21190 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 82 / Monday, April 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–0671, 

Blathras.constantine@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives an 

adverse comment on an amendment, 

paragraph, or section of this rule and if 

that provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the Rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: April 6, 2007. 

Walter W. Kovalick, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. E7–8102 Filed 4–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 761 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0042; FRL–8120–6] 

RIN 2070–AB20 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls; 

Manufacturing (Import) Exemption 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: With certain exceptions, 

section 6(e)(3) of the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA) bans the 

manufacture, processing, and 

distribution in commerce of 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). For 

purposes of TSCA, ‘‘manufacture’’ is 

defined to include import into the 

Customs Territory of the United States. 

One of these exceptions is TSCA section 

6(e)(3)(B), which gives EPA authority to 

grant petitions to perform these 

activities for a period of up to 12 

months, provided EPA can make certain 

findings by rule. On July 21, 2005, the 

U.S. Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), a 

component of the Department of 

Defense (DOD), submitted a petition to 

EPA to import foreign-manufactured 

PCBs that DOD currently owns in Japan 

for disposal in the United States. In this 

document, EPA is proposing to grant 

DLA’s petition and is soliciting public 

comment on this decision; if finalized, 

this decision to grant the petition would 

allow DLA to manufacture (i.e., import) 

certain PCBs for disposal. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 30, 2007. 

If a hearing is requested on or before 

May 24, 2007, an informal hearing will 

be held in Washington, DC on a date to 

be announced in a future Federal 

Register. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number HQ–EPA–OPPT–2005–0042, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Document Control Office 

(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–

0001. 

• Hand Delivery: OPPT Document 

Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., 

Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID 

Number HQ–EPA–OPPT–2005–0042. 

The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

DCO is (202) 564–8930. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the DOC’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–

2005–0042. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the docket without change and may be 

made available on-line at http:// 

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 regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov website 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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the 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/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the docket index available 

in regulations.gov. To access the 

electronic docket, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, select ‘‘Advanced 

Search,’’ then ‘‘Docket Search.’’ Insert 

the docket ID number where indicated 

and select the ‘‘Submit’’ button. Follow 

the instructions on the regulations.gov 

web site to view the docket index or 

access available documents. 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 

Federal 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 

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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information contact: Colby 

Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, 

Environmental Assistance Division 

(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 82 / Monday, April 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 21191 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address: 

TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov. 

For technical information contact: 

Tom Simons, 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) 566–0517; e-mail address: 

simons.tom@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

This action primarily applies to the 

petitioner, the DLA. However, you may 

be potentially affected by this action if 

you process, distribute in commerce, or 

dispose of PCB waste generated by 

others, 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 

(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., the 

Defense Logistics Agency). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(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 technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD-ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM 

as CBI and then identify electronically 

within the disk or CD-ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comments that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

A. What Action is the Agency Proposing 

to Take? 

In this notice of proposed rulemaking, 

the Agency is proposing to grant a 

petition submitted by DLA to import 

PCB waste for disposal. In the absence 

of an exemption, import of this waste 

would be banned by section 6(e)(3) of 

TSCA. The petition, dated July 21, 2005, 

is for an exemption to import certain 

foreign-generated PCBs owned by DOD 

that are currently in use or storage in 

Japan. (The term ‘‘foreign-generated 

PCBs’’ is used to identify those PCBs 

that DOD acquired from foreign sources 

and that are subject to the TSCA ban on 

import.) 

On April 16, 2001, DLA submitted a 

similar petition to import over four 

million pounds of foreign-generated 

PCB waste. EPA granted that petition in 

a final rule document published in the 

Federal Register of January 31, 2003 

(Ref. 1). 

B. What is the Agency’s Statutory 

Authority for Taking this Action? 

Section 6(e) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 

2605(e), generally prohibits the 

manufacture (which includes import) of 

PCBs after January 1, 1979, the 

processing and distribution in 

commerce of PCBs after July 1, 1979, 

and most uses of PCBs after October 11, 

1977. 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 July 1, 1979. 

Section 6(e)(1) of TSCA also authorizes 

EPA to regulate the disposal of PCBs 

consistent with the provisions in TSCA 

section 6(e)(2) and (3). 

Section 6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA provides 

that any person may petition the 

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 the 

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 1 year from the date the 

petition is granted. In addition, TSCA 

section 6(e)(4) requires that a rule under 

TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B) be promulgated 

in accordance with TSCA section 

6(c)(2), (3), and (4), which provide for a 

proposed rule, the opportunity for an 

informal public hearing, and a final 

rule. 

EPA’s procedures for rulemaking 

under TSCA section 6 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 EPA follows in 

rulemaking on these petitions. These 

rules are codified at 40 CFR 750.10 

through 750.21. 

III. Findings Necessary to Grant 

Petitions 

A. No Unreasonable Risk Finding 

Before granting an exemption 

petition, TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B)(i) 

requires the Administrator to find that 

granting an exemption would not result 

in an unreasonable risk of injury to 

health or the environment in the United 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
21192 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 82 / Monday, April 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

States. EPA has interpreted this 

provision to require a petitioner to 

demonstrate 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 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 these factors is 

provided in the preamble to the 1988 

PCB proposed rule document published 

in the Federal Register of August 24, 

1988 (Ref. 2). 

i. Health effects. EPA has determined 

that PCBs cause significant human 

health effects including cancer, 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. 

ii. Environmental effects. Certain PCB 

congeners are among the most stable 

chemicals known, and decompose very 

slowly once they are released in 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. 

iii. Risks. Toxicity and exposure are 

the two basic components of risk. EPA 

has concluded that any exposure of 

humans or the environment to PCBs 

may be significant, depending on such 

factors as the quantity of PCBs involved 

in the exposure, the likelihood of 

exposure to humans and the 

environment, and the effect of exposure. 

Minimizing exposure to PCBs should 

minimize any eventual risk. EPA has 

previously determined that some 

activities, including the disposal of 

PCBs in accordance with 40 CFR part 

761, pose no unreasonable risks. Other 

activities, such as long-term 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 

Unit IV., 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 also 

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 has interpreted this provision to 

require that a petitioner has the burden 

of demonstrating that it has made the 

requisite good faith efforts. (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 expended time and effort to 

develop or search for a substitute. In 

each case, the burden is on the 

petitioner to show specifically what 

they did 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 activity must occur in the United 

States. and what steps will be taken to 

eliminate the need to import PCBs in 

the future. While requiring a petitioner 

to demonstrate that good faith efforts to 

develop a substitute for PCBs makes 

sense when dealing with traditional 

manufacture and distribution exemption 

petitions, 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 waste generated by the 

Department of Defense overseas. EPA 

believes the more relevant ‘‘good faith’’

issue for such an exemption request is 

whether the disposal of the waste could 

and/or should occur outside the United 

States. 

IV. Proposed Disposition of Pending 

Exemption Petition 

A. The Petition: July 21, 2005 Petition to 

Import PCBs Located in Japan 

On July 21, 2005, DLA submitted a 

petition seeking a 1–year exemption to 

import PCBs and PCB Items currently in 

temporary storage at U.S. military 

installations in Japan. In revised figures 

provided in November 2006 (Ref. 4), 

DLA estimates that as much as 

1,328,482 pounds of waste 

contaminated with PCBs could be 

generated in Japan through the calendar 

year 2008. Exactly how much of this 

waste would be imported under this 

exemption would depend on the date 

when the final exemption would be in 

effect, as the exemption is limited to a 

1–year maximum. The final exemption 

would be limited to the specific portion 

(amount and type) of such waste as 

provided by DLA prior to publication of 

the final rule. The material in Japan 

consists of liquids, electrical 

transformers, capacitors, switches, 

circuit breakers, other miscellaneous 

items and debris (rags, gaskets, and 

personal protective equipment). PCB 

concentrations of the waste include 

amounts in all regulatory concentrations 

(i.e., <50 parts per million (ppm), 50–

499 ppm, and >500 ppm); however, 

88% of the waste is at concentrations 

below 50 ppm PCB and less than 5% of 

the total shipment is liquid PCBs greater 

than 50 ppm. Details of the particular 

amounts and concentrations DLA 

petitioned to import are provided in 

Refs. 3 and 4. 

DLA proposes to package and 

transport, treat and dispose of this PCB 

waste in the same manner as waste 

identified in its previous petitions (Ref. 

1), which EPA granted in 2003 to allow 

the import of over 4,000,000 pounds of 

waste contaminated with PCBs; DLA 

notes that compliance is required with 

the International Maritime Dangerous 

Goods Code/International Maritime 

Organization, the International Civil 

Aviation Organization Technical 

Instructions, the International Air 

Transport Association Dangerous Goods 

Code, the United Nations 

Recommendations on the Transport of 

Dangerous Goods Code, and 49 CFR 

parts 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 states that it will handle and 

dispose of all PCBs in conformance with 

the PCB regulations at 40 CFR part 761. 

DLA notes that it has ‘‘considerable 

experience and expertise in awarding 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 82 / Monday, April 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 21193 

and administering disposal contracts for 

PCB waste in the U.S.’’ and that it will 

only ‘‘award contracts for treatment and 

disposal services with commercial 

firms. Contracts will be awarded in 

accordance with all applicable federal 

procurement statutes and the Federal 

Acquisition Regulations (FAR).’’ On 

October 12, 2005, DLA selected Clean 

Harbors Environmental Services (CHES) 

in Coffeyville, Kansas to dispose of the 

PCB waste to be removed from Japan. 

CHES has disposed of PCBs returning 

from Japan at the Coffeyville facility on 

four separate occasions since 2003 

without incident. In addition, DLA will 

use shippers approved by the U.S. 

Department of Transportation when the 

waste materials are transported from the 

California port to the Coffeyville 

disposal facility. The surface 

commercial transport trucks and the sea 

vessels themselves are approved and 

contracted for use by the DOD Surface 

Deployment and Distribution 

Command. 

1. Information regarding no 

unreasonable risk provided by the 

petitioner. DLA notes that the materials 

in question would be managed in 

accordance with all applicable laws and 

regulations. Once in the United States, 

the PCB waste would be transported, 

handled, treated and disposed of in 

compliance with the PCB regulations at 

40 CFR part 761. DLA states that it 

would only contract with companies 

with the required Federal and Statepermitted storage, treatment, and 

disposal facilities for dealing with PCBs 

and PCB items. DLA notes that it and its 

contractors ‘‘have extensive experience 

in safely returning U.S.-manufactured 

PCBs and PCB items to the U.S. for 

disposal,’’ and that ‘‘prior to safely 

returning and disposing of 2.7 million 

pounds of foreign-generated PCB 

containing waste under the previously 

granted exemption, DLA returned 2.4 

million pounds of U.S.-manufactured 

PCBs and PCB Items from Japan since 

1991 for compliant disposal without 

incident.’’

In contrast, DLA notes that the 

continued storage of PCBs at U.S. 

facilities in Japan is problematic. DOD 

currently has a considerable amount of 

PCB waste in storage at its facilities in 

Japan, and more will accumulate over 

the coming years as equipment is retired 

from use and contaminated sites are 

cleaned up. DLA notes that due to the 

unavailability of disposal capacity in 

Japan, much of DLA’s foreignmanufactured PCB waste inventory in 

Japan has been in storage for years and 

movement of PCB waste presently in 

storage is frequently necessary to 

accommodate additional PCBs taken out 

of service. DLA summarizes the risks of 

this situation as follows: 

Continued accumulation over extended 

time periods increases the risk of exposure to 

U.S. military personnel, to people living in 

and around the U.S. installations where the 

PCBs are stored, and to the environment 

should releases occur due to human error, or 

unforeseen severe weather, or seismic events. 

In addition, storage containers will 

deteriorate with time, increasing the 

likelihood that personnel who must monitor 

such items and repack them if they suspect 

leakage are exposed to the PCBs. Long-term 

storage may increase the DOD’s liability for 

cleanup costs if spills occur. This would 

increase exposure to U.S. personnel and local 

citizens and could potentially result in 

ground and water contamination. Each time 

an item is handled, another opportunity for 

a spill or exposure is created. The storage 

situation is exacerbated in Japan because the 

installations where these materials are 

located are relatively small, storage space is 

at a premium, and the surrounding civilian 

communities are located in very close 

proximity to the stored PCBs. Moreover, the 

situation for the DOD is further complicated 

because of the perceptions of the local 

communities regarding PCBs. 

DLA further notes that EPA expressed 

concerns about long-term storage in the 

PCB Import for Disposal Rule (Ref. 5): 

EPA believes that PCB wastes which are 

not disposed of for extended periods of time 

or which are not disposed of in facilities 

providing equivalent protection from release 

to the environment may pose an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health and the 

environment. (61 FR 11096) 

The same rule also underscored the 

benefit of prompt disposal in the United 

States (Ref. 5): 

Based on the persistence of PCBs in the 

global environment and EPA’s finding that 

any exposure to human beings or the 

environment may be significant, EPA 

believes that the safe disposal of PCBs in 

approved U.S. facilities poses less risk of 

injury to health or the environment in the 

United States than the continued presence of 

PCBs in other countries, since proper 

disposal in this country provides protection 

against possible hazards from improper 

disposal elsewhere. (61 FR 11096) 

Beyond the immediate environmental 

risk, DLA describes other benefits to the 

United States that it believes would 

result from the granting of its petition: 

In 1968, a tragic human poisoning episode 

in Western Japan affected over 1,000 people 

causing 22 deaths. The ‘‘Yusho’’ or ‘‘rice oil 

disease’’ was attributed to the consumption 

of rice bran oil contaminated with PCBs and 

served as a catalyst for current PCB 

prohibitions such as those imposed by TSCA, 

the Stockholm Convention, and Japanese 

domestic law. As a result of this highly 

publicized incident, Japanese citizens exhibit 

particular sensitivity to PCB issues. Delicate 

U.S.-Japan relations over the presence and 

operation of U.S. military installations could 

be adversely affected by denial of this 

petition. 

The presence of PCBs on U.S. military 

bases in Japan has in the past attracted 

significant adverse attention from Japanese 

politicians, the Japanese press, Japanese 

environmental groups, and local citizens. 

There has been constant local surveillance of 

U.S. military PCB storage in Sagamihara and 

demands for inspections and sampling for 

PCBs since at least 1992, when a member of 

Congress released a report outlining the 

storage and presence of PCBs and other 

hazardous materials on U.S. bases in Japan. 

Any perception that the United States would 

return to stockpiling and long term storage of 

these materials invites unwarranted claims 

that the U.S. military is neglecting its 

environmental responsibilities. 

DLA concludes: 

Allowing PCB material to remain in storage 

indefinitely may lead to degradation of 

storage containers and releases of PCBs into 

the environment from the materials located at 

temporary or permanent storage facilities. 

PCBs released into the environment as a 

result of disasters, accidents, container 

degradation or other events can present 

significant exposure risks. This material is 

currently stored, or will need to be stored, on 

crowded DOD facilities in close proximity to 

where U.S. military and civilian personnel 

and the local community live and work. 

Since there are no permitted PCB disposal 

facilities available to U.S. forces in Japan, 

and because of the unique environmental 

conditions in Japan, as noted above, the 

potential for PCB contamination via leaks 

from aging containers or accidental spills is 

higher at these locations than at EPApermitted disposal facilities in the DOD 

civilian employees, U.S. military personnel, 

and contractors employed by the U.S. 

Government are at greatest risk. 

2. Information regarding good faith 

efforts provided by the petitioner. DLA 

argues in its petition that disposal of its 

PCBs in Japan is not an available 

disposal option: 

As DLA noted in its previous exemption 

requests, there are significant impediments to 

disposal on DOD military installations in 

Japan. To be properly processed, PCB 

materials should be separated into three 

streams: (1) metallic components to be 

decontaminated and recycled; (2) used oils to 

be treated/dechlorinated and recycled or 

burned for energy recovery; and (3) nonrecyclable material to be treated and 

disposed of as residual solid wastes. 

Although certain portable treatment 

technologies are becoming available in Japan, 

the domestic regulatory standards are very 

stringent and would require PCB 

decontamination levels to be less than 0.5 

ppm without dilution to qualify an item as 

being non PCB. 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 at any detectable 

concentration including concentrations 

below the very stringent 0.5 ppm level at 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
21194 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 82 / Monday, April 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

which Japan regulates domestic PCBs. DLA is 

not aware of any available technologies that 

are permitted in Japan that would treat all 

PCBs items to the level that PCBs are 

completely removed or that could be 

acquired at a cost that is economically 

feasible. Moreover, if such technology were 

to become available, it would not resolve the 

issue of the residual ‘‘non-recyclable’’ waste 

that would remain or result from the 

treatment process. There are no permitted 

commercial disposal facilities currently 

available to the U.S. military for PCB 

disposal in Japan; hence, treatment outside of 

Japan would still be required for the residual 

wastes resulting from any ‘‘on-installation’’

treatment process. 

DLA further argues 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 PCB waste 

generated by DOD overseas. In 

particular, DLA discusses the difficulty 

of shipping waste from Japan to other 

countries posed by the Basel 

Convention: 

Prior to submitting its previous request to 

EPA for an exemption from the TSCA PCB 

import ban, DLA and its primary disposal 

contractor made contacts over a period of 

several years with Japanese officials and with 

disposal facilities located outside the U.S. in 

an effort to identify firms that could dispose 

of waste PCB items overseas while satisfying 

Basel Convention requirements. The DOD 

also consulted with State Department 

officials in Japan and the U. S. whose 

responsibilities included international 

environmental matters. These consultations 

resulted in a consensus that use of existing 

facilities in other developed countries was 

not a reasonable alternative. Even if other 

countries would accept these wastes, nongovernmental organizations could be 

expected to oppose disposal of its U.S. waste 

in third countries, principally because the U. 

S. already has the technical capability to 

dispose of PCBs. 

DLA concludes that it has made every 

reasonable effort to locate appropriate 

disposal sites outside the United States 

and that it has accordingly satisfied the 

good faith efforts criteria necessary for 

an exemption. 

B. EPA’s Proposed Decision on the 

Petition: July 21, 2005 Petition; EPA 

Proposes to Grant this Petition 

1. No unreasonable risk 

determination. EPA finds generally that 

the disposal of imported PCB waste 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, the 

risks to human health and the 

environment associated with long-term 

storage of this waste far outweigh the 

risks associated with the transportation 

of this waste from Japan to an approved 

disposal facility in the United States. 

As with the previous petition, 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. EPA permits the domestic 

processing and distribution in 

commerce of PCBs and PCB Items for 

disposal in compliance with 40 CFR 

part 761, and in issuance of the PCB 

Import for Disposal rule EPA 

investigated and sought comment on the 

risks inherent in transportation of 

imported PCB waste, and determined 

those risks to be insignificant (Ref. 5). 

For the following reasons, EPA finds 

that there is no unreasonable risk from 

the transport of this waste to the United 

States for disposal: 

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, the 

likelihood of exposure to PCBs is 

commensurately low. Consequently, the 

risk of adverse effects to human health 

or the environment is minimal. 

iii. The PCB-containing materials 

would be packaged in a manner 

consistent with federal, state, and local 

regulations addressing the storage and 

transport of hazardous materials. In 

addition, PCB waste would be 

continuously monitored during the 

water transport from Japan to the U.S. 

Contingency plans are required by the 

International Maritime Dangerous 

Goods Code and the Department of 

Transportation to be in place before and 

after the import of PCB-containing items 

to the United States. Moreover, the PCB 

items that would be transported to the 

United States are not combustible, 

which would make the probability of 

fires low. Together, these contingency 

measures would 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, risk (combined 

exposure and hazard) would not be 

unreasonable to human health or the 

environment. 

v. The potential for human health 

risks are further mitigated by 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 

would be in place. The DLA analyses 

indicate that there would be a low 

probability of a complete failure. The 

alternative of storing the PCBs 

indefinitely seems to pose more risk 

than transport. Further, should an 

accident occur, emergency response 

authorities at least within U.S. waters, 

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 believes that DLA has 

demonstrated good faith efforts to find 

alternatives to disposal of this PCB 

waste in the United States. EPA is aware 

of the lack of adequate PCB disposal 

capacity in Japan. DLA has explored 

exporting this waste to other countries 

as an alternative but since this is waste 

owned by the United States, the waste 

may not be shipped to other countries 

in the area because the United States is 

not a party to the Basel Convention and 

does not have bilateral agreements with 

countries in the area. EPA also 

acknowledges the peculiar 

circumstances of DOD’s PCBs, which, 

while present in one country, are owned 

by another country’s government, 

leading to significant difficulty in 

providing Basel notification to third 

countries. Given these difficulties, EPA 

concurs with DLA’s conclusion that 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 82 / Monday, April 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 21195 

disposal in a third country 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 import 1,328,482 pounds of 

waste contaminated with PCBs (88% is 

less than 50 ppm and less than 5% is 

liquid PCBs greater than 50 ppm) will 

benefit the United States and the 

environment in general in several ways. 

As DLA notes, the continued long term 

storage of PCB waste on U.S. military 

facilities in Japan poses risks of 

exposure to U.S. personnel and the 

environment—risks that can be 

eliminated through the action proposed 

in the petition. 

ii. Ensuring proper and safe disposal. 

Granting the petition would allow the 

U.S. to accept responsibility for the 

toxic waste 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 and the sensitivities 

surrounding the U.S. military’s presence 

in Japan. Granting the petition is the 

only practical mechanism to remove 

this waste from Japan. Otherwise the 

U.S. military is in the awkward position 

of explaining 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 proposes to grant 

the petition. 

V. References 

1. EPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated 

Biphenyls; Manufacturing (Import) 

Exemptions. Final Rule. OPPT–2002–

0013. Federal Register (68 FR 4934, 

January 31, 2003) (FRL–7288–6). 

Available at http://www.epa.gov/ 

fedrgstr. 

2. EPA, Office of Toxic Substances 

(OTS). Polychlorinated Biphenyls; 

Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution 

in Commerce Exemptions. Proposed 

Rule. OPTS–66008F. Federal Register 

(53 FR 32326, August 24, 1988). 

3. DOD, DLA. Petition from Keith W. 

Lippert, Vice Admiral, SC, USN, 

Director to Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator, EPA. Subject: Petition to 

the Administrator, United Sates 

Environmental Protection Agency, For 

an Exemption Under the Toxic 

Substances Control Act to Import 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) and 

PCB Items for Disposal. July 21, 2005. 

13 pp. with attachments. 

4. DOD, DLA. Electronic mail dated 

November 2, 2006 from Miriam Alonso, 

Hazardous Programs, to Tom Simons, 

National Program Chemicals Division, 

OPPT, EPA. Subject: Updated Petition 

Data for EPA for petition submitted July 

21, 2005. 2 pp. 

5. EPA, OPPTS. Disposal of 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Import for 

Disposal. Final Rule. Federal Register 

(61 FR 11096, March 18, 1996) (FRL–

5354–8). Available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

entitled Regulatory Planning and 

Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

this action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ subject to review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), because this action is not likely 

to result in a rule that meets any of the 

criteria for a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ provided in section 3(f) of the 

Executive order. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 

a person is not required to respond to, 

a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. The OMB control numbers for 

EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CFR 

part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. 

This proposed rule would not impose 

any new information collection burden. 

EPA is proposing to grant the petition 

by DLA to import PCBs for disposal. 

DLA would then be subject to the 

existing EPA regulations regarding the 

disposal of PCBs in 40 CFR part 761. 

OMB has previously approved the 

information collection requirements 

contained in 40 CFR part 761 under the 

provisions of PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq., and has assigned OMB control 

numbers 2070–0003 (EPA ICR No. 

1000.06), 2070–0008 (EPA ICR No. 

1001.06), 2070–0011 (EPA ICR No. 

1012.06), 2070–0021 (EPA ICR No. 

0857.07), 2070–0112 (EPA ICR No. 

1446.06), and 2070–0159 (EPA ICR No. 

1729.02). Copies of these ICR 

documents may be obtained by mail at 

the Office of Environmental 

Information, Collection Strategies 

Division (2822), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–

0001, by e-mail at auby.susan@epa.gov 

or by calling (202) 566–1672. Copies 

may also be downloaded from the 

Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. 

Include the ICR and/or OMB numbers in 

any correspondence. 

As defined by PRA and 5 CFR 

1230.3(b), ‘‘burden’’ means the total 

time, effort, or financial resources 

expended by persons to generate, 

maintain, retain, or disclose or provide 

information to or for a Federal agency. 

This includes the time needed to review 

instructions; develop, acquire, install, 

and utilize technology and systems for 

the purposes of collecting, validating, 

and verifying information, processing 

and maintaining information, and 

disclosing and providing information; 

adjust the existing ways to comply with 

any previously applicable instructions 

and requirements; train personnel to be 

able to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 

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 government 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this proposed rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: 

1. A small business that meets the 

Small Business Administration size 

standards codified at 13 CFR 121.201. 

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. 

3. A small organization that is any 

not-for-profit enterprise that is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field. 

After considering the impacts of this 

proposed rule on small entities, EPA 

certifies that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed rule will not impose any 

requirements on small entities. EPA is 

proposing to grant this petition by DLA 

to import PCBs for disposal. Only DLA, 

which is not a small entity, would be 

regulated by this proposed rule. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
21196 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 82 / Monday, April 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, (UMRA), 

Public Law 104–4, EPA has determined 

that this proposal does not contain a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for state, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any one year. EPA is proposing to grant 

a petition by DLA to import PCBs for 

disposal. If the petition is granted, and 

DLA imports PCBs for disposal, DLA 

would be required to comply with the 

existing regulations on PCB disposal at 

40 CFR part 761. The only mandate that 

would be imposed by this proposal 

would be imposed on DLA. In addition, 

EPA has determined that this proposal 

would not significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. The DLA 

petition states that the PCBs will be 

disposed of in PCB-approved facilities. 

No new facilities, which could affect 

small government resources if a permit 

is required, are contemplated. EPA 

believes that the disposal of PCBs in 

previously approved facilities in the 

amounts specified in this proposal 

would have little, if any, impact on 

small governments. Thus, this proposed 

rule is not subject to the requirements 

of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action will not have a substantial 

direct effect on states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. EPA’s 

proposal would grant a petition from 

DLA to import PCBs and dispose of 

them in PCB-approved disposal 

facilities in accordance with existing 

regulations. EPA does not believe that 

this activity will have any impacts on 

the communities of Indian tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this proposed 

rule. However, in the spirit of Executive 

Order 13175, EPA specifically solicits 

comment on this proposed rule from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Children’s 

Health 

Executive Order 13045, entitled 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

applies to any rule that: 

1. Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866. 

2. Concerns an environmental health 

or safety risk that EPA has reason to 

believe may have a disproportionate 

effect on children. If the regulatory 

action meets both criteria, the Agency 

must evaluate the environmental health 

or safety effects of the planned rule on 

children, and explain why the planned 

regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by the 

Agency. 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

the Executive order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. EPA is 

proposing to grant the petition from 

DLA to import PCBs and dispose of 

them in approved PCB disposal 

facilities in accordance with existing 

regulations. EPA believes that the 

import and disposal of the amount of 

PCBs specified in the exemption 

petitions will present little, if any, 

additional risk to persons living in the 

vicinity of the approved disposal 

facilities or in the communities through 

which the PCBs may be transported. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed 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), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards; therefore, section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113 (15 

U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this 

action. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

This action does not entail special 

considerations of environmental justice 

related issues as delineated by 

Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994). 

K. Executive Order 12630: 

Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights 

EPA has complied with Executive 

Order 12630, entitled Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988), by 

examining the takings implications of 

this proposed rule in accordance with 

the Attorney General’s Supplemental 

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk 

and Avoidance of Unanticipated 

Takings issued under the Executive 

order. 

L. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice 

Reform 

In issuing this proposed rule, EPA has 

taken the necessary steps to eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize 

potential litigation, and provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct, as 

required by section 3 of Executive Order 

12988, entitled Civil Justice Reform (61 

FR 4729, February 7, 1996). 

Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 761 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

substances, Labeling, Polychlorinated 

biphenyls, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 19, 2007. 

James B. Gulliford, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, 

Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR 

chapter I be amended as follows: 

PART 761—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 761 

would continue to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2611, 

2614, and 2616. 

2. Section 761.80 is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (j) to read as 

follows: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 82 / Monday, April 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 21197 

§ 761.80 Manufacturing, processing and 

distribution in commerce exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(j) The Administrator grants the 

United States Defense Logistics 

Agency’s July 21, 2005 petition for an 

exemption for 1 year to import 

1,328,482 pounds of PCBs and PCB 

items stored or in use in Japan as 

identified in its petition, as amended, 

for disposal. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–8182 Filed 4–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[I.D. 042307F] 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council; Scoping Hearings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notification of scoping hearings. 

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council (Council) will 

convene Public Hearings on Reef Fish 

Amendment 27/Shrimp Amendment 14. 

DATES: The public hearings will held 

from May 14 - 24, 2007 at 13 locations 

throughout the Gulf of Mexico. For 

specific dates and times see 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

ADDRESSES:

Meeting addresses: The public 

hearings will be held in the following 

locations: Brownsville, Port Aransas, 

Palacios, and Galveston, TX, New 

Orleans, Chauvin, and Abbeville, LA, 

Destin, Tampa, and Ft. Myers., FL, 

Foley and Mobile, AL and Biloxi, MS. 

For specific dates and times see 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

Council address: Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Council, 2203 

North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, 

Florida 33607. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Richard Leard, Deputy Executive 

Director; telephone: 813–348–1630. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf 

of Mexico Fishery Management Council 

(Council) has scheduled a series of 

public hearings to receive comments on 

Draft Amendment 27 to the Reef Fish 

Fishery Management Plan and 

Amendment 14 to the Shrimp Fishery 

Management Plan. This amendment 

contains potential management 

measures to modify the rebuilding plan 

for red snapper in order to end 

overfishing and recover this overfished 

stock. These measures would further 

reduce the directed red snapper harvest 

as well as bycatch from both the 

directed fishery and the shrimp fishery. 

The public hearings will begin at 6 

pm and conclude at the end of public 

testimony or no later than 10 pm at each 

of the following locations: 

Monday, May 14, 2007, Holiday Inn 

Brownsville, 3777 N. Expressway, 

Brownsville, TX 78520, 956–547–1500; 

Tuesday, May 15, 2007, Four Points 

Sheraton New Orleans Airport, 6401 

Veterans Memorial Blvd., Metairie, LA 

70003, 504–885–5700; 

Tuesday, May 15, 2007, Plantation 

Suites, 1909 Hwy 361, Port Aransas, TX 

78373, 361–749–3866; 

Wednesday, May 16, 2007, Chauvin 

Parish Recreation Center, 215 Angel St., 

Chauvin, LA 70345, 985–594–2020; 

Wednesday, May 16, 2007, Palacios 

Rec Center, 2401 Perryman Ave, 

Palacios, TX 77465, 361–972–2387; 

Thursday, May 17, 2007, LSU 

Agricultural Center, 1105 W. Port St., 

Abbeville, LA 70510, 337–898–4335; 

Thursday, May 17, 2007, San Luis 

Resort, 5222 Seawall Boulevard, 

Galveston, Texas 77550, 409–744–1500; 

Monday, May 21, 2007, Embassy 

Suites Hotel, 570 Scenic Gulf Drive, 

Destin, FL 32550, 850–337–7000; 

Monday, May 21, 2007, Clarion Hotel, 

12635 S. Cleveland Ave., Ft. Myers, FL 

33907, 239–936–0931; 

Tuesday, May 22, 2007, Quorum 

Hotel, 700 N. Westshore Blvd., Tampa, 

FL 33609, 813–289–8200; 

Tuesday, May 22, 2007, Foley 

Community Center, 407 E. Laurel Ave., 

Foley, AL 36535, 251–943–1545; 

Wednesday, May 23, 2007, Riverview 

Plaza Hotel, 64 S. Water St., Mobile, AL 

36602, 251–438–4000; 

Thursday, May 24, 2007, Donal 

Snyder Parks & Rec Center, 2520 Pass 

Road, Biloxi, MS 39531, 228–435–6281. 

Copies of the Amendment can be 

obtained by calling the Council office at 

813–348–1630. These hearings are 

physically accessible to people with 

disabilities. Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to Tina Trezza at the 

Council (see ADDRESSES) at least five 

working days prior to the meeting. 

Dated: April 24, 2007. 

James P. Burgess, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–8189 Filed 4–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[I.D. 042307E] 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council; Public Hearings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public hearings. 

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (MAFMC) will 

hold hearings to allow for public input 

on Amendment 9 to the Fishery 

Management Plan for the 

AtlanticMackerel, Squid, and Butterfish 

Fishery (FMP). 

DATES: Written comments will be 

accepted until May 27, 2007. All 

meetings begin at 7 a.m. For specific 

dates and locations of the hearings see 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted through any of the following 

methods: 

• Mail: Daniel T. Furlong, Executive 

Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management 

Council, Room 2115 Federal Building, 

300 South New Street, Dover, Delaware 

19904. 

• FAX: 302–674–5399. 

• E-mail: info@mafmc.org. Please 

indicate the subject as SMB 9 

Comments. 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council, Room 2115 Federal Building, 

300 South New Street, Dover, Delaware 

19904, 302–674–2331, ext. 19. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The purpose of the hearings is to 

receive public input on management 

actions under consideration in 

Amendment 9 to the Atlantic Mackerel, 

Squid, and Butterfish FMP. The 

proposed management actions could: 

(1) Allow multi-year specifications for 

all four species managed through the 

FMP, 

(2) Extend or eliminate the 

moratorium on entry into the directed 

Illex squid fishery, 

(3) Revise the current overfishing 

definition for Loligo squid, 

(4) Designate EFH for Loligo eggs, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL