58266 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 188 / Monday, September 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(i) * * * 

(B) Placer County Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) Rule 502, ‘‘New Source Review,’’ 

amended on August 8, 2013. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–23003 Filed 9–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 761 

[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–0396; FRL–9917–21– 

OSWER] 

RIN 2050–AG79 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): 

Manufacturing (Import) Exemption for 

the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) 

is taking final action on a petition from 

the United States Defense Logistics 

Agency (DLA) to import foreignmanufactured polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs). For purposes of the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 

‘‘manufacture’’ is defined to include the 

import of chemical substances into the 

customs territory of the United States. 

With certain exceptions, section 6(e)(3) 

of TSCA bans the manufacture, 

processing, and distribution in 

commerce of PCBs. One of these 

exceptions is TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B), 

which gives the 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 the EPA can make certain 

findings by rule. On April 23, 2013, the 

EPA received a petition from DLA, a 

component of the United States 

Department of Defense (DOD), to import 

PCBs that DOD currently owns in Japan 

for disposal in the United States. The 

EPA is granting DLA’s petition as of 

October 1, 2014. This decision to grant 

the petition allows DLA to 

‘‘manufacture’’ (i.e., import) certain 

PCBs for disposal. Without an 

exemption granted by the EPA, DLA 

would not be allowed to import the PCB 

waste to the U.S. for proper disposal. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

October 1, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–0396. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, WJC West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the RCRA Docket is (202) 

566–0270. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Noggle, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Resource 

Conservation and Recovery, (MC: 

5304P), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703– 

347–8769; or by email: noggle.william@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This action applies to the petitioner, 

the U.S. Defense Logistics Agency. 

However, you may be potentially 

affected by this action if you process, 

distribute in commerce, or dispose of 

the PCB waste imported by DLA, i.e., 

you are an EPA-permitted PCB waste 

handler. Potentially affected categories 

and entities include, but are not 

necessarily limited to: 

• Waste treatment and disposal 

(North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) code 

5622), e.g., facilities that store or 

dispose of PCB waste. 

• Materials recovery facilities (NAICS 

code 56292), e.g., facilities that process 

and/or recycle metals. 

• Public administration (NAICS code 

92), e.g., the petitioning agency (i.e., the 

DLA). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities potentially 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this section could 

also be affected. The NAICS codes have 

been provided to assist you and others 

in determining whether this action 

might apply to certain entities. To 

determine whether you or your business 

may be affected by this action, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability provisions in 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 761. If 

you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed under the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

II. Background 

Section 6(e)(3)(A) of TSCA prohibits 

the manufacture, which includes the 

import of chemical substances into the 

customs territory of the United States, 

processing, and distribution in 

commerce of PCBs, except for the 

distribution in commerce of PCBs that 

were sold for purposes other than resale 

before April 1, 1979. Section 6(e)(1) of 

TSCA also authorizes the EPA to 

regulate the disposal of PCBs consistent 

with the provisions in section 6(e)(2) 

and (3) of TSCA. 

Section 6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA, however, 

stipulates that any person may petition 

the EPA Administrator for an exemption 

from the prohibition on the 

manufacture, processing, and 

distribution in commerce of PCBs. The 

Administrator may by rule grant an 

exemption if the Administrator finds 

that: 

(i) An unreasonable risk of injury to 

health or the environment would not 

result, and (ii) good faith efforts have 

been made to develop a chemical 

substance which does not present an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health or 

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 one year from 

the date the petition is granted. In 

addition, section 6(e)(4) of TSCA 

requires that a rule under section 

6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA be promulgated in 

accordance with sections 6(c)(2), (3) and 

(4) of TSCA, which provide for 

publication of a proposed rule, the 

opportunity for written comments and 

an informal hearing, if requested, and 

publication of a final rule. 

EPA’s procedures for rulemaking 

under section 6 of TSCA are found 

under 40 CFR part 750. This part 

includes Subpart B—Interim Procedural 

Rules for Manufacturing Exemptions, 

which describes the required content for 

manufacturing exemption petitions and 

the procedures that the EPA follows in 

rulemaking regarding these petitions. 

These rules are codified at 40 CFR 

750.10 through 750.21. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 188 / Monday, September 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 58267 

III. Findings Necessary to Grant 

Petitions 

A. No Unreasonable Risk Finding 

Before granting an exemption 

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

requires the Administrator to find that 

granting an exemption would not result 

in an unreasonable risk of injury to 

health or to the environment. The EPA 

expects a petitioner to demonstrate in 

its petition that the activity will not 

pose an unreasonable risk. (See 40 CFR 

750.11). 

To determine whether a risk is 

unreasonable, the EPA balances the 

probability that harm will occur to 

health or to the environment against the 

benefits to society from granting or 

denying each petition. See generally, 15 

U.S.C. 2605(c)(1). Specifically, the EPA 

considers the following factors: 

1. Effects of PCBs on human health 

and the environment. In deciding 

whether to grant an exemption, the EPA 

considers the magnitude of exposure 

and the effects of PCBs on humans and 

the environment. The following 

discussion summarizes EPA’s 

assessment of these factors. A more 

complete discussion of human health 

and environmental effects of PCBs is 

provided in the advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking for the 

reassessment of PCB use authorizations 

in the Federal Register of April 7, 2010 

(75 FR 17645) (Ref. 5). The Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

(ATSDR) Toxicological Profile for PCBs 

(2000) has also provided a recent review 

of PCB human health and 

environmental effects (Ref. 6). 

a. Health effects. The EPA has 

determined that PCBs cause significant 

human health effects, including cancer 

(classified as a probable human 

carcinogen), immune system 

suppression, liver damage, skin 

irritation, and endocrine disruption. 

PCBs also exhibit neurotoxicity, as well 

as reproductive and developmental 

toxicity. PCBs are readily absorbed 

through the skin and are absorbed at 

even faster rates when inhaled. Because 

PCBs are stored in animal fatty tissue, 

humans are also exposed to PCBs 

through ingestion of animal products. 

b. Environmental effects. Certain PCB 

congeners are among the most stable 

chemicals known, and decompose very 

slowly once they are released into the 

environment. PCBs are absorbed and 

stored in the fatty tissue of higher 

organisms as they bioaccumulate up the 

food chain through invertebrates, fish, 

and mammals. Significantly, 

bioaccumulated PCBs appear to be even 

more toxic than those found in the 

ambient environment, since the more 

toxic PCB congeners are more persistent 

and thus more likely to be retained. 

PCBs also have reproductive and other 

toxic effects in aquatic organisms, birds, 

and mammals. 

c. Risks. Toxicity and exposure are 

the two basic components of risk. The 

EPA has concluded that exposure of 

humans or the environment to PCBs 

may be significant, depending on such 

factors as the quantity of PCBs involved 

in the exposure and the effect of 

exposure. Minimizing exposure to PCBs 

should minimize potential risk. As 

shown through the 40 CFR part 761 

regulations that detail proper disposal 

and storage options, the EPA has 

previously determined that some 

activities, including the disposal of 

PCBs in accordance with those 

regulations, pose no unreasonable risks. 

Other activities, such as long-term 

storage of PCB waste, are generally 

considered by the 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 also vary, depending on the 

individual petition. As discussed in 

Section IV of this preamble, the EPA has 

taken benefits and costs into 

consideration when evaluating this 

exemption petition. 

B. Good Faith Efforts Finding 

Section 6(e)(3)(B)(ii) of TSCA requires 

the Administrator to find that ‘‘good 

faith efforts have been made to develop 

a chemical substance which does not 

present an unreasonable risk of injury to 

health or the environment and which 

may be substituted for [PCBs].’’ The 

EPA expects a petitioner to demonstrate 

in its petition how this standard is met. 

(See 40 CFR 750.11.) The EPA considers 

several factors in determining whether 

good faith efforts have been made. For 

each petition, the EPA considers the 

kind of exemption the petitioner is 

requesting. In each case, the burden is 

on the petitioner to show specifically 

what was done to substitute non-PCB 

material for PCBs or to show why it was 

not feasible to substitute non-PCBs for 

PCBs. 

To satisfy this finding for requests for 

an exemption to import PCBs for 

disposal, a petitioner must show why 

such activities should occur in the 

United States and what steps have been 

taken to develop a substitute. While 

requiring a petitioner to demonstrate 

that good faith efforts to develop a 

substitute for PCBs makes sense when 

dealing with exemption petitions for 

traditional manufacture and distribution 

in commerce, the issue of the 

development of substitute chemicals 

seems to have little bearing on whether 

to grant a petition for exemption that 

would allow the import into the United 

States for disposal of PCB waste. 

However, because section 6(e)(3)(B) 

allows a petitioner to request an 

exemption from any of the prohibitions 

listed in section 6(e)(3)(A), it is 

appropriate to apply the standard in a 

way that is relevant to the particular 

exemption requested. Therefore, the 

relevant ‘‘good faith’’ issue for an 

exemption request to import PCBs for 

disposal in the customs territory of the 

United States is whether the disposal of 

the waste could and/or should occur 

outside the United States. 

IV. Final Disposition of This Exemption 

Petition 

A. The Petition: April 23, 2013 Petition 

to Import PCBs Located in Japan 

On April 23, 2013, DLA submitted a 

petition seeking a 1–year exemption to 

import PCBs and PCB Items currently in 

storage at U.S. military installations in 

Japan (Ref. 1). DLA estimates as much 

as 1,014,222 pounds of waste 

contaminated with PCBs could be 

generated in Japan through calendar 

year 2014. The material in Japan 

consists of transformers (drained and 

un-drained), large and small capacitors, 

voltage regulators, switches, 

electromagnets, circuit breakers, 

reclosers, electrical cable, electric light 

ballasts, used dielectric fluids 

containing PCBs, and PCB-contaminated 

soil and debris (e.g., rags, small parts, 

packaging materials). Ninety four 

percent of the waste is at PCB 

concentrations below 50 ppm. Details of 

the particular amounts and 

concentrations DLA is petitioning to 

import can be found in Attachment 1 of 

the DLA petition, which can be found 

in the docket to this rulemaking. The 

EPA has concluded that import of the 

DLA PCBs will not cause a shortage of 

domestic PCB storage or disposal 

capacity. In addition, the EPA has 

concluded the amounts of PCBs 

available for import are small in 

comparison to domestic generation, and 

pose little threat of overwhelming 

domestic disposal capacity (Ref. 4). 

1. Information Regarding No 

Unreasonable Risk Provided by the 

Petitioner 

DLA will package, transport, treat, 

and dispose of these PCBs in the same 

manner as PCBs identified in its 

previous petitions, which the EPA 

granted in 2003 and 2007 to allow the 

import of up to 4,293,621 and 1,328,428 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
58268 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 188 / Monday, September 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

pounds of waste contaminated with 

PCBs, respectively (Ref. 2, 3). 

Specifically, DLA notes its adherence to 

applicable modal and inter-modal 

national and/or international packaging, 

marking, labeling and shipping paper 

regulations, such as the United Nations 

Performance Oriented Packaging 

(UNPOP) standards, the International 

Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) 

Code/International Maritime 

Organization (IMO) requirements, the 

International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Technical 

Instructions, requirements of the 

International Air Transport Association 

(IATA), United Nations (UN) 

Recommendations on the Transport of 

Dangerous Goods Code, and provisions 

of the Hazardous Materials Regulations 

at 49 CFR 100–199. DLA further notes 

that proper handling and shipping will 

include blocking, bracing, over packing, 

and inclusion of spill containment 

devices, as required by applicable 

transportation regulations. 

DLA further indicates it will handle 

and dispose of all PCBs and PCB Items 

in conformance with the PCB 

regulations at 40 CFR part 761. DLA has 

considerable experience and expertise 

in awarding and administering disposal 

contracts for PCBs and PCB Items in the 

U.S. and will award contracts with 

commercial firms in accordance with all 

applicable Federal procurement statutes 

and the Federal Acquisition Regulations 

(FAR). DLA additionally notes only 

companies with the required Federal 

and/or state-permits for the 

transportation, storage, treatment and 

disposal of PCBs and PCB Items would 

be considered as eligible for award of 

such contracts. DLA’s exemption 

petition does not request to limit the 

storage, treatment or disposal of PCBs 

and PCB Items imported from Japan to 

management at a particular facility; 

rather DLA requests any storage, 

treatment, or disposal facility that has 

the appropriate Federal and/or state 

permits for PCBs and PCB Items and for 

which DLA has entered a contract be 

allowed to manage these materials. 

DLA notes that it and its contractors 

have extensive experience in safely 

returning PCBs and PCB Items to the 

United States for treatment and 

disposal, and that DLA has returned 

several million pounds of PCBs and PCB 

Items for compliant disposal in the 

United States, including 3.6 million 

pounds of foreign-manufactured PCBs 

and PCB Items imported under the two 

previously granted exemptions. As 

noted previously, DLA had authority to 

import up to 5.5 million pounds of PCBs 

and PCB Items under the previous two 

exemptions. Throughout the course of 

this experience, DLA has used the same 

standards and procedures discussed 

above without spills or safety problems 

affecting human health or the 

environment. 

2. Information Regarding Good Faith 

Efforts Provided by the Petitioner 

DLA states in its petition that disposal 

of its PCBs and PCB Items in Japan is 

not an available disposal option. 

Specifically, as DLA noted in its 

exemption request, there are significant 

impediments to disposal on DOD 

military installations in Japan. For 

example, while there may exist certain 

mobile technology capable of treating 

some of the PCBs and PCB Items 

generated by United States military 

forces in Japan, there are also significant 

impediments to obtaining the permits 

that would be required to have that 

technology approved for use on United 

States military installations, where 

residual wastes and metals would still 

need to be taken off-installation for 

disposal. Complicating the situation 

further is any transfer or sale of property 

from the U.S. military installations into 

Japanese commerce is considered an 

‘‘import’’ of property. Japan has banned 

the importation of PCBs and PCB Items 

at any detectable concentration, 

including concentrations below the very 

stringent 0.5 ppm level at which Japan 

regulates domestic PCBs. DLA’s market 

research suggested a potential option 

could exist for disposal of some limited 

waste streams in newly permitted 

Japanese facilities (i.e., ‘‘offinstallation’’ disposal). However, DLA 

has not been able to identify any change 

in Japanese law that would allow offinstallation disposal in Japan nor the 

existence of any properly permitted 

vendor or technology that would be 

currently available to properly treat the 

DOD generated PCBs and PCB Items 

within the confines of the United States 

installations in Japan. Accordingly, onsite treatment does not present a 

reasonable alternative to the import of 

these wastes for proper disposal in the 

United States in compliance with the 

TSCA Section 6(e)(3). 

DLA further notes disposal of this 

waste in another country is not a viable 

option. DLA cites its 1999 Report to 

Congress as background on the 

difficulty it faces in finding suitable 

disposal alternatives for PCBs and PCB 

Items generated or owned by DOD 

overseas. In particular, DLA discusses 

the difficulty of shipping waste from 

Japan to other countries as a result of 

the Basel Convention. Prior to its 

previous petitions, DLA and its primary 

disposal contractor made extensive 

contacts over a period of several years 

with Japanese officials and disposal 

facilities in numerous locations outside 

the United States in an effort to identify 

firms who could dispose of such PCBs 

and PCB Items while satisfying the 

Basel Convention requirements. At that 

time, the DOD also consulted at length 

with State Department officials in Japan 

and in the United States whose 

responsibilities include international 

environmental matters. The variety of 

problems identified in these contacts 

regarding overseas disposal of certain 

PCB Items resulted in a consensus that 

use of existing facilities in other 

developed countries was not a 

reasonable alternative. Even if other 

countries had the physical capacity to 

accept these wastes, non-governmental 

organizations might be expected to 

oppose the DOD’s disposal of its waste 

in third countries (that is, countries 

other than Japan and the United States) 

because the United States has the 

technical capability to properly dispose 

of the hazardous materials itself. 

DLA concludes that its diligent but so 

far unsuccessful attempts to locate 

appropriate disposal sites outside the 

United States demonstrate its good faith 

efforts to pursue alternatives to disposal 

within the United States and fulfill the 

requirements of TSCA 6(e)(3)(B). 

B. What comment did the EPA receive 

and how is it addressed? 

On April 2, 2014, the EPA published 

a direct final rule with an accompanying 

proposed rule in the Federal Register 

(79 FR 18471). In that rule, we noted if 

adverse comments or a request for an 

informal hearing were received, then the 

EPA would publish a timely withdrawal 

in the Federal Register informing the 

public that this rule would not take 

effect based on the direct final rule. We 

also stated that we would then address 

all public comments in any subsequent 

final rule based on the proposed rule 

which accompanied the direct final 

rule. 

During the public comment period, 

the EPA received one adverse comment 

and request for informal hearing. The 

comment received states in part, ‘‘In 

brief, since the first two permissions 

were granted in 2003 and 2007, there 

have been alarming increases in 

previously rare malignancies such as 

melanoma and liver carcinoma. 

Additionally even common 

malignancies such as breast cancer have 

had substantial rises. PCBs have also 

been linked to endocrine disorders such 

as diabetes and obesity both of which 

have seen dramatic increasing trends’’ 

(Docket Document ID EPA–HQ–RCRA– 

2013–0396–0004). The comment did not 

include specific information to support 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 188 / Monday, September 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 58269 

the claim of increased numbers of 

cancers nor did the comment include 

any support for the claim that this 

increase is due to PCB exposures. 

On June 13, 2014, the EPA published 

a withdrawal of the direct final rule and 

notice of informal hearing (79 FR 

33867). During the informal hearing, 

held on July 8, 2014, the EPA received 

one presentation, which was submitted 

by the same person who submitted the 

adverse comment and request for an 

informal hearing. The presentation 

included a request for the EPA to update 

EPA’s classification of PCBs from a 

probable human carcinogen to a known 

human carcinogen, as well as included 

citations to studies purportedly 

indicating a connection between certain 

types of cancers and PCBs (Docket 

Document ID EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013– 

0396–0011). In the direct final rule for 

this action, as well as re-stated in this 

final rule, the EPA recognizes cancer as 

a possible health effect from exposure to 

PCBs. Therefore, neither information in 

the comment nor in the presentation 

characterizes risks of PCBs that were not 

previously considered by the EPA, and 

the information does not change EPA’s 

evaluation that granting this exemption 

will not result in an unreasonable risk 

of injury to health or the environment. 

Specifically, the additional research 

states cancer has been associated with 

PCB exposure, and argues PCBs are 

causal for a specific cancer (e.g., nonHodgkin lymphoma), is insufficient to 

demonstrate that proper disposal in 

accordance with our regulations would 

result in an unreasonable risk. The PCB 

wastes under this exemption must be 

properly disposed of according to the 

regulations set forth in 40 CFR part 761. 

C. EPA’s Final Decision on the Petition: 

April 23, 2013 Petition; EPA is Granting 

This Petition 

1. No unreasonable risk 

determination. The EPA finds generally 

that the disposal of imported PCBs and 

PCB Items at an EPA-approved PCB 

disposal facility poses no unreasonable 

risks as these facilities have been 

approved on the basis of that standard. 

In addition, as with the previous two 

petitions, the EPA concurs with DLA’s 

assessment that transportation of this 

waste will pose no unreasonable risk if 

conducted in accordance with all 

applicable laws and regulations. 

Therefore, for the following reasons, the 

EPA finds there is no unreasonable risk 

from importing the PCBs and PCB Items 

by DLA from Japan to the United States 

for disposal, as outlined below. 

i. PCBs are hazardous and pose a 

potential risk to health and the 

environment. Proper disposal in 

accordance with the 40 CFR part 761 

regulations would reduce PCBassociated risks. 

ii. Risk results from a combination of 

exposure (likelihood, magnitude and 

duration) and the probability of effects 

occurring under the conditions of 

exposure. Because the probability of a 

transport accident occurring is low (Ref. 

4), the likelihood of exposure to PCBs is 

commensurately low. Consequently, the 

probability of adverse effects to human 

health or the environment is low. 

iii. The PCB-containing materials will 

be packaged in a manner consistent 

with Federal, State, and local 

regulations addressing the risks 

associated with the storage and 

transportation of hazardous wastes. In 

addition, PCB waste will be 

continuously monitored during the 

ocean transport from Japan to the 

United States. Contingency plans are 

required by the International Maritime 

Dangerous Goods Code and U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) to 

be in place before and after the import 

of PCB-containing items to the United 

States. Moreover, the PCB Items that 

will be transported to the United States 

generally have a low combustion 

likelihood, which will make the 

probability of fires low. Together, these 

contingency measures will minimize 

exposure to humans and the 

environment in the event of an accident 

or emergency during ocean transport. 

iv. Given the aforementioned 

information, the exposure likelihood, 

frequency, and duration are so low that 

even though PCBs are considered to be 

highly hazardous, any risk resulting 

from the combined exposure and hazard 

potential would not be unreasonable to 

human health or the environment. 

v. The potential for human health 

risks are further mitigated by the limited 

duration of potential exposure. 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 

support 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 

unlikely catastrophic event during 

transport, PCB-exposed biological 

receptors could be adversely affected. 

However, this scenario would require a 

failure of all safeguards that will be in 

place. Furthermore, the alternative of 

storing the PCBs indefinitely seems to 

pose more risk than transport. 

Moreover, should an accident occur, 

emergency response authorities would 

be invoked to mitigate and/or remediate 

exposures. 

2. Good faith efforts to find substitutes 

met. Section 6(e)(3)(B)(ii) of TSCA 

requires the Administrator to make an 

additional finding, that ‘‘good faith 

efforts have been made to develop a 

chemical substance that does not 

present an unreasonable risk of injury to 

health or the environment and which 

may be substituted for such 

polychlorinated biphenyl.’’ The EPA 

has interpreted this provision to require 

that a petitioner has the burden of 

demonstrating that it has made the 

requisite good faith efforts to identify 

alternatives to management of the PCB 

waste in the United States. (See 40 CFR 

750.11). 

The EPA finds that DLA has 

demonstrated good faith efforts to find 

alternatives to disposal of this PCB 

waste in the United States. The EPA 

acknowledges the restrictions to 

disposing of this waste in Japan. DLA 

has also explored exporting this waste 

to other countries as an alternative. 

However, DLA has indicated, and the 

EPA acknowledges, the peculiar 

circumstances of DOD’s PCBs and PCB 

Items, which, while present in one 

country (i.e., Japan), are generated by 

another country’s government, leading 

to significant difficulty in providing 

Basel Convention notification to third 

countries. Given these difficulties, the 

EPA concurs with DLA’s conclusion 

that disposal in a third country (that is, 

countries other than Japan and the 

United States) is not a viable alternative 

for this waste. 

3. Benefits of Granting the Petition 

i. Avoiding the risks of long-term 

storage. The EPA believes granting the 

petition to DLA to import 1,014,222 

pounds of waste contaminated with 

PCBs (94% of which is less than 50 

ppm) will benefit the United States and 

the environment in general. As DLA 

notes, the continued long-term storage 

of PCB waste on U.S. military facilities 

in Japan poses risks to U.S. personnel 

and the environment—risks that can be 

eliminated through the action finalized 

in the petition. 

ii. Ensuring proper and safe disposal. 

Granting the petition allows the United 

States to accept responsibility for the 

PCBs and PCB Items it generates by 

assuring proper and safe disposal in 

domestic permitted disposal facilities. 

iii. Ensuring the safety of Japanese 

citizens. The EPA considers the 

reduction of risk to Japanese citizens to 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
58270 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 188 / Monday, September 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

be advantageous, especially in light of 

the heightened concerns over PCBs in 

that country. Granting the petition is the 

only practical mechanism to remove 

this waste from Japan; otherwise, the 

U.S. military would be required to 

explain to its Japanese hosts that it 

cannot remove its own toxic waste from 

their country because U.S. law does not 

allow the waste to be sent to the United 

States. 

For all these reasons, the EPA finds 

DLA has satisfied the exemption criteria 

of TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B) and is 

granting the petition. 

V. References 

1. DOD, DLA. Petition from David 

Rodriguez, Director to EPA. Subject: Petition 

to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency For an Exemption Under 

the Toxic Substances Control Act to Import 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) and PCB 

Items for Disposal. April 23, 2013. 19 pp. 

2. EPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated Biphenyls; 

Manufacturing (Import) Exemption. Final 

Rule. Federal Register (72 FR 53152, 

September 18, 2007) (FRL–8143–4). 

Available on-line at https://

www.federalregister.gov/articles/2007/09/18/

E7-18345/polychlorinated-biphenylsmanufacturing-import-exemption, Document 

ID: EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0042–0008. 

3. EPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated Biphenyls; 

Manufacturing (Import) Exemptions. Final 

Rule. Federal Register (68 FR 4934, January 

31, 2003) (FRL–7288–6). Available on-line at 

http://www.federalregister.com/Browse/

Document/usa/na/fr/2003/1/31/03-2344, 

Document ID: EPA–HQ–OPPT–2002–0013– 

0041. 

4. EPA, OPPT. Disposal of Polychlorinated 

Biphenyls; Import for Disposal. Final Rule. 

Federal Register (61 FR 11095, March 18, 

1996) (FRL–5354–8). Available on-line at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/1996/

March/Day-18/pr-24122.txt.html. 

5. EPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

(PCBs); Reassessment of Use Authorizations. 

Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

Federal Register (75 FR 17645, April 7, 

2010). (FRL–8811–7). Available on-line at 

http://www.regulations.gov, Document ID: 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0757–0001. 

6. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 

Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated 

Biphenyls (PCBs) (November 2000). 

Available online at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ 

toxprofiles/tp17.pdf. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive 

Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011), this action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ and is therefore not 

subject to OMB review. Because this 

action is not subject to notice and 

comment requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute, it is not subject to the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) or Sections 202 and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1999 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). In addition, 

this action does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

action does not create new binding legal 

requirements that substantially and 

directly affect Tribes under Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This action does not have 

significant Federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 

43255, August 10, 1999). Because this 

final rule has been exempted from 

review under Executive Order 12866, 

this final rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, entitled Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, 

entitled Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

This final rule does not contain any 

information collections subject to OMB 

approval under the Paperwork 

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

seq., nor does it require any special 

considerations under Executive Order 

12898, entitled Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). This action does not involve 

technical standards; thus, the 

requirements of Section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This action is 

subject to the Congressional Review Act, 

and the EPA will submit a rule report 

to each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. Under the CRA, a ‘‘major rule’’ 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 761 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

substances, and Polychlorinated 

biphenyls. 

Dated: September 19, 2014. 

Mathy Stanislaus, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 761—POLYCHLORINATED 

BIPHENYLS (PCBs) 

MANUFACTURING, PROCESSING, 

DISTRIBUTION IN COMMERCE, AND 

USE PROHIBITIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 761 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2614, and 2616. 

Subpart E—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 761.80 is amended by 

revising paragraph (j) to read as follows: 

§ 761.80 Manufacturing, processing and 

distribution in commerce exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(j) The Administrator grants the 

United States Defense Logistics 

Agency’s April 23, 2013 petition for an 

exemption for 1 year beginning on 

October 1, 2014, to import up to 

1,014,222 pounds of PCBs and PCB 

Items stored or in use in Japan as 

identified in its petition for disposal. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–23104 Filed 9–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Parts 1, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 

15, 24, 27, 28, 30, 35, 38, 42, 44, 45, 52, 

62, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 76, 77, 78, 90, 92, 

95, 97, 105, 109, 111, 114, 115, 117, 119, 

121, 122, 131, 150, 151, 153, 154, 159, 

160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 167, 169, 171, 

172, 174, 175, 176, 180, 181, 182, 185, 

188, 189, 190, 194, 196, 197, and 199 

[Docket No. USCG–2014–0688] 

RIN 1625–ZA33 

Shipping and Transportation; 

Technical, Organizational, and 

Conforming Amendments 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is issuing a 

final rule that makes non-substantive 

changes throughout Title 46 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations. The purpose of 

this rule is to make conforming 

amendments and technical corrections 

to Coast Guard regulations. This rule 

will have no substantive effect on the 

regulated public. These changes are 

provided to coincide with the annual 

recodification of Titles 46 and 49 on 

October 1, 2014. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

September 29, 2014. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES