Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 18471 

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-(2- 

chloro-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tolerances, which are superseded by the 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. 

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 

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). 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

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. 

Dated: March 21, 2014. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

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-(2- 

chloro-4-pyridinyl)-N-phenylurea). 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Almond ...................................... 0.01 

Almond, hulls ............................ 0.15 

* * * * * 

Cherry, sweet ........................... 0.01 

Fig ............................................. 0.01 

* * * * * 

Pear .......................................... 0.01 

Pistachio ................................... 0.01 

Plum, prune, fresh .................... 0.01 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–07103 Filed 4–1–14; 8:45 am] 

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) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
18472 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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. 

• 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 http://

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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
18474 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1As noted previously, DLA had authority to 

import up to 5.5 million pounds of PCBs and PCB 

Items. 

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. 

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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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., ‘‘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 

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 

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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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. 

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 

http://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 

http://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 http://

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 http://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 

§ 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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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] 

■ 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 

AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide 

Policy, GSA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: 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, 

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 

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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES