Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 42181 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T05–0563 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T05–0563 Safety Zone; Fireworks 

Display, Potomac River, Charles County, 

Newburg, MD. 

(a) Regulated Area. The following area 

is a safety zone: All waters of the 

Potomac River, within a 200 yards 

radius of a fireworks discharge barge in 

approximate position latitude 38°23′41′′ 

N, longitude 076°59′30′′ W, located at 

Newburg in Charles County, Maryland 

(NAD 1983). 

(b) Regulations. The general safety 

zone regulations found in 33 CFR 

165.23 apply to the safety zone created 

by this temporary section, 

§ 165.T05.0563. 

(1) All vessels and persons are 

prohibited from entering this zone, 

except as authorized by the Coast Guard 

Captain of the Port Baltimore. 

(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry 

into or passage within the zone must 

request authorization from the Captain 

of the Port or his designated 

representative by telephone at 410–576– 

2693 or on VHF–FM marine band radio 

channel 16. 

(3) All Coast Guard assets enforcing 

this safety zone can be contacted on 

VHF–FM marine band radio channels 

13 and 16. 

(4) The operator of any vessel within 

or in the immediate vicinity of this 

safety zone shall: 

(i) Stop the vessel immediately upon 

being directed to do so by any 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

on board a vessel displaying a Coast 

Guard Ensign, and 

(ii) Proceed as directed by any 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

on board a vessel displaying a Coast 

Guard Ensign. 

(c) Definitions. Captain of the Port 

Baltimore means the Commander, Coast 

Guard Sector Baltimore or any Coast 

Guard commissioned, warrant or petty 

officer who has been authorized by the 

Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. 

Designated representative means any 

Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or 

petty officer who has been authorized 

by the Captain of the Port Baltimore to 

assist in enforcing the safety zone 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast 

Guard may be assisted by Federal, State 

and local agencies in the patrol and 

enforcement of the zone. 

(e) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 8 p.m. through 

10:30 p.m. on July 21, 2012 and, if 

necessary due to inclement weather, 

from 8 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on July 

22, 2012. 

Dated: July 3, 2012. 

Mark P. O’Malley, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Baltimore. 

[FR Doc. 2012–17410 Filed 7–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Chapter I 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2012–0495; FRL–9356–2] 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); 

Disposition of Request Submitted 

Under TSCA Section 21 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of reasons for Agency 

response. 

SUMMARY: This document announces 

EPA’s reasons for denying a request 

submitted by the Basel Action Network, 

the Sierra Club, and the Center for 

Biological Diversity (petitioners), 

requesting that EPA take certain actions 

to protect human health and the marine 

environment from polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs) that leach from ships 

sunk through the U.S. Navy’s sinking 

exercises (SINKEX) program. As noted 

in a letter dated July 10, 2012, EPA 

denied the request for rules under the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 

The reasons for the denial are discussed 

in this document. EPA will respond 

separately to the petitioners’ request for 

revisions to the general permit for the 

transport of target vessels under 

SINKEX issued by EPA under the 

Marine Protection, Research, and 

Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). 

DATES: July 18, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Peter 

Gimlin, National Program Chemicals 

Division (7404T), Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; 

telephone number: (202) 566–0515; fax 

number: (202) 566–0473; email address: 

gimlin.peter@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCAHotline@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This action is directed to the public 

in general. This action may, however, be 

of interest to you if you manufacture, 

process, distribute in commerce, use or 

dispose of PCBs. Since other entities 

may also be interested, the Agency has 

not attempted to describe all the specific 

entities that may be affected by this 

action. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the 

technical contact person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How can I access information about 

this action? 

EPA has established a docket for this 

action under docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2012–0495. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the docket index available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Although listed in 

the index, some information is not 

publicly available, e.g., Confidential 

Business Information (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 electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPPT 

Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in 

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 

3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room 

hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number of 

the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 

566–0280. Docket visitors are required 

to show photographic identification, 

pass through a metal detector, and sign 

the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
42182 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

processed through an X-ray machine 

and subject to search. Visitors will be 

provided an EPA/DC badge that must be 

visible at all times in the building and 

returned upon departure. 

II. Overview 

On April 11, 2012, EPA received a 

request from the Basel Action Network, 

the Sierra Club, and the Center for 

Biological Diversity (petitioners). The 

petitioners requested that EPA take 

certain actions to protect human health 

and the marine environment from PCBs 

that leach from ships sunk through the 

U.S. Navy’s SINKEX program. The 

petitioners requested that EPA amend 

the existing general permit issued to the 

Navy under MPRSA (33 U.S.C. 1401 et 

seq.), or, in the alternative, enact rules 

under TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.). In 

requesting actions under TSCA, the 

petitioners have invoked the citizen 

petition provisions of section 21 of 

TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2620). 

After careful consideration, EPA 

denied the request for TSCA rules by 

letter dated July 10, 2012. This 

document explains EPA’s reasons for 

denying the request to initiate 

rulemakings under TSCA. EPA will 

respond separately to the petitioners’ 

requests for revisions to the general 

permit for the transport of target vessels 

under SINKEX issued by EPA under 

MPRSA. 

III. What is a TSCA section 21 Petition? 

Under TSCA section 21, any person 

can petition EPA to initiate a 

rulemaking proceeding for the issuance, 

amendment, or repeal of a rule under 

TSCA section 4, 6, or 8 or an order 

under TSCA section 5(e) or 6(b)(2). A 

TSCA section 21 petition must set forth 

the facts that are claimed to establish 

the necessity for the action requested. 

EPA is required to grant or deny the 

petition within 90 days of its filing. If 

EPA grants the petition, the Agency 

must promptly commence an 

appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies 

the petition, the Agency must publish 

its reasons for the denial in the Federal 

Register. A petitioner may commence a 

civil action in a U.S. district court to 

compel initiation of the requested 

rulemaking proceeding within 60 days 

of either a denial or the expiration of the 

90-day period. 

IV. What is the MPRSA? 

In 1972, Congress enacted Title I of 

MPRSA, also referred to as the Ocean 

Dumping Act, because unregulated 

dumping of material into ocean waters 

endangers human health, welfare, and 

amenities, and the marine environment, 

ecological systems, and economic 

potentialities. 33 U.S.C. 1401(a). 

MPRSA section 101(a) prohibits, unless 

authorized by permit, the (1) 

transportation from the United States of 

any material for the purpose of dumping 

it into ocean waters, and (2) in the case 

of a vessel or aircraft registered in the 

United States or flying the United States 

flag, or in the case of a United States 

department, agency, or instrumentality, 

transportation from any location, any 

material for the purpose of dumping it 

into ocean waters. 33 U.S.C. 1411(a). 

MPRSA section 101(b) also prohibits the 

unpermitted dumping of any material 

transported from a location outside of 

the United States into certain ocean 

waters of the United States. MPRSA 

section 3(f) defines the term ‘‘dumping’’ 

broadly (to mean ‘‘a disposition of 

material’’) but the term excludes, among 

other things, ‘‘the construction of any 

fixed structure or artificial island nor 

the intentional placement of any device 

in ocean waters or on or in the 

submerged land beneath such waters, 

for a purpose other than disposal, when 

such construction or such placement is 

otherwise regulated by Federal or State 

law or occurs pursuant to an authorized 

Federal or State program.’’ 33 U.S.C. 

1402(f). 

Though MPRSA authorizes the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers to issue 

MPRSA permits (subject to EPA review 

and concurrence) with respect to 

dredged material, EPA has permit 

authority for all other materials. 33 

U.S.C. 1412 and 1413. 

V. What is SINKEX? 

In 1977, EPA issued a general permit 

to the Navy for the transport of target 

vessels (SINKEX) under MPRSA section 

102 (42 FR 2462, January 11, 1977). The 

permit authorizes the Navy to transport 

vessels from the United States or from 

any other location for the purpose of 

sinking such vessels in ocean waters in 

testing ordnance and providing related 

data subject to four conditions: 

1. Such vessels may be sunk at times 

determined by the appropriate Navy official; 

2. Necessary measures shall be taken to 

insure that the vessel sinks to the bottom 

rapidly and permanently, and that marine 

navigation is not otherwise impaired by the 

sunk vessel; 

3. All such vessel sinkings shall be 

conducted in water at least 1,000 fathoms 

(6,000 feet) deep and at least 50 nautical 

miles from land [i.e., that portion of the 

baseline from which the territorial sea is 

measured, as provided for in the Convention 

on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous 

Zone, which is in closest proximity to the 

proposed disposal site]; and 

4. Before sinking, appropriate measures 

shall be taken by qualified personnel at a 

Navy or other certified facility to remove to 

the maximum extent practicable all materials 

which may degrade the marine environment, 

including without limitation (i) emptying of 

all fuel tanks and fuel lines to the lowest 

point practicable, flushing of such tanks and 

lines with water, and again emptying such 

tanks and lines to the lowest point 

practicable so that such tanks and lines are 

essentially free of petroleum, and (ii) 

removing from the hulls other pollutants and 

all readily detachable material capable of 

creating debris or contributing to chemical 

pollution. 33 CFR 229.2(a). 

The Navy also must make an annual 

report to EPA setting forth the name of 

each vessel used as a target vessel, its 

approximate tonnage, and the location 

and date of sinking. 33 CFR 229.2(b). 

In 1989, the Navy identified the 

potential for viscous PCBs at levels of 

concern in wool felt used as acoustical 

damping material (on submarines) and 

as gasket material (on all vessels). The 

Navy promptly notified EPA and halted 

most SINKEXs pending further 

evaluation. In 1993, the Navy conducted 

a modeling study that predicted PCBs 

introduced to the deep benthic 

environment would have little chance of 

physical or biological transport to 

surface waters and that PCB sediment 

concentrations would pose no notable 

threat to benthic organisms. Other Navy 

studies had indicated that most of the 

PCBs introduced or to be introduced by 

the Navy through SINKEXs to the deep 

benthic environment would be solid 

materials and not readily leachable. In 

1996, EPA and the Navy entered into an 

Agreement regarding the further course 

of study and continuing conduct of 

SINKEX activities using a finite number 

of vessels prepared according to the 

terms of the Agreement (Ref. 1). 

In 1999, EPA signed a letter designed 

to clarify and specify, with regard to 

PCBs, the manner in which the Navy 

would proceed with SINKEX activities 

under the existing MPRSA general 

permit. At that time, EPA confirmed its 

belief that SINKEX operations could 

continue under the MPRSA general 

permit and its requirements, including 

as interpreted to impose specific 

requirements relating to materials 

containing PCBs. The terms and 

conditions of EPA’s 1999 interpretation 

were accepted by the Navy as of August 

2, 1999 (Ref. 2). 

The 1999 EPA letter required that the 

Navy conduct specified studies and 

produce certain information to EPA. For 

the studies, the Navy was to complete 

a study involving monitoring the exUSS Agerholm, including sample 

collection, assessment and analysis. The 

ex-USS Agerholm study included 

assessment and analyses of sediments, 

core samples, and fish tissue for PCBs, 

as well as toxicity and bioaccumulation 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 42183 

studies. The Navy also prepared 

analysis of the leach rate of PCBs (in the 

various materials likely to be present on 

target vessels) into sea water at the 

temperature and pressure present on a 

sunken vessel (i.e., representative of 

conditions authorized under the 

MPRSA general permit). 

The 1999 letter explained EPA’s 

interpretation of the general permit 

requirements to clarify and specify, with 

regard to PCBs, the manner in which the 

Navy could proceed with SINKEX 

activities (transport for the purposes of 

disposal into ocean waters) under the 

MPRSA general permit (40 CFR 229.2)). 

EPA explained that, under the MPRSA 

general permit: 

Before engaging in a SINKEX, the Navy 

must conduct an inventory of each SINKEX 

vessel to ascertain the presence of PCBs, and 

that the inventory and list of items removed 

prior to sinking must be provided to EPA in 

the annual report required under the general 

permit. Before sinking a SINKEX vessel, 

qualified personnel at a Navy or other 

approved facility must: 

a. Remove all transformers containing 3 

pounds or more of dielectric fluid and all 

capacitors containing 3 pounds or more of 

dielectric fluid; 

b. Use all reasonable efforts to remove any 

capacitors and transformers containing less 

than 3 pounds of dielectric fluid from the 

vessel (reasonable efforts include, but are not 

necessarily limited to, the removal of 

capacitors from electrical and control panels 

by using hand tools such as wire or bolt 

cutters or a screw driver); and 

c. Drain and flush hydraulic equipment, 

heat transfer equipment, high/low pressure 

systems, cutting power machinery which 

uses cooling or cutting oil, and containers 

containing liquid PCBs at ≥50 ppm [parts per 

million]. 

EPA also explained its belief that it is 

often practicable to remove specified 

materials containing non-liquid PCBs 

before sinking a vessel. To the extent 

that removal is practicable, EPA 

explained that these non-liquid PCBs 

are required to be removed under the 

MPRSA general permit. However, when 

such objects cannot be practicably 

removed or their removal threatens the 

structural integrity of the vessels so as 

to impede the SINKEX, EPA recognized 

that the Navy could leave such items in 

place (e.g., felt materials that are bonded 

in bolted flanges or mounted under 

heavy equipment, certain paints and 

adhesives). EPA noted that objects may 

be considered not capable of practicable 

removal if equipment must be 

disassembled or removed for access to 

the objects, if the objects must be 

removed by heat, chemical stripping, 

scraping, abrasive blasting or similar 

process, or if removal would endanger 

human safety or health even when 

conducted with protective equipment 

and reasonable safety measures. 

Shortly after the 1999 letter, EPA 

made a determination under TSCA 

section 9(b) that the risks associated 

with PCBs on target vessels used in 

SINKEX could be eliminated or reduced 

to a sufficient extent by actions taken 

under MPRSA and that such risks 

should be addressed solely under 

MPRSA. 

VI. Summary of the Request 

On April 11, 2012, the Basel Action 

Network, the Sierra Club, and the Center 

for Biological Diversity requested that 

EPA take certain actions to protect 

human health and the marine 

environment from PCBs that leach from 

ships sunk through the U.S. Navy’s 

SINKEX program (Ref. 3). The 

petitioners requested that EPA amend 

the existing general permit issued to the 

Navy under MPRSA or, in the 

alternative, enact rules under TSCA. 

Specifically, the submission asks EPA 

to: 

1. Require all PCB-contaminated 

materials in concentrations of 50 ppm or 

greater to be removed from SINKEX 

vessels prior to sinking. 

2. Require all PCB-contaminated 

materials in concentrations of <50 ppm 

to be removed from SINKEX vessels 

prior to sinking to the maximum extent 

practicable. 

3. Require additional studies to 

determine whether PCB-contaminated 

materials in concentrations of <50 ppm 

constitute ‘‘trace’’ contaminants. The 

request states that such additional 

studies should include the most recent 

data on the toxicity, persistence, and 

bioaccumulation of PCBs and should 

include monitoring at multiple recent 

SINKEX sink sites. The request further 

states that studies should also assess the 

releases of other potentially hazardous 

pollutants into the marine environment 

from SINKEX ships including heavy 

metals, asbestos, and radioactive 

substances. 

VII. Disposition of the Request for Rules 

Under TSCA 

A. What was EPA’s response? 

In a letter dated July 10, 2012, EPA 

denied the petitioners’ request to 

initiate rulemakings under TSCA (Ref. 

4). A copy of the Agency’s letter is 

available in the docket for this action. 

EPA’s reasons for denying the request 

for TSCA rules are provided in Unit 

VII.B of this unit. 

B. What were EPA’s reasons for this 

denial? 

1. Requests for rules requiring 

removal of PCB-contaminated 

materials—a. PCBs on SINKEX vessels 

are regulated solely under the authority 

of MPRSA. TSCA is not the appropriate 

vehicle for the regulation of PCBs on 

ships used in the Navy’s SINKEX 

program, because the Administrator in 

1999 determined under TSCA section 

9(b) that such regulation should be 

under MPRSA, not TSCA. This section 

9(b) determination is not subject to 

TSCA section 21. Section 21 of TSCA 

allows any person to petition ‘‘to initiate 

a proceeding for the issuance, 

amendment, or repeal of a rule under 

section 2603, 2605, or 2607 of this title 

or an order under section 5(e) or 6(b)(2) 

of this title’’ (15 U.S.C. 2620(a)), but not 

a determination under section 2608 

(TSCA section 9). 

Moreover, the petitioners have 

provided no basis to cause EPA to 

reconsider this determination. Section 

9(b) of TSCA provides: 

The Administrator shall coordinate actions 

taken under [TSCA] with actions taken under 

other Federal laws administered by the 

Administrator. If the Administrator 

determines that a risk to health or the 

environment associated with a chemical 

substance or mixture could be eliminated or 

reduced to a sufficient extent by actions 

taken under the authorities contained in such 

other Federal laws, the Administrator shall 

use such authorities to protect against such 

risk unless the Administrator determines, in 

the Administrator’s discretion, that it is in 

the public interest to protect against such risk 

by actions taken under [TSCA]. 

15 U.S.C. 2610(b) 

In 1999, the Administrator 

determined under TSCA section 9(b) 

that ‘‘the risk to health or the 

environment attributable to the 

transportation and disposal of PCBs 

associated with SINKEX could be 

eliminated or reduced to a sufficient 

extent by actions taken under the 

authority of MPRSA.’’ (Ref. 5). The 

Administrator further stated: ‘‘I have not 

identified a public interest in the 

regulation under TSCA of the 

transportation and disposal of PCBs 

associated with SINKEX.’’ (Ref. 5). 

Consequently, the Administrator 

determined that ‘‘PCBs on SINKEX 

vessels should be regulated solely under 

[MPRSA], rather than under both 

MPRSA and TSCA.’’ (Ref. 5). 

The petitioners do not present any 

new information that would cause EPA 

to reconsider this determination. 

Although the petitioners present 

information that they believe calls into 

question the sufficiency of the current 

MPRSA general permit, they present no 

information indicating that any risks 

that may not be adequately addressed by 

the current permit could not be reduced 

to a sufficient extent by action taken 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
42184 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

under the authority of MPRSA, or that 

the public interest would be served by 

regulation of SINKEX under TSCA in 

addition to regulation under MPRSA. 

The petitioners implicitly suggest that 

any such risk could be reduced to a 

sufficient extent under MPRSA by 

seeking amendment of the MPRSA 

general permit to impose precisely the 

conditions they ask EPA to impose 

under TSCA. In addition, given the 

existence of the MPRSA general permit 

and the history of regulation of SINKEX 

under MPRSA, EPA believes it is more 

efficient to continue to regulate SINKEX 

under the authorities of MPRSA, and 

not to also regulate SINKEX under 

TSCA. 

EPA is evaluating the request to revise 

the MPRSA general permit and will 

respond shortly. As the Agency stated in 

issuing the TSCA section 9(b) 

determination, EPA ‘‘is prepared to 

revise the Navy permit, or revoke it, in 

the event that the results of further 

studies demonstrate an unexpected 

unacceptable risk to human health or 

the environment from SINKEX.’’ (Ref. 

5). 

b. Petitioners have not shown that the 

requested PCB removal rules would be 

necessary. The petitioners have not 

shown that a rule to require removal of 

PCB-contaminated materials in 

concentrations of ≥50 ppm would be 

necessary if EPA were to withdraw the 

TSCA section 9(b) determination, given 

that the export of ships under the 

SINKEX program containing PCBs in 

concentrations ≥50 ppm would be 

prohibited by existing TSCA 

regulations, absent rulemaking under 

TSCA section 6(e)(3) allowing the 

export. 40 CFR 761.97. The petitioners 

have not shown that a rule to require 

removal of PCB-contaminated materials 

in concentrations <50 ppm to the 

maximum extent practicable would be 

necessary, since the MPRSA general 

permit already does require removal of 

PCB-contaminated materials to the 

maximum extent practicable. 40 CFR 

229.2(a)(4). In addition, the petitioners 

do not provide an assessment of risks 

specifically associated with PCBs in 

concentrations <50 ppm. 

2. Requests for rules requiring studies. 

The petitioners request that the Agency 

issue a TSCA rule to require studies at 

multiple recent SINKEX sink sites to 

determine whether PCB-contaminated 

materials in concentrations of <50 ppm 

constitute ‘‘trace’’ contaminants, ‘‘such 

that their dumping will not cause 

undesirable effects including the 

possibility of bioaccumulation.’’ The 

petitioners’ request is not entirely clear, 

but EPA interprets it as a request for 

monitoring of PCB concentrations in the 

vicinity of sunken SINKEX vessels to 

determine, based on the most recent 

data on the toxicity, persistence, and 

bioaccumulation of PCBs, whether 

materials on vessels with PCB 

concentrations of <50 ppm would 

constitute trace contaminants. 

The petitioners do not attempt to 

conform their request to TSCA; they do 

not address the applicable TSCA section 

4 findings. 

For the Agency to issue a TSCA 

section 4 test rule to require testing on 

a chemical substance, the Agency must 

find the following: 

• The chemical substance may 

present unreasonable risk of injury to 

health or the environment. 

• There are insufficient data or 

experience upon which the effects of the 

chemical substance can reasonably be 

determined or predicted. 

• Testing of the chemical substance is 

necessary to provide the missing data. 

An alternative set of findings could 

support a section 4 rule as well: 

• The chemical substance is or will 

be produced in substantial quantities 

and it enters or may reasonably be 

anticipated to enter the environment in 

substantial quantities or there is or may 

be significant or substantial human 

exposure. 

• There are insufficient data or 

experience upon which the effects of the 

chemical substance can reasonably be 

determined or predicted. 

• Testing of the chemical substance is 

necessary to provide the missing data. 

The petitioners do not address these 

required statutory findings. Nor does the 

request provide a basis for EPA to make 

the findings. For example, the 

petitioners do not provide sufficient 

information to demonstrate that there 

are insufficient data or experience upon 

which the effects of the PCBs in 

question can reasonably be determined 

or predicted, or that the requested 

monitoring would be necessary to 

develop any such missing data. Among 

other things, the petitioners do not 

demonstrate that the monitoring they 

request would be an effective way to 

determine whether PCB-contaminated 

materials at concentration <50 ppm 

constitute trace contaminants. The 

petitioners offer no explanation of how 

PCBs detected in the vicinity of a 

sunken vessel could be correlated with 

PCB-contaminated materials on the ship 

at concentrations <50 ppm as opposed 

to materials on the ship with PCBs at 

concentrations >50 ppm. EPA is not 

prepared, based on the information 

provided in the request, to initiate a 

rulemaking under TSCA to require the 

requested monitoring. 

Furthermore, testing requirements 

under TSCA section 4 can be imposed 

only upon manufacturers and 

processors of chemical substances. 

Manufacturing and processing of PCBs 

were, for the most part, banned by 

TSCA section 6(e) more than 30 years 

ago. Although some incidental 

manufacturing and processing of PCBs 

continues, EPA believes it makes more 

sense that monitoring for PCBs in 

connection with SINKEX, if any is 

necessary, fall under the authority of 

MPRSA rather than TSCA, particularly 

given the connection between the ocean 

dumping activity authorized under the 

MPRSA general permit for SINKEX and 

the PCB monitoring requested. This 

approach is reinforced by the TSCA 

section 9(b) determination and is 

consistent with the TSCA section 9(b) 

provision requiring the Administrator to 

‘‘coordinate actions taken under [TSCA] 

with actions taken under other Federal 

laws administered in whole or in part 

by the Administrator.’’ 

The petitioners’ request regarding 

studies relating to ‘‘other potentially 

hazardous pollutants’’ such as heavy 

metals, asbestos, and radioactive 

substances is similarly unsupported in 

the submission. The petitioners do not 

attempt to conform the request to TSCA 

section 4. In addition, the petitioners do 

not even identify (other than asbestos) 

the chemical substances or mixtures 

that they would like tested. 

For these reasons, EPA denied the 

request for TSCA rules. 

VIII. References 

The following is a list of the 

documents that are specifically 

referenced in this document and placed 

in the docket that was established under 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2012–0495. For information on 

accessing the docket, refer to Unit I.B. 

of this document. 

1. ‘‘Agreement between the Department of 

the Navy and the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC’’, August 19, 1996. 

2. August 2, 1999, letter from EPA Office of 

Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds 

Director Robert Wayland to Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of the Navy Elsie 

Munsell. 

3. Basel Action Network, Sierra Club, and the 

Center for Biological Diversity. ‘‘U.S. 

Navy Ocean Dumping Program; Petition 

to EPA to Protect Human Health and the 

Environment from Unreasonable Risks 

Associated with the Navy’s Sinking 

Exercise Program (SINKEX),’’ (April 

2012). 

4. July 10, 2012, letter from EPA Office of 

Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention’s Acting Assistant 

Administrator Jim Jones to the Basel 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 42185 

Action Network, the Sierra Club, and the 

Center for Biological Diversity. 

5. September 13, 1999, letter from EPA 

Administrator Carol M. Browner to the 

Honorable Richard Danzig, and 

enclosure (Decision Memorandum—EPA 

regulation of PCBs on Vessels Used for 

Navy Sinking Exercise). 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, 

Polychlorinated biphenyls, SINKEX. 

Dated: July 10, 2012. 

James Jones, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2012–17381 Filed 7–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 02–60; FCC 12–74] 

Rural Health Care Support Mechanism 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Wireline Competition Bureau (the 

Bureau) maintains support on a limited, 

interim, fiscally responsible basis for 

specific Rural Health Care Pilot Program 

participants that have exhausted their 

funding this year or will exhaust such 

funding during funding year 2012 to 

ensure that they can continue to benefit 

from access to these Pilot Programfunded broadband networks, while the 

Commission considers potential reforms 

to transition recipients of Pilot funding 

to a longer-term mechanism for 

supporting broadband services 

delivered to rural HCPs. This interim 

support will preserve transitioning Pilot 

Program participants’ connectivity and 

the resulting health care benefits that 

patients receive from those investments 

made by the Commission in health care 

broadband networks. 

DATES: Effective July 18, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Linda Oliver, Wireline Competition 

Bureau at (202) 418–1732 or TTY (202) 

418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Order in 

WC Docket No. 02–60; FCC 12–74, 

adopted July 5, 2012 and released July 

6, 2012. The complete text of this 

document is available for inspection 

and copying during normal business 

hours in the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

The document may also be purchased 

from the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 

378–3160 or (202) 863–2893, facsimile 

(202) 863–2898, or via the Internet at 

http://www.bcpiweb.com. 

I. Introduction 

1. In this order, we maintain support 

on a limited, interim, fiscally 

responsible basis for specific Rural 

Health Care Pilot Program (Pilot 

Program) participants that have 

exhausted their funding this year or will 

exhaust such funding during funding 

year 2012. We will provide continued 

support for the recurring costs of 

broadband services provided to those 

health care provider (HCP) sites to 

ensure that they can continue to benefit 

from access to these Pilot Programfunded broadband networks, while we 

consider potential reforms to transition 

recipients of Pilot funding to a longerterm mechanism for supporting 

broadband services delivered to rural 

HCPs. This interim support will 

preserve transitioning Pilot Program 

participants’ connectivity and the 

resulting health care benefits that 

patients receive from those investments 

made by the Commission in health care 

broadband networks. Today’s action 

stays within the budget of the Pilot 

Program and will therefore not impact 

overall demand for the universal service 

fund (USF or Fund). 

II. Discussion 

2. The USF Rural Health Care support 

mechanism consists of the ‘‘Primary’’ 

program and the ‘‘Pilot’’ program. The 

Commission created the Pilot Program 

in 2006 in an effort to examine ways to 

use the RHC support mechanism to 

enhance public and non-profit HCPs’ 

access to advanced telecommunications 

and information services. Participants in 

the Pilot Program are eligible to receive 

universal service funding to support up 

to 85 percent of the cost of construction 

of state or regional broadband health 

care networks and of the cost of 

advanced telecommunications and 

information services provided over 

those networks. Through the Pilot 

Program, projects have created health 

broadband networks that consist of 

multiple interconnected HCPs, often in 

a hub-and-spoke configuration, that 

typically connect rural HCPs to larger, 

more urban medical centers. The 

networks created by these projects 

enable rural HCPs to access medical 

specialists, technical expertise, and 

other resources that are usually found 

only within the larger HCPs on the 

network. 

3. Approximately 13 out of the 50 

active projects have some individual 

HCPs that have spent all of the money 

allocated to them, or are scheduled to 

do so during funding year 2012. 

According to the Universal Service 

Administrative Company (USAC), some 

HCPs may exhaust their funding in the 

last few months of Funding Year 2011, 

and an estimated 484 HCPs (or 22.5 

percent of individual HCP sites 

participating in the Rural Health Care 

Pilot projects) are expected to exhaust 

their allocated funding before or during 

funding year 2012. 

4. Through this order, we provide 

funds to support ongoing connectivity 

to Pilot Program HCPs that will exhaust 

funding allocated to them before or 

during funding year 2012. Such funding 

is necessary to ‘‘bridge’’ their 

participation in the Pilot Program and 

their participation in any reformed 

Rural Health Care programs under 

consideration. Accordingly, as 

discussed below, we direct USAC to 

provide continued support to Pilot 

projects for up to 85 percent of eligible 

recurring costs for those individual HCP 

sites on their networks that will exhaust 

their funding on or before June 30, 2013, 

including those that will have 

exhausted their funding before the 

effective date of this order. Bridge 

funding will maintain support for this 

limited number of HCPs and in doing so 

help ensure that they will remain 

connected to the broadband networks 

developed with Pilot Program funding, 

while providing the Commission 

additional time to consider how best to 

transition Pilot Program participants to 

permanent Rural Health Care funding 

programs. Thus, this support will help 

maintain the status quo for the many 

patients and communities that benefit 

from the telemedicine and other 

telehealth applications made available 

by the Pilot projects during this 

transition period. Consistent with this 

objective, the support is limited in time 

and scope and does not provide new 

funds for Pilot projects to expand their 

networks. 

5. This bridge funding will not 

increase the demand on the Fund 

relative to what was already designated 

for Pilot Program projects. Accordingly, 

we direct USAC to use up to $15 million 

of the Pilot Program funds that were 

previously set aside for projects that 

either withdrew from the Program or 

otherwise failed to meet program 

deadlines to provide bridge funding to 

transitioning Pilot project participants. 

These funds were designated for 

Funding Year 2009 and have already 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES