exposure
and the effects of PCBs on humans and the environment. The following
discussion summarizes EPA's assessment of these factors. A more
complete discussion of human health and environmental effects of PCBs
is provided in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking for the
reassessment of PCB use authorizations in the Federal Register of April
7, 2010 (75 FR 17645) (Ref. 5). The Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) Toxicological Profile for PCBs (2000) has also
provided a recent review of PCB human health and environmental effects
(Ref. 6).
a. Health effects. EPA has determined that PCBs cause significant
human health effects, including cancer (classified as a probable human
carcinogen), immune system suppression, liver damage, skin irritation,
and endocrine disruption. PCBs exhibit neurotoxicity, as well as
reproductive and developmental toxicity. PCBs are readily absorbed
through the skin and are absorbed at even faster rates when inhaled.
Because PCBs are stored in animal fatty tissue, humans are also exposed
to PCBs through ingestion of animal products.
b. Environmental effects. Certain PCB congeners are among the most
stable chemicals known, and decompose very slowly once they are
released into the environment. PCBs are absorbed and stored in the
fatty tissue of higher organisms as they bioaccumulate up the food
chain through invertebrates, fish, and mammals. Significantly,
bioaccumulated PCBs appear to be even more toxic than those found in
the ambient environment, since the more toxic PCB congeners are more
persistent and thus more likely to be retained. PCBs also have
reproductive and other toxic effects in aquatic organisms, birds, and
mammals.
c. Risks. Toxicity and exposure are the two basic components of
risk. EPA has concluded that exposure of humans or the environment to
PCBs may be significant, depending on such factors as the quantity of
PCBs involved in the exposure and the effect of exposure. Minimizing
exposure to PCBs should minimize potential risk. As shown through the
40 CFR Part 761 regulations that detail proper disposal and storage
options, EPA has previously determined that some activities, including
the disposal of PCBs, pose no unreasonable risks. Other activities,
such as long-term
[[Page 18474]]
storage of PCB waste, are generally considered by EPA to pose
unreasonable risks.
2. Benefits and costs. The benefits to society of granting an
exemption vary, depending on the activity for which the exemption is
requested. The reasonably ascertainable costs of denying an exemption
vary, depending on the individual petition. As discussed in Section V
of this preamble, EPA has taken benefits and costs into consideration
when evaluating this exemption petition.
B. Good Faith Efforts Finding
Section 6(e)(3)(B)(ii) of TSCA requires the Administrator to find
that ``good faith efforts have been made to develop a chemical
substance which does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment and which may be substituted for [PCBs].''
EPA expects a petitioner to demonstrate in its petition how this
standard is met. (See 40 CFR 750.11.) EPA considers several factors in
determining whether good faith efforts have been made. For each
petition, EPA considers the kind of exemption the petitioner is
requesting and whether the petitioner can demonstrate that time and
effort have been expended to develop or search for a substitute. In
each case, the burden is on the petitioner to show specifically what
was done to substitute non-PCB material for PCBs or to show why it was
not feasible to substitute non-PCBs for PCBs.
To satisfy this finding for requests for an exemption to import
PCBs for disposal, a petitioner must show why such activities should
occur in the United States and what steps have been taken to develop a
substitute. While requiring a petitioner to demonstrate that good faith
efforts to develop a substitute for PCBs makes sense when dealing with
exemption petitions for traditional manufacture and distribution in
commerce, the issue of the development of substitute chemicals seems to
have little bearing on whether to grant a petition for exemption that
would allow the import into the United States for disposal of PCB
waste. However, because section 6(e)(3)(B) allows a petitioner to
request an exemption from any of the prohibitions listed in section
6(e)(3)(A), EPA believes that it is appropriate to apply the standard
in a way that is relevant to the particular exemption requested.
Therefore, EPA believes that the relevant ``good faith'' issue for an
exemption request to import PCBs for disposal in the customs territory
of the United States is whether the disposal of the waste could and/or
should occur outside the United States.
V. Final Disposition of This Exemption Petition
A. The Petition: April 23, 2013 Petition To Import PCBs Located in
Japan
On April 23, 2013, DLA submitted a petition seeking a 1-year
exemption to import PCBs and PCB Items currently in storage at U.S.
military installations in Japan (Ref. 1). DLA estimates that as much as
1,014,222 pounds of waste contaminated with PCBs could be generated in
Japan through the calendar year 2014. The material in Japan consists of
transformers (drained and un-drained), large and small capacitors,
voltage regulators, switches, electromagnets, circuit breakers,
reclosers, electrical cable, electric light ballasts, used dielectric
fluids containing PCBs, and PCB-contaminated soil and debris (e.g.,
rags, small parts, packaging materials). Ninety four percent of the
waste is at PCB concentrations below 50 ppm. Details of the particular
amounts and concentrations DLA is petitioning to import can be found in
Attachment 1 of the DLA petition, which can be found in the docket. EPA
has concluded that import of DLA's PCBs will not cause a shortage of
domestic PCB storage or disposal capacity. In addition, EPA has
concluded that the amounts of PCBs available for import are small in
comparison to domestic generation, and pose little threat of
overwhelming domestic disposal capacity. (Ref. 4)
1. Information regarding no unreasonable risk provided by the
petitioner. DLA will package, transport, treat, and dispose of these
PCBs in the same manner as PCBs identified in its previous petitions,
which EPA granted in 2003 and 2007 to allow the import of up to
4,293,621 and 1,328,428 pounds of waste contaminated with PCBs,
respectively (Ref. 2, 3). Specifically, DLA notes its adherence to
applicable modal and inter-modal national and/or international
packaging, marking, labeling and shipping paper regulations, such as
the United Nations (UN) Performance Oriented Packaging (POP) standards,
the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code/International
Maritime Organization (IMO) requirements, the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) Technical Instructions, requirements of
the International Air Transport Association (IATA), UN Recommendations
on the Transport of Dangerous Goods Code, and provisions of the
Hazardous Materials Regulations at 49 CFR 100-199. DLA further notes
that proper handling and shipping will include blocking, bracing, over
packing, and inclusion of spill containment devices, as required by
applicable transportation regulations.
DLA further indicates that it will handle and dispose of all PCBs
and PCB Items in conformance with the PCB regulations at 40 CFR Part
761. DLA has considerable experience and expertise in awarding and
administering disposal contracts for PCBs and PCB Items in the U.S. and
will award contracts with commercial firms in accordance with all
applicable Federal procurement statutes and the Federal Acquisition
Regulations (FAR). DLA additionally notes that only companies with the
required Federal and/or state-permits for the transportation, storage,
treatment and disposal of PCBs and PCB Items would be considered as
eligible for award of such contracts. DLA's exemption petition does not
request to limit the storage, treatment or disposal of PCBs and PCB
Items imported from Japan to management at a particular facility;
rather DLA requests that any storage, treatment, or disposal facility
that has the appropriate Federal and/or state permits for PCBs and PCB
Items and for which DLA has entered a contract be allowed to manage
these materials.
DLA notes that it and its contractors have extensive experience in
safely returning PCBs and PCB Items to the United States for treatment
and disposal, and that DLA has returned several million pounds of PCBs
and PCB Items for compliant disposal in the United States, including
3.6 million pounds of foreign-manufactured PCBs and PCB Items imported
under the two previously granted exemptions.\1\ Throughout the course
of this experience, DLA has used the same standards and procedures
discussed above without spills or safety problems affecting human
health or the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As noted previously, DLA had authority to import up to 5.5
million pounds of PCBs and PCB Items.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Information regarding good faith efforts provided by the
petitioner. DLA states in its petition that disposal of its PCBs and
PCB Items in Japan is not an available disposal option.
As DLA noted in its exemption request, there are significant
impediments to disposal on DOD military installations in Japan. As
noted in the DLA petition, while there may exist certain mobile
technology capable of treating some of the PCBs and PCB Items generated
by United States military forces in Japan, there are also significant
impediments to obtaining the
[[Page 18475]]
permits that would be required to have that technology approved for use
on United States military installations, where residual wastes and
metals would still need to be taken off-installation for disposal.
Complicating the situation further is that any transfer or sale of
property from the U.S. military installations into Japanese commerce is
considered an ``import'' of property. Japan has banned the importation
of PCBs and PCB Items at any detectable concentration including
concentrations below the very stringent 0.5 ppm level at which Japan
regulates domestic PCBs. DLA's market research suggested a potential
could exist for disposal of some limited waste streams in newly
permitted Japanese facilities (i.e., ``off- installation'' disposal).
However, DLA has not been able to identify any change in Japanese law
that would allow off-installation disposal in Japan nor the existence
of any properly permitted vendor or technology that would be currently
available to properly treat the DOD generated PCBs and PCB Items within
the confines of the United States installations in Japan. Accordingly,
on-site treatment does not present a reasonable alternative to the
import of these wastes for proper disposal in the United States in
compliance with TSCA Section 6(e)(3).
DLA further notes that disposal of this waste in another country is
not a viable option. DLA cites its 1999 Report to Congress as
background on the difficulty it faces in finding suitable disposal
alternatives for PCBs and PCB Items generated or owned by DOD overseas.
In particular, DLA discusses the difficulty of shipping waste from
Japan to other countries as a result of the Basel Convention. Prior to
its previous petitions, DLA and its primary disposal contractor made
extensive contacts over a period of several years with Japanese
officials and disposal facilities in numerous locations outside the
United States in an effort to identify firms who could dispose of such
PCBs and PCB Items while satisfying the Basel Convention requirements.
At that time, the DOD also consulted at length with the State
Department officials in Japan and in the United States whose
responsibilities include international environmental matters. The
variety of problems identified in these contacts regarding overseas
disposal of certain PCB Items resulted in a consensus that use of
existing facilities in other developed countries was not a reasonable
alternative. Even if other countries had the physical capacity to
accept these wastes, non-governmental organizations might be expected
to oppose the DOD's disposal of its waste in third countries (that is,
countries other than Japan and the United States) because the United
States has the technical capability to properly dispose of the
hazardous materials itself.
DLA concludes that its diligent but so far unsuccessful attempts to
locate appropriate disposal sites outside the United States demonstrate
its good faith efforts to pursue alternatives to disposal within the
United States and fulfill the requirements of TSCA 6(e)(3)(B).
B. EPA's Final Decision on the Petition: April 23, 2013 Petition; EPA
Is Granting This Petition
1. No unreasonable risk determination. EPA finds generally that the
disposal of imported PCBs and PCB Items at an EPA-approved PCB disposal
facility poses no unreasonable risks as these facilities have been
approved on the basis of that standard. In addition, as with the
previous two petitions, EPA concurs with DLA's assessment that
transportation of this waste will pose no unreasonable risk if
conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
Therefore, for the following reasons, EPA finds that there is no
unreasonable risk from importing the PCBs and PCB Items by DLA from
Japan to the United States for disposal, as outlined below.
i. PCBs are hazardous and pose a potential risk to health and the
environment. Proper disposal would reduce PCB-associated risks.
ii. Risk results from a combination of exposure (likelihood,
magnitude and duration) and the probability of effects occurring under
the conditions of exposure. Because the probability of a transport
accident occurring is low (Ref. 4), the likelihood of exposure to PCBs
is commensurately low. Consequently, the probability of adverse effects
to human health or the environment is low.
iii. The PCB-containing materials will be packaged in a manner
consistent with Federal, State, and local regulations addressing the
risks associated with the storage and transportation of hazardous
wastes. In addition, PCB waste will be continuously monitored during
the water transport from Japan to the United States. Contingency plans
are required by the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code and DOT
to be in place before and after the import of PCB-containing items to
the United States. Moreover, the PCB Items that will be transported to
the United States generally have a low combustion likelihood, which
will make the probability of fires low. Together, these contingency
measures will minimize exposure to humans and the environment in the
event of an accident or emergency during ocean transport.
iv. Given the aforementioned information, the exposure likelihood,
frequency, and duration are so low that even though PCBs are considered
to be highly hazardous, any risk resulting from the combined exposure
and hazard potential is expected to be low to human health or the
environment.
v. The potential for human health risks are further mitigated by
the limited duration of exposure. PCBs are most hazardous following
long-term (chronic) exposures. Under the transport scenario proposed,
any exposures to humans (i.e., accidental or emergency situation) would
be of very short duration. Hence, the low probability of exposure
occurring combined with the short-term duration of exposure, should one
occur, further supports a qualitative conclusion that there is no
unreasonable risk to human health.
vi. The long-term concern is the potential for accumulation in the
ecological environment. Under a worst case scenario where all of the
PCBs were released due to an unforeseen and highly unlikely
catastrophic event during transport, PCB-exposed biological receptors
could be adversely affected. However, this scenario is highly unlikely
because it would require a complete failure of all safeguards that will
be in place. Furthermore, the alternative of storing the PCBs
indefinitely seems to pose more risk than transport. Moreover, should
an accident occur, emergency response authorities would be invoked to
mitigate and/or remediate exposures.
2. Good faith efforts to find substitutes met. Section
6(e)(3)(B)(ii) of TSCA requires the Administrator to make an additional
finding, that ``good faith efforts have been made to develop a chemical
substance that does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment and which may be substituted for such
polychlorinated biphenyl.'' EPA has interpreted this provision to
require that a petitioner has the burden of demonstration that it has
made the requisite good faith efforts. (See 40 CFR 750.11.)
EPA finds that DLA has demonstrated good faith efforts to find
alternatives to disposal of this PCB waste in the United States. EPA
acknowledges the restrictions to disposing of this waste in Japan. DLA
has also explored exporting this waste to other countries as an
alternative. However, DLA has indicated, and EPA acknowledges, the
peculiar circumstances of DOD's PCBs and PCB Items, which, while
present in
[[Page 18476]]
one country (i.e., Japan), are generated by another country's
government, leading to significant difficulty in providing Basel
Convention notification to third party countries. Given these
difficulties, EPA concurs with DLA's conclusion that disposal in a
third country (that is, countries other than Japan and the United
States) is not a viable alternative for this waste.
3. Benefits of Granting the Petition
i. Avoiding the risks of long-term storage. EPA believes that
granting the petition to DLA to import 1,014,222 pounds of waste
contaminated with PCBs (94% of which is less than 50 ppm) will benefit
the United States and the environment in general. As DLA notes, the
continued long-term storage of PCB waste on U.S. military facilities in
Japan poses risks to U.S. personnel and the environment--risks that can
be eliminated through the action finalized in the petition.
ii. Ensuring proper and safe disposal. Granting the petition allows
the United States to accept responsibility for the PCBs and PCB Items
it generates by assuring proper and safe disposal in domestic permitted
disposal facilities.
iii. Ensuring the safety of Japanese citizens. EPA considers the
reduction of risk to Japanese citizens to be advantageous, especially
in light of the heightened concerns over PCBs in that country. Granting
the petition is the only practical mechanism to remove this waste from
Japan; otherwise, the U.S. military would be required to explain to its
Japanese hosts that it cannot remove its own toxic waste from their
country because U.S. law does not allow the waste to be sent to the
United States.
For these reasons, EPA finds DLA has satisfied the exemption
criteria of TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B) and is granting the petition.
VI. References
1. DOD, DLA. Petition from David Rodriguez, Director to EPA.
Subject: Petition to the United Sates Environmental Protection
Agency For an Exemption Under the Toxic Substances Control Act to
Import Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) and PCB Items for Disposal.
April 23, 2013. 19 pp.
2. EPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Manufacturing (Import)
Exemption. Final Rule. Federal Register (72 FR 53152, April 30,
2007) (FRL-8143-4). Available online at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2007/09/18/E7-18345/polychlorinated-biphenyls-manufacturing-import-exemption, Document
ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0042-0008.
3. EPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Manufacturing (Import)
Exemptions. Final Rule. Federal Register (68 FR 4934, January 31,
2003) (FRL-7288-6). Available online at https://www.federalregister.com/Browse/Document/usa/na/fr/2003/1/31/03-2344,
Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0013-0041.
4. EPA, OPPT. Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Import for
Disposal. Final Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 11096, March 18, 1996)
(FRL-5354-8). Available online at https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/1996/March/Day-18/pr-24122.txt.html.
5. EPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Reassessment of
Use Authorizations. Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Federal
Register (75 FR 17645, April 7, 2010) (FRL-8811-7). Available online
at https://www.regulations.gov, Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0757-
0001.
6. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Public Health Service,
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (November
2000). Available online at https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp17.pdf.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
As explained above, this action will only grant an exemption for
one year for the DLA to import PCB waste from military operations in
Japan. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms
of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538),
for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector and
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments;
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132: Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because, as the rule does
not make any substantive changes, it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law;
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045: Protection
of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997);
is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866;
does not involve technical standards, thus the
requirements of Sec. 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply; and
does not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations
under Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) because it does not affect the level of protection
provided to human health or the environment.
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is
primarily engaged in hazardous waste treatment and disposal as defined
by NAICS code 562211, with annual receipts of less than 12.5 million
dollars (based on Small Business Administration size standards); (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district or special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's direct final rule
on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule merely allows DOD to bring its PCB waste back to the U.S.
from Japan for proper disposal.
B. Congressional Review Act
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. Under the CRA, a ``major
rule'' cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a
[[Page 18477]]
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 761
Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, and Polychlorinated
biphenyls.
Dated: March 25, 2014.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 761--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for Part 761 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2611, 2614, and 2616.
Subpart E--[Amended]
0
2. Section 761.80 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 761.80 Manufacturing, processing and distribution in commerce
exemptions.
* * * * *
(j) The Administrator grants the United States Defense Logistics
Agency's April 23, 2013 petition for an exemption for 1 year beginning
on July 1, 2014, to import up to 1,014,222 pounds of PCBs and PCB Items
stored or in use in Japan as identified in its petition for disposal.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-07393 Filed 4-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P