Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18497 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and state and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed action from state and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This rule imposes no regulatory 

requirements or costs on any tribal 

government. It does not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments, the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks) 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866 and because the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action do not present 

a disproportionate risk to children. 

The public is invited to submit 

comments or identify peer-reviewed 

studies and data that assess effects of 

early life exposure. 

H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) 

This action 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. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities, 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898—Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because: (1) Florida’s WQS apply to 

waters across the state, and thus this 

action will not disproportionately affect 

any one group over another, and (2) EPA 

has previously determined, based on the 

most current science, that Florida’s 

adopted and EPA-approved criteria are 

protective of human health and aquatic 

life. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131 

Environmental protection, Florida, 

Nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, 

Nutrients, Water quality standards. 

Dated: March 26, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 

CFR part 131 as follows: 

PART 131—WATER QUALITY 

STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 131 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. 

Subpart D—Federally Promulgated 

Water Quality Standards 

§ 131.43 [Removed] 

■ 2. Section 131.43 is removed. 

[FR Doc. 2014–07387 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–9909–00– 

OSWER] 

RIN 2050–AG79 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): 

Manufacturing (Import) Exemption for 

the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) 

is proposing to take 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 proposing to 

grant DLA’s petition as of July 1, 2014. 

This proposal to grant the petition, if 

finalized, would allow 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. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
18498 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

DATES: Written comments or a request 

for an informal hearing (per 40 CFR part 

750, subpart B) must be received by May 

2, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

RCRA–2013–0396, by mail to 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 a total of two copies. Comments 

may also be submitted electronically or 

through hand delivery/courier by 

following the detailed instructions in 

the ADDRESSES section of the direct final 

rule located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register. 

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: 

I. Why is EPA proposing this rule? 

EPA is proposing to grant DLA’s 

petition to revise 40 CFR 761.80, which 

will allow DLA to import its PCB waste 

from Japan back to the customs territory 

of the United States for proper disposal. 

In addition, in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register, EPA is promulgating a 

direct final rule to make the same 

revision as is being proposed here, for 

the reasons outlined in detail in the 

preamble to that direct final rule. The 

reason EPA is issuing a direct final rule 

elsewhere in this Federal Register is 

because we view this revision as a 

noncontroversial action and anticipate 

no adverse comment. However, if we 

receive adverse comment or a request 

for an informal hearing, we will 

withdraw the direct final rule (and 

therefore it will not take effect based on 

the direct final rule), and address all 

public comments in any subsequent 

final rule based on this proposed rule. 

Alternatively, if we receive no adverse 

comment (or request for an informal 

hearing) on the change we are 

promulgating today in the direct final 

rule, we will not take further action on 

this proposed rule. We do not intend to 

institute a second comment period on 

this action, unless an informal hearing 

is requested, in which case comments 

will be accepted until one week after the 

close of the informal hearing. Any 

parties interested in commenting should 

do so at this time, since there may not 

be an informal hearing. For further 

information, please see the information 

provided in the ADDRESSES section of 

this document. 

II. Does this action apply to me? 

The discussion of the potentially 

affected entities by this proposed rule 

can be found in the preamble to the 

direct final rule located in the Rules 

section of this Federal Register. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

For a complete discussion of all the 

administrative requirements applicable 

to this action, see the direct final rule in 

the Rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

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 proposed 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. for 

proper disposal. 

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. 

[FR Doc. 2014–07390 Filed 4–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 36 

[CC Docket No. 80–286; FCC 14–27] 

Jurisdictional Separations and Referral 

to the Federal-State Joint Board 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) seeks public comment on 

a proposal to extend the freeze of 

jurisdictional separations category 

relationships and cost allocation factors 

in the Commission’s rules for three 

years, through June 30, 2017. This 

document also proposes to direct the 

Wireline Competition Bureau to open a 

filing ‘‘window’’ to encourage (but not 

require) rate-of-return incumbent LECs 

that desire waivers of the category 

relationships freeze to file during the 

window. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

April 16, 2014. Reply comments are due 

on or before April 23, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by CC Docket No. 80–286 by 

any of the following methods: 

D Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

D People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg 

Haledjian, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, (202) 

418–1520 or gregory.haledjian@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(FNPRM) in CC Docket No. 80–286, 

dated on March 26, 2014 and released 

on March 27, 2014. The full text of this 

document is available for public 

inspection during regular business 

hours in the Commission’s Reference 

Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY– 

A257, Washington, DC, 20554. The full 

text of this document may be 

downloaded at the following Internet 

address: http://www.fcc.gov/documents/ 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1