Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 17645 

safety. We will request approval of the 

incorporation by reference of the 2009 

edition of NFPA 101 from the Office of 

the Federal Register. We are not aware 

of any significant changes from the 2006 

edition to the 2009 edition. 

This document for which we are 

seeking incorporation by reference is 

available for inspection by appointment 

(call (202) 461–4902 for an 

appointment) at the Department of 

Veterans Affairs, Office of Regulation 

Policy and Management, Room 1063B, 

810 Vermont Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20420 between the 

hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday (except holidays). It is 

also available at the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA). 

For information on the availability of 

this document at NARA, call 202–741– 

6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. In addition, copies 

may be obtained from the National Fire 

Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch 

Park, Quincy, MA 02269–9101. (For 

ordering information, call toll-free 

1–800–344–3555 or go to http:// 

www.nfpa.org.) 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that 

agencies prepare an assessment of 

anticipated costs and benefits before 

issuing any rule that may result in an 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

given year. This rule would have no 

such effect on State, local, and tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This document contains no 

collections of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3521). 

Executive Order 12866 

Executive Order 12866 directs 

agencies to assess all costs and benefits 

of available regulatory alternatives and, 

when regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health 

and safety, and other advantages; 

distributive impacts; and equity). The 

Executive Order classifies a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ requiring review by 

the Office of Management and Budget as 

any regulatory action that is likely to 

result in a rule that may: (1) Have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or adversely affect in a 

material way the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, or tribal 

governments or communities; (2) create 

a serious inconsistency or interfere with 

an action taken or planned by another 

agency; (3) materially alter the 

budgetary impact of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 

rights and obligations of recipients 

thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy 

issues arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in Executive Order. 

The economic, interagency, 

budgetary, legal, and policy 

implications of this proposed rule have 

been examined, and it has been 

determined not to be a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Secretary hereby certifies that 

this regulatory amendment would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities as 

they are defined in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This 

rulemaking would affect veterans and 

State homes. The State homes that 

would be subject to this rulemaking are 

State government entities under the 

control of State governments. All State 

homes are owned, operated and 

managed by State governments except 

for a small number that are operated by 

entities under contract with State 

governments. These contractors are not 

small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 605(b), this rule would be exempt 

from the initial and final regulatory 

flexibility analysis requirements of 

sections 603 and 604. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance numbers and titles for the 

programs affected by this document are 

64.005, Grants to States for Construction 

of State Home Facilities; 64.007, Blind 

Rehabilitation Centers; 64.008, Veterans 

Domiciliary Care; 64.009, Veterans 

Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans 

Nursing Home Care; 64.011, Veterans 

Dental Care; 64.012, Veterans 

Prescription Service; 64.013, Veterans 

Prosthetic Appliances; 64.014, Veterans 

State Domiciliary Care; 64.015, Veterans 

State Nursing Home Care; 64.016, 

Veterans State Hospital Care; 64.018, 

Sharing Specialized Medical Resources; 

64.019, Veterans Rehabilitation Alcohol 

and Drug Dependence; 64.022, Veterans 

Home Based Primary Care; and 64.026, 

Veterans State Adult Day Health Care. 

Signing Authority 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 

designee, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. John 

R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, Department 

of Veterans Affairs, approved this 

document on March 1, 2010, for 

publication. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 51 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, claims, day care, dental 

health, government contracts, grant 

programs—health, grant programs— 

veterans, health care, health facilities, 

health professions, health records, 

mental health programs, nursing homes, 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, travel and transportation 

expenses, Veterans. 

Dated: April 1, 2010. 

Robert C. McFetridge, 

Director, Regulation Policy and Management. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, VA proposes to amend 38 

CFR part 51 as follows: 

PART 51—PER DIEM FOR NURSING 

HOME CARE OF VETERANS IN STATE 

HOMES 

1. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1710, 1741– 

1743, 1745. 

§ 51.200 [Amended] 

2. Amend § 51.200 by removing the 

phrase ‘‘(2006 edition)’’ each place it 

appears and adding, in its place, ‘‘(2009 

edition)’’. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7811 Filed 4–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 761 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0757; FRL–8811–7] 

RIN 2070–AJ38 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); 

Reassessment of Use Authorizations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM). 

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing an ANPRM for 

the use and distribution in commerce of 

certain classes of PCBs and PCB items 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

17646 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

and certain other areas of the PCB 

regulations under the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA). EPA is reassessing 

its TSCA PCB use and distribution in 

commerce regulations to address: The 

use, distribution in commerce, marking, 

and storage for reuse of liquid PCBs in 

electric and non-electric equipment; the 

use of the 50 parts per million (ppm) 

level for excluded PCB products; the use 

of non-liquid PCBs; the use and 

distribution in commerce of PCBs in 

porous surfaces; and the marking of PCB 

articles in use. Also in this document, 

EPA is also reassessing the definitions 

of ‘‘excluded manufacturing process,’’ 

‘‘quantifiable level/level of detection,’’ 

and ‘‘recycled PCBs.’’ EPA is soliciting 

comments on these and other areas of 

the PCB use regulations. EPA is not 

soliciting comments on the PCB 

disposal regulations in this document. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 6, 2010. 

See Unit XIII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for meeting dates and other 

deadlines associated with the meetings. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0757, 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 EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0757. 

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 DCO’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– 

2009–0757. 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. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the docket index available 

at http://www.regulations.gov. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available electronically at 

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

available in hard copy, at the OPPT 

Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in 

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

3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room 

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

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number of 

the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 

566–0280. Docket visitors are required 

to show photographic identification, 

pass through a metal detector, and sign 

the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are 

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. 

See Unit XIII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for meeting locations. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information contact: Colby 

Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, 

Environmental Assistance Division 

(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

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: 

John H. Smith, 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) 566–0512; e-mail address: 

smith.johnh@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you you manufacture, 

process, distribute in commerce, use, or 

dispose of PCBs. Potentially affected 

entities may include, but are not limited 

to: 

• Utilities (NAICS code 22), e.g., 

Electric power and light companies, 

natural gas companies. 

• Manufacturers (NAICS codes 31– 

33), e.g., Chemical manufacturers, 

electroindustry manufacturers, endusers of electricity, general contractors. 

• Transportation and Warehousing 

(NAICS codes 48–49), e.g., Various 

modes of transportation including air, 

rail, water, ground, and pipeline. 

• Real Estate (NAICS code 53), e.g., 

People who rent, lease, or sell 

commercial property. 

• Professional, Scientific, and 

Technical Services (NAICS code 54), 

e.g., Testing laboratories, environmental 

consulting. 

• Public Administration (NAICS 

code 92), e.g., Federal, State, and local 

agencies. 

• Waste Management and 

Remediation Services (NAICS code 

562), e.g., PCB waste handlers (e.g., 

storage facilities, landfills, incinerators), 

waste treatment and disposal, 

remediation services, material recovery 

facilities, waste transporters. 

• Repair and Maintenance (NAICS 

code 811), e.g., Repair and maintenance 

of appliances, machinery, and 

equipment. 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 17647 

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 

comment 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 Taking? 

With this document, EPA is issuing 

an ANPRM for the use and distribution 

in commerce of certain classes of PCBs 

and PCB items and certain other areas 

of the PCB regulations under TSCA. 

EPA is reassessing its TSCA PCB use 

and distribution in commerce 

regulations, 40 CFR part 761, subparts B 

and C, to address: 

1. The use, distribution in commerce, 

marking, and storage for reuse of liquid 

PCBs in electric and non-electric 

equipment. 

2. The use of the 50 ppm level for 

excluded PCB products. 

3. The use of non-liquid PCBs. 

4. The use and distribution in 

commerce of PCBs in porous surfaces. 

5. The marking of PCB articles in use. 

EPA is also reassessing the definitions 

of ‘‘excluded manufacturing process,’’ 

‘‘quantifiable level/level of detection,’’ 

and ‘‘recycled PCBs’’ in 40 CFR part 761, 

subpart A. 

B. What is the Agency’s Authority for 

Taking this Action? 

The authority for this action comes 

from TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B) and (C) of 

TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(2)(B) and (C)) 

as well as TSCA section 6(e)(1)(B) (15 

U.S.C. 2605(e)(1)(B)). Section 6(e)(2)(A) 

of TSCA provides that ‘‘no person may 

manufacture, process, or distribute in 

commerce or use any polychlorinated 

biphenyl in a manner other than in a 

totally enclosed manner’’ after January 1, 

1978. However, TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B) 

provides EPA with the authority to issue 

regulations allowing the use and 

distribution in commerce of PCBs in a 

manner other than in a totally enclosed 

manner if the EPA Administrator finds 

that the use and distribution in 

commerce ‘‘will not present an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health or 

the environment.’’ (EPA’s authority to 

allow distribution of PCBs in commerce 

is limited to those PCB items that were 

‘‘sold for purposes other than resale’’ 

before April 1978 (TSCA section 

6(e)(3)(C) (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(3)(C))). 

Section 6(e)(2)(C) of TSCA defines 

‘‘totally enclosed manner’’ as ‘‘any 

manner which will ensure that any 

exposure of human beings or the 

environment by the polychlorinated 

biphenyl will be insignificant as 

determined by the Administrator by 

rule.’’ Section 6(e)(1)(B) of TSCA directs 

EPA to promulgate rules to require PCBs 

to be marked with clear and adequate 

warnings and instructions (15 U.S.C. 

2605(e)(1)(B)). 

III. Context of this ANPRM 

In the 1970s, commercial manufacture 

of PCBs in the United States ceased. A 

substantial portion of the PCBs that had 

already been manufactured were still in 

use in many areas of the country; in 

1976 EPA estimated that of 1.4 billion 

pounds (lbs.) of PCBs produced in the 

United States, 750 million lbs. remained 

in service in the country. 

Approximately 75% of the PCBs 

produced were for use as liquids in 

electrical or industrial equipment (Ref. 

1). For some specific types of 

equipment, such as electrical capacitors, 

virtually all of the large number of units 

manufactured and in use contained 

PCBs, but for other types of equipment, 

such as electromagnets, only a small 

number of units contained PCBs (Ref. 2). 

TSCA became effective on January 1, 

1977. Section 6(e) of TSCA generally 

prohibited the manufacture, processing, 

distribution in commerce, and use of 

PCBs and charged EPA with issuing 

regulations for the marking and disposal 

of PCBs. EPA published the first 

regulations addressing the use of 

equipment containing PCBs on May 31, 

1979 (Ref. 3). Over the 30 years since 

then, many changes have taken place in 

the industry sectors that use such 

equipment, and EPA believes that the 

balance of risks and benefits from the 

continued use of remaining equipment 

containing PCBs may have changed 

enough to consider amending the 

regulations. 

A. Regulatory History 

On December 30, 1977, EPA 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register stating that implementation of 

the January 1, 1978 ban imposed by 

TSCA was being postponed until 30 

days after the promulgation of new 

regulations (Ref. 4). On May 31, 1979, 

EPA promulgated these regulations (Ref. 

3). The regulations found that PCB 

liquid-filled capacitors, electromagnets, 

and transformers (other than railroad 

transformers) met the statutory 

definition of ‘‘totally enclosed,’’ and 

were exempt from the ban in TSCA 

section 6(e)(2)(A) on manufacture, 

processing, distribution in commerce, or 

use. This EPA finding meant that it was 

not necessary to specifically authorize 

the use of these types of PCB-containing 

equipment. In this same regulation, EPA 

also authorized, in accordance with 

TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B), the use of other 

liquid-filled equipment that was not 

totally enclosed (railroad transformers, 

heat transfer systems, and hydraulic 

systems), based on a finding that the use 

would pose no unreasonable risk of 

injury to health or the environment, 

subject to conditions. One of the 

conditions EPA imposed on the 

authorization of most non-totally 

enclosed uses was a time limit on the 

use of PCBs at or above the established 

50 ppm PCB regulatory cutoff. In the 

June 7, 1978 (Ref. 5), proposed rule for 

the use authorizations, EPA discussed 

its authority and rationale for 

establishing use limits: 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

17648 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Section 6(e)(2)(B) of TSCA permits EPA to 

authorize by rule the manufacturing, 

processing, distribution in commerce, and 

use of PCBs in a non-totally enclosed manner 

if these activities will not present an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health or the 

environment. EPA has determined that 

certain non-totally enclosed PCB use 

activities will not present an unreasonable 

risk and proposed to authorize these use 

activities for a period of 5 years after the 

effective date of the final rule. At that time, 

EPA will examine the need for continuing 

these authorizations. 

(Ref. 5, p. 24807) 

EPA has not previously undertaken a 

reassessment. In making this 

determination to make a reassessment, 

EPA weighed the effects of PCBs on 

health and the environment, the 

magnitude of exposure, and the 

reasonably ascertainable economic 

consequences of the rule. This 

determination is fully discussed in the 

support/voluntary draft environmental 

impact statement. These proposed time 

limits were, with minor modifications, 

adopted in the final rule: 

Unlike all other activities that may be 

subject to an authorization under TSCA 

section 6(e)(2)(B), use activities are not 

prohibited under TSCA section 6(e)(3)(A). 

Accordingly, there is no automatic limit to 

the length of use authorizations. In deciding 

how long to authorize each use, EPA believes 

that it should have the opportunity to review 

each use in a timely way to ensure that there 

is no unreasonable risk associated with its 

continuation. In addition, improved 

technology or development of new PCB 

substitutes could reduce the need for the 

authorization. Accordingly EPA proposed a 

five-year limit on most use authorizations; 

however, no such limit was proposed on the 

use authorization for PCBs in electric 

equipment. 

(Ref. 3, p. 31530) 

After the May 31,1979, rule was 

published, the Environmental Defense 

Fund, Inc., (EDF) petitioned the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit to review the portion 

of the 1979 regulation which designated 

the use of ‘‘intact and non-leaking’’ PCB 

liquid filled capacitors, electromagnets, 

and transformers (other than railroad 

transformers) as ‘‘totally enclosed.’’ On 

October 30, 1980, the court decided that 

there was insufficient evidence in the 

record to support the Agency’s 

classification of the equipment as 

‘‘totally enclosed’’ (Ref. 6). The court 

vacated this portion of the rule and 

remanded it to EPA for further action. 

EPA, EDF, and certain industry 

interveners petitioned the court to stay 

the mandate while EPA conducted 

rulemaking beginning with an ANPRM, 

and a utility industry group agreed to 

develop factual information necessary 

for the rulemaking. The court granted 

the request for a stay and the text of the 

court order was published with EPA’s 

ANPRM on March 10, 1981 (Ref. 7). On 

August 25, 1982, EPA issued a final rule 

authorizing the use of capacitors, 

electromagnets, and transformers other 

than railroad transformers, in 

accordance with TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B) 

(Ref. 8). Time limits were imposed on 

the use of certain types of PCB 

equipment posing an exposure risk to 

food and feed. Since 1982 there have 

been additional rulemakings (e.g., Refs. 

9 and 10), which, with certain 

exceptions, have continued to allow the 

use of PCB-containing equipment, the 

passive removal of PCB-containing 

equipment from use through attrition, 

and to require the disposal of PCBs and 

PCB-containing equipment in an 

environmentally sound manner. 

B. PCB Use Authorizations 

Currently, under 40 CFR 761.30, the 

following liquid-filled PCB equipment 

is authorized for use in a non-totally 

enclosed manner: 

• Electrical transformers. 

• Railroad transformers. 

• Mining equipment. 

• Heat transfer systems. 

• Hydraulic systems. 

• Electromagnets. 

• Switches. 

• Voltage regulators. 

• Electrical capacitors. 

• Circuit breakers. 

• Reclosers. 

• Liquid-filled cable. 

• Rectifiers. 

The servicing, in accordance with 

specified conditions, of the following 

liquid-filled equipment is also 

authorized: 

• Electrical transformers. 

• Railroad transformers. 

• Electromagnets. 

• Switches. 

• Voltage regulators. 

• Circuit breakers. 

• Reclosers. 

• Liquid-filled cable. 

• Rectifiers. 

Liquid PCBs are authorized for use 

where they are a contaminant in the 

following equipment: 

• Natural gas pipeline systems. 

• Contaminated natural gas pipe and 

appurtenances. 

• Other gas or liquid transmission 

systems. 

There are also use authorizations for 

certain non-liquid PCBs applications: 

Carbonless copy paper and porous 

surfaces contaminated with PCBs 

regulated for disposal by spills of liquid 

PCBs. There are other use authorizations 

for research and development (40 CFR 

761.30(j)), for scientific instruments (40 

CFR 761.30(k)), and for decontaminated 

materials (40 CFR 761.30(u)). 

However, there are no use 

authorizations for non-liquid PCBcontaining products if they contain 

PCBs at concentrations > 50 ppm, 

including but not limited to adhesives, 

caulk, coatings, grease, paint, rubber or 

plastic electrical insulation, gaskets, 

sealants, and waxes. 

In 40 CFR 761.35, storage for reuse of 

authorized PCB articles is allowed for 

up to 5 years, or longer if kept in a 

storage unit complying with TSCA or 

the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements. 

C. Distribution in Commerce 

Regulations 

Section 6(e)(2)(C) of TSCA states, 

‘‘The term ‘totally enclosed manner’ 

means any manner which will ensure 

that any exposure of human beings or 

the environment to a polychlorinated 

biphenyl will be insignificant as 

determined by the Administrator by 

rule.’’ The definition established by rule 

in 40 CFR 761.3 is, ‘‘Totally enclosed 

manner means any manner that will 

ensure no exposure of human beings or 

the environment to any concentration of 

PCBs.’’ 

EPA has found that the distribution in 

commerce of intact and non-leaking 

equipment is ‘‘totally enclosed.’’ See 40 

CFR 761.20 (Ref. 3, p. 31542). Therefore, 

no authorization is required for the 

distribution in commerce for use of 

intact and non-leaking, liquid-filled 

electrical equipment, so long as the 

equipment was sold for purposes other 

than resale before July 1, 1979. Section 

40 CFR 761.20 states: 

In addition, the Administrator hereby 

finds, for purposes of section 6(e)(2)(C) of 

TSCA, that any exposure of human beings or 

the environment to PCBs, as measured or 

detected by any scientifically acceptable 

analytical method, 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. For 

purposes of determining which PCB Items 

are totally enclosed, pursuant to section 

6(e)(2)(C) of TSCA, since exposure to such 

Items may be significant, the Administrator 

further finds that a totally enclosed manner 

is a manner which results in no exposure to 

humans or the environment to PCBs. The 

following activities are considered totally 

enclosed: distribution in commerce of intact, 

nonleaking electrical equipment such as 

transformers (including transformers used in 

railway locomotives and self-propelled cars), 

capacitors, electromagnets, voltage 

regulators, switches (including sectionalizers 

and motor starters), circuit breakers, 

reclosers, and cable that contain PCBs at any 

concentration and processing and 

distribution in commerce of PCB Equipment 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 17649 

containing an intact, nonleaking PCB 

Capacitor. 

Since then, EPA has gathered 

information showing measurable 

emissions of PCBs from some otherwise 

intact and non-leaking equipment, 

which is not energized (providing or 

receiving electricity), to the ambient air 

(Ref. 11). ‘‘Weeps’’ and ‘‘seeps’’ and other 

leaks are visual indicators that the 

distribution in commerce of some of this 

equipment could result in exposure to 

humans or the environment to PCBs. 

D. PCB Health Effects 

The following information about the 

health effects of PCBs is taken directly 

from the 1996 EPA document entitled 

‘‘PCBs: Cancer Dose Response 

Assessment and Application to 

Environmental Mixtures’’ (Ref. 12), 

which is the source document for the 

1997 EPA Integrated Risk Information 

System (IRIS) file for PCBs. The 

information is referenced in the 1997 

EPA IRIS file for PCBs under heading 

II.A.2 (Human Carcinogenicity Data), it 

states in part: 

Occupational studies show some increases 

in cancer mortality in workers exposed to 

PCBs. Bertazzi et al. (1987) found significant 

excess cancer mortality at all sites combined 

and in the gastrointestinal tract in workers 

exposed to PCBs containing 54 and 42 

percent chlorine. Brown (1987) found 

significant excess mortality from cancer of 

the liver, gall bladder, and biliary tract in 

capacitor manufacturing workers exposed to 

Aroclors 1254, 1242, and 1016. Sinks et al. 

(1992) found significant excess malignant 

melanoma mortality in workers exposed to 

Aroclors 1242 and 1016. Some other studies, 

however, found no increases in cancer 

mortality attributable to PCB exposure 

(ATSDR, 1993). The lack of consistency 

overall limits the ability to draw definitive 

conclusions from these studies. Incidents in 

Japan and Taiwan where humans consumed 

rice oil contaminated with PCBs showed 

some excesses of liver cancer, but this has 

been attributed, at least in part, to heating of 

the PCBs and rice oil, causing formation of 

chlorinated dibenzofurans (ATSDR, 1993; 

Safe, 1994). 

A study of rats fed diets containing 

Aroclors 1260, 1254, 1242, or 1016 found 

statistically significant, dose-related, 

increased incidences of liver tumors from 

each mixture (Brunner et al., 1996). Earlier 

studies found high, statistically significant 

incidences of liver tumors in rats ingesting 

Aroclor 1260 or Clophen A 60 (Kimbrough et 

al., 1975; Norback and Weltman, 1985; 

Schaeffer et al., 1984). Partial lifetime studies 

found precancerous liver lesions in rats and 

mice ingesting PCB mixtures of high or low 

chlorine content. 

Several mixtures and congeners test 

positive for tumor promotion (Silberhorn et 

al., 1990). Toxicity of some PCB congeners is 

correlated with induction of mixed-function 

oxidases; some congeners are phenobarbitaltype inducers, some are 3- 

methylcholanthrene-type inducers, and some 

have mixed inducing properties (McFarland 

and Clarke, 1989). The latter two groups most 

resemble 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 

in structure and toxicity. 

Overall, the human studies have been 

considered to provide limited (IARC, 1987) to 

inadequate (U.S. EPA, 1988a) evidence of 

carcinogenicity. The animal studies, 

however, have been considered to provide 

sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity (IARC, 

1987; U.S. EPA, 1988a). Based on these 

findings, some commercial PCB mixtures 

have been characterized as probably 

carcinogenic to humans (IARC, 1987; U.S. 

EPA, 1988a). There has been some 

controversy about how this conclusion 

applies to PCB mixtures found in the 

environment. 

(Ref. 13) 

In addition to cancer, the 1996 

document states, ‘‘Although not covered 

by this report PCBs also have significant 

ecological and human health effects 

other than cancer, including 

neurotoxicity, reproductive and 

developmental toxicity, immune system 

suppression, liver damage, skin 

irritation, and endocrine disruption. 

Toxic effects have been observed from 

acute and chronic exposures to PCB 

mixtures with varying chlorine content’’ 

(Ref. 12). 

The Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry (ATSDR) Toxicological 

Profile for PCBs of November 2000 

(2000 ATSDR Toxicological Profile) is a 

more recent review of the toxicity of 

PCBs. The study’s summary of health 

effects (chapter 2.2) states: 

The preponderance of the biomedical data 

from human and laboratory mammal studies 

provide strong evidence of the toxic potential 

of exposure to PCBs. Information on health 

effects of PCBs is available from studies of 

people exposed in the workplace, by 

consumption of contaminated rice oil in 

Japan (the Yusho incident) and Taiwan (the 

Yu-Cheng incident), by consumption of 

contaminated fish, and via general 

environmental exposures, as well as food 

products of animal origin....[H]ealth effects 

that have been associated with exposure to 

PCBs in humans and/or animals include 

liver, thyroid, dermal and ocular changes, 

immunological alterations, 

neurodevelopmental changes, reduced birth 

weight, reproductive toxicity, and cancer. 

The human studies of the Yusho and YuCheng poisoning incidents, contaminated 

fish consumption, and general populations 

are complicated by the mixture nature of PCB 

exposure and possible interactions between 

the congeneric components and other 

chemicals.... Therefore, although PCBs may 

have contributed to adverse health effects in 

these human populations, it cannot be 

determined with certainty which congeners 

may have caused the effects. Animal studies 

have shown that PCBs induce effects in 

monkeys at lower doses than in other 

species, and that immunological, dermal/ 

ocular, and neurobehavioral changes are 

particularly sensitive indicators of toxicity in 

monkeys exposed either as adults, or during 

pre- or postnatal periods. 

(Ref. 14) 

EPA continues to examine more 

recent scientific studies on the health 

effects of PCBs and seeks comments 

and/or information on the health effects 

of PCBs available since the 1997 EPA 

update of IRIS and since the 2000 

ATSDR Toxicological Profile. Any 

proposed or final PCB rulemaking 

which relies on PCB health effects will 

use information subject to EPA’s 

rigorous peer-review process. 

E. PCB Environmental Effects 

The 2000 ATSDR Toxicological 

Profile for PCBs summarizes the 

environmental fate, transport, and 

bioaccumulation of PCBs as follows: 

Once in the environment, PCBs do not 

readily break down and therefore may remain 

for very long periods of time. They can easily 

cycle between air, water, and soil. For 

example, PCBs can enter the air by 

evaporation from both soil and water. In air, 

PCBs can be carried long distances and have 

been found in snow and sea water in areas 

far away from where they were released into 

the environment, such as in the arctic. As a 

consequence, PCBs are found all over the 

world. In general, the lighter the type of 

PCBs, the further they may be transported 

from the source of contamination. PCBs are 

present as solid particles or as a vapor in the 

atmosphere. They will eventually return to 

land and water by settling as dust or in rain 

and snow. In water, PCBs may be transported 

by currents, attach to bottom sediment or 

particles in the water, and evaporate into air. 

Heavy kinds of PCBs are more likely to settle 

into sediments while lighter PCBs are more 

likely to evaporate to air. Sediments that 

contain PCBs can also release the PCBs into 

the surrounding water. PCBs stick strongly to 

soil and will not usually be carried deep into 

the soil with rainwater. They do not readily 

break down in soil and may stay in the soil 

for months or years; generally, the more 

chlorine atoms that the PCBs contain, the 

more slowly they break down. Evaporation 

appears to be an important way by which the 

lighter PCBs leave soil. As a gas, PCBs can 

accumulate in the leaves and above-ground 

parts of plants and food crops. PCBs are 

taken up into the bodies of small organisms 

and fish in water. They are also taken up by 

other animals that eat these aquatic animals 

as food. PCBs especially accumulate in fish 

and marine mammals (such as seals and 

whales) reaching levels that may be many 

thousands of times higher than in water. PCB 

levels are highest in animals high up in the 

food chain. 

(Ref. 14) 

The 2000 ATSDR Toxicological 

Profile also summarizes ecotoxicological 

effects of PCBs in wildlife (Ref. 14). 

Information in the 2000 ATSDR 

Toxicological Profile is gathered from 

experimental studies and field 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

17650 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

observations of wildlife, specifically 

outlining PCB effects in fish, bird, and 

mammal species. The biological 

responses in wildlife to exposures to 

individual PCB congeners and 

commercial PCB mixtures vary widely 

in these studies, possibly reflecting not 

only variability in susceptibility among 

species, but also differences in the 

mechanism of action or selective 

metabolism of individual congeners. 

Noteworthy impacts on fish, birds, and 

mammals from this collective data 

include neurological/behavioral, 

immunological, dermal, and 

reproductive/developmental effects. 

Observed PCB effects related to 

neurological impairment include 

alterations in central nervous system 

neurotransmitter levels, retarded 

learning, increased activity, and 

behavioral changes. Immunological 

effects consist of morphological changes 

in organs related to the immune system, 

as well as functional impairment of 

humoral- and cell-mediated immune 

responses. Dermal effects in species 

include adverse effects on fins and tails 

in fish, and abnormal skin, hair, and 

nail growth in mammals. Lastly, 

reproductive and developmental 

impacts consist of increased embryo/ 

fetal loss through effects such as 

decreased egg hatchability and reduced 

embryo implantation (Ref. 14). 

EPA seeks information on the 

environmental effects of PCBs that 

became available after the 2000 ATSDR 

Toxicological Profile (Ref. 14). 

IV. Objective of this ANPRM 

The objective of this ANPRM is to 

announce the Agency’s intent to 

reassess the current use authorizations 

for certain PCB uses to determine 

whether they may now pose an 

unreasonable risk to human health and 

the environment. This reassessment will 

be based in part upon information and 

experience acquired in dealing with 

PCBs over the past 3 decades. This 

ANPRM solicits information from the 

public on several topics to assist EPA in 

making this reassessment. 

Since the Agency first promulgated its 

PCB use regulations in 1979, EPA’s 

knowledge about the universe of PCB 

materials has greatly increased. The 

Agency has gained valuable knowledge 

and experience regarding the various 

sources and uses of PCB materials. Over 

the past 30 years, EPA has had the 

opportunity to evaluate and draw 

conclusions about the effectiveness of 

the PCB regulations in preventing an 

unreasonable risk to human health and 

the environment from exposure to PCBs, 

as well as their economic impact. This 

document details EPA’s observations on 

why there is reason to make changes in 

the regulations. At the present time, 

EPA is investigating whether some 

authorized uses of PCBs should be 

eliminated or phased-out and whether 

more stringent use and servicing 

conditions would be appropriate. EPA is 

also re-examining the geographical and 

numerical extent of PCBs and PCB 

items, which are subject to the use 

regulations. The objective of the 

anticipated rulemaking would be to 

modify any of the regulations that apply 

to PCBs or PCB items, as necessary, if 

these uses present an unreasonable risk 

to human health and the environment, 

taking into account conditions as they 

exist and as they are likely to exist in 

the future. 

EPA seeks information that will be 

useful in making the findings required 

by TSCA section 6. By prohibiting the 

use of PCBs (except in a totally enclosed 

manner), Congress established a 

statutory presumption that use of PCBs 

poses an unreasonable risk of injury to 

health or the environment. In order to 

assess whether a use poses ‘‘no 

unreasonable risks,’’ EPA would include 

an assessment of impacts on the 

economy, electric energy availability, 

and all other health, environmental, or 

social impacts that could be expected 

from adoption of alternatives to PCBs. 

There is a list of several questions 

related to EPA’s reassessment in Unit 

XIV. Responses to the questions will 

provide EPA with information needed 

to assist in its reassessment; other 

information, of course, is also welcome. 

EPA recognizes that there may be 

differences in the maintenance 

operations, inventories, planning, 

funding, and budgets for different 

owners of electrical equipment and does 

not make any assumptions about these 

differences. For example, when 

compared to very large interstate 

utilities, small municipal and 

cooperative utilities may have a very 

different approach to address the 

replacement of leaking equipment. 

Where applicable and appropriate, 

small municipal and cooperative utility 

responders should provide information 

about the impacts a phaseout of PCBcontaining equipment might have on 

their operations and their customers. In 

particular, EPA encourages small 

municipal and cooperative utilities to 

take the time to answer the questions in 

Unit XIV. or otherwise provide details 

about maintenance operations, 

inventories, planning, funding, budgets, 

or any other information related to the 

cost of addressing the sound 

environmental management of the PCBs 

in their equipment and measures they 

have taken or planned to take and how 

these measures will help to safely 

manage their PCBs. EPA also is 

interested in exploring a range of 

incentives or programs that might 

facilitate organizations with limited 

budgets to remove regulated PCBs and 

PCB equipment from their systems and 

facilities. 

In this document, EPA is also 

announcing plans to involve 

stakeholders in gathering information to 

inform EPA’s determination of the scope 

of the problem, and EPA’s decision on 

the best ways to address risks that may 

be present from current PCB use 

authorizations. EPA will sponsor a 

series of public meetings around the 

country to solicit stakeholder comments 

on this document. Specific information 

regarding the locations, dates, and times 

of the public meetings are included in 

Unit XIII. 

V. EPA’s Reasons for Reassessing 

Existing Use and Distribution 

Provisions 

A. Attrition, Aging of Equipment, and 

Spills 

All of the PCB-containing equipment 

in current use, which has been 

operating in accordance with the 1979 

and subsequent use authorizations, is at 

least 30 years old. Since the ban on 

manufacturing in 1979, no new 

equipment containing PCBs at 

concentrations greater than or equal to 

(≥) 50 ppm has been manufactured. The 

total number of PCB transformers in the 

United States is decreasing (Ref. 15) but 

there are still many PCB transformers in 

use (Ref. 16). Also, all but the most 

recently manufactured PCB-containing 

equipment may be nearing the end of its 

expected useful life, although the useful 

life of some equipment may have 

effectively been extended by extensive 

maintenance and re-building. The 

useful life of transformers is typically no 

more than 30–40 years (Ref. 2). 

Equipment is increasingly vulnerable 

to leaks the older it becomes. For 

example, between 2002 and 2005, two 

large, aging electrical transformers 

located on Exxon Mobil’s offshore oil 

and gas platform, Hondo, in the Santa 

Barbara Channel, leaked nearly 400 

gallons of PCB-contaminated fluid. 

Exxon allowed one of the transformers 

to leak for almost 2 years before 

repairing it (Ref. 17). 

Several statutes and regulations 

require reporting of spills of hazardous 

chemicals, including PCBs, to the 

United States Coast Guard National 

Response Center. EPA contacted the 

National Response Center (Ref. 18) to 

find out how many PCB spills have been 

reported historically. The National 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 17651 

Response Center advised EPA that there 

were a total of 5,578 spills associated 

with PCBs reported from 1990 through 

August 19, 2009 (Ref. 19). 

B. International Developments 

PCBs are persistent chemicals and it 

is internationally recognized that they 

pose a risk to health and the 

environment and need to be removed 

from use. As of October 6, 2009, 166 

countries have signed and ratified, 

accepted, approved, or accessed the 

Stockholm Convention on Persistent 

Organic Pollutants (Stockholm 

Convention), which among other things 

requires parties to make determined 

efforts to phaseout certain ongoing uses 

of PCBs by the year 2025. The United 

States is a signatory to the Stockholm 

Convention but has not yet ratified it 

(Ref. 20). A similar agreement, which 

has an earlier date relating to the 

phaseout of certain ongoing uses of 

PCBs, is the 1998 Aarhus Protocol on 

Persistent Organic Pollutants of the 

1979 Convention on Long-Range 

Transboundary Air Pollution, which the 

United States signed in 1998. As with 

the Stockholm Convention, the United 

States is a signatory to the Aarhus 

Protocol, but has not yet ratified this 

agreement (Ref. 21). 

On September 17, 2008, Canada 

published PCB ban and phaseout 

regulations with bans starting in 2009 

for high concentration PCBs (Ref. 22). In 

the Canadian regulations, low-level (< 

500 ppm) equipment must be removed 

from use by 2025. 

C. Disposal and Cleanup Costs 

EPA anticipates that disposal costs 

may increase faster than the general 

increase in inflation or cost of living. 

The population of PCB-containing 

equipment is continually decreasing 

and will never grow or rebound due to 

the ban on manufacturing. This may 

make the economics of retaining a 

presence in the PCB storage and 

disposal industry potentially less 

economically attractive for the waste 

management industry. The numerous 

disposal options and excess disposal 

capacity currently present may not be 

available in the future, so the costs and 

benefits of continuing to operate aging 

equipment change in the future. The 

benefits of continued use of PCBcontaining equipment are also 

diminished by the increasing risk that 

aging equipment may fail in a manner 

that releases PCBs to the environment as 

that equipment reaches the end of its 

useful life. The cost of cleaning up PCB 

spills may exceed the cost of 

reclassifying or disposing of the intact 

PCB equipment and replacing it with 

new equipment. The consequences 

include both the direct costs to the 

equipment owners in damage, 

equipment replacement, service 

interruption, and lost revenue, and also 

the liability costs of losses to other 

parties, and compensation and potential 

fines for damages to human health and 

the environment. EPA seeks information 

and comment on how much the 

possibility of spills and the costs of 

cleanup affect the decisions of facility 

owners and operators regarding the 

management, removal, reclassification, 

or replacement of PCB equipment. 

D. Insurance Costs 

EPA believes that the cost of liability 

insurance for owners of PCB equipment 

is likely to increase significantly as the 

equipment continues to age. Insurers 

have already observed the increased rate 

of failure in equipment which is 

approaching the end of its useful life 

expectancy (Ref. 23). EPA anticipates 

that in the future there will be 

continuous increases in the cost of 

liability insurance to cover all 

equipment because of numbers of 

releases and contamination from PCB 

equipment which is at least 30 years 

old. EPA seeks comments on the 

comparison of the cost of future liability 

insurance with potential costs for 

testing and reclassification of 

potentially contaminated equipment 

either before it has failed or before there 

has been a determination made to 

dispose of it. EPA seeks information on 

historical changes in insurance 

premiums, as PCB-containing 

equipment has aged, and any 

projections of changes in future rates as 

a result of projected changes in failure 

rates. EPA also seeks information and 

comment on the extent to which the 

availability of commercial liability 

insurance or self-insurance by facilities 

affects facility owners’ and operators’ 

decisions on how to manage removal or 

reclassification of PCB equipment that 

may be nearing the end of its useful life. 

E. Hazard Assessment of PCBs 

EPA is evaluating the risks from 

polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin 

(PCDDs) and structurally similar 

chemicals, such as certain PCBs, 

through a process referred to as the 

Dioxin Reassessment (Ref. 24). 

Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, 

polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), 

and some PCBs as molecules are 

structurally similar and have been 

shown to have similar impacts on 

human health and the environment. 

Also, under certain conditions, the 

incomplete combustion of PCBcontaining materials produces PCDDs 

and PCDFs, including some of the more 

toxic congeners. Preliminary indications 

from the 2003 Draft Dioxin 

Reassessment are that the toxicity of 

PCBs in general is higher than the 

toxicity values that EPA used in 

developing previous TSCA PCB 

regulations. Some PCB congeners, 

sometimes referred to as co-planar PCBs 

or dioxin-like PCBs, are considered to 

have toxicities similar to the most toxic 

of the PCDDs and PCDFs. EPA has not 

yet determined how a potentially higher 

toxicity of these PCBs would impact 

regulatory findings used to make risk 

based decisions. It is possible that EPA 

would find that some risks, which were 

found to be reasonable using older PCB 

toxicity information, would be 

unreasonable when using potentially 

higher toxicity information. If this is the 

case, that information my affect any 

proposed rule that EPA might issue. 

Any proposed or final PCB rulemaking 

which relies on the contribution of 

dioxin-like PCBs to the overall toxicity 

of PCBs will be based on the finalized 

Dioxin Reassessment or another EPA 

peer-reviewed document. 

F. Risks of PCB Substitute Materials 

EPA seeks information on the current 

and likely future substitute materials for 

PCBs that are currently in use or may be 

put into service in the future. EPA is 

particularly interested in the chemical, 

physical, flammability, and 

toxicological properties of these 

materials. This information will be 

essential to a consideration of the net 

differences in risks, were these materials 

to be substituted for PCB equipment 

currently in use. 

G. Updating Information on Releases of 

PCBs 

EPA does not have a current, 

thorough national assessment of the 

risks to human health and the 

environment from PCB releases. 

Information is fragmentary and much of 

it is geographically limited. For 

instance, the Great Lakes program in 

which EPA participates has published 

recent estimates of PCB releases, but 

such estimates are statewide, and 

similar estimates are not available for all 

States in the United States (Ref. 25). The 

New York Academy of Sciences 

published a study of PCB releases into 

the waterways feeding into the New 

York/New Jersey harbor, breaking down 

the releases by type of source (Ref. 26), 

but similar studies are not available for 

most waterways in the country. Releases 

to the environment exceeding the 

reportable quantity for PCBs must be 

reported promptly to the National 

Response Center. In addition to the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

17652 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

information which is available through 

the National Response Center, EPA 

seeks any information or data on 

releases of PCBs, to the environment 

from all kinds of sources, in order to set 

the releases that are the subject of the 

regulations being considered into a 

larger context. EPA seeks information 

on the causes of such releases, whether 

the releases reached the environment or 

were contained, and any information on 

human health or environmental 

consequences. 

H. Risks From the Contamination of 

Food from PCB-Containing Oils 

Currently the use and storage for 

reuse of PCB transformers that pose an 

exposure risk to food or feed are 

prohibited (40 CFR 761.30(a)(1)(i)). The 

use and storage for reuse of large high 

voltage capacitors and large low voltage 

capacitors which pose an exposure risk 

to food or feed are also prohibited (40 

CFR 761.30(l)(1)(i)). However, both 

transformers and capacitors containing: 

• < 500 ppm PCBs at any weight or 

volume; or 

• < 1.36 kilograms (kg) or 3 lbs. of 

dielectric fluid at any PCB 

concentration, are not included in these 

prohibitions. 

To lessen the likelihood of such food 

and feed contamination from these 

sources, EPA is considering broadening 

the prohibition on the use and storage 

for reuse of PCBs that pose an exposure 

risk to food and feed, including PCB 

articles containing greater than 0.05 

liters (or approximately 1.7 fluid 

ounces) of dielectric fluid. PCB 

concentrations in food are regulated by 

the Food and Drug Administration and 

PCB concentrations in feed are regulated 

by the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA). 

There have been two recent incidents 

of particular note in Europe of very 

significant contamination of foods and a 

subsequent recall of those foods from 

the international market. Because of the 

presence of trace amounts of dioxins 

which are present in most PCBs, these 

two crises also became dioxin crises. 

These are discussed as follows. 

1. Belgium. The ‘‘Belgian PCB/dioxin 

crisis’’ began in January 1999, when 50 

kg of PCBs contaminated with 1 gram (g) 

of dioxins were accidentally added to a 

stock of recycled fat used for the 

production of 500 tons of animal feed in 

Belgium. Although signs of poultry 

poisoning were noticed by February 

1999, the extent of the contamination 

was publicly announced only in May 

1999, when it appeared that more than 

2,500 poultry and pig farms could have 

been involved. The highest 

concentrations of PCBs and dioxins and 

the highest percentage of affected 

animals were found in poultry. 

The Belgian government estimates 

that the dioxin crisis cost approximately 

$493 million, with approximately $106 

million attributed to the loss in the 

swine sector (in 1999 1 Euro = 1.06 U.S. 

dollars). As other European Union (EU) 

countries were also affected by export 

bans, the final cost of this incident 

worldwide will likely be higher (Refs. 

27, 28, and 29). 

2. Ireland. In December 2008, Irish 

pork products were removed from 

distribution in commerce. This action 

was taken by the Food Safety Authority 

of Ireland after finding levels of PCBs 

and PCDDs in the food at concentrations 

in excess of EU health standards for 

food. Preliminary investigations 

indicated that a single supplier’s feed, 

which had been contaminated from PCB 

oil in equipment, had been distributed 

to farmers broadly throughout the 

Republic of Ireland and Northern 

Ireland. All pork products produced in 

Ireland after September 1, 2008 were 

removed from sale in early December 

2008. Details of the full investigation 

and the economic impact of the 

contamination are not yet available 

(Refs. 30, 31, and 32). 

I. Risks in Public Buildings From 

Fluorescent Light Ballasts 

EPA is concerned about the release of 

high concentrations of PCBs from 

fluorescent light ballasts, particularly in 

public buildings, such as schools. There 

are anecdotal accounts of spills from 

this source and anecdotal information 

that PCB fluorescent light ballasts have 

a lifetime of less than 10 years. One of 

these spills was a significant release 

from fluorescent light ballasts, almost 20 

years after the publication of the PCB 

use regulations, at the Standing Rock 

Indian Reservation, ND. 

On February 2, 1998, there were 

complaints of respiratory problems in 

the administration buildings at the 

Standing Rock Indian Reservation in 

North Dakota. On February 5, 1998, EPA 

received an urgent telephone call from 

the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in North 

Dakota about possible PCB 

contamination from leaking fluorescent 

light ballasts. The light ballasts were 

located in the elementary school, 

administration building, high school 

library, and several Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA) buildings on the 

reservation (Refs. 33 and 34). EPA 

determined that many of the fluorescent 

light ballasts contained PCBs. A 

sampling contractor found PCBs above 

EPA’s PCB spill cleanup levels in light 

fixtures, office equipment and carpeting. 

BIA hired a contractor to decontaminate 

all areas where it found detectable 

levels. The contractor removed light 

ballasts and disposed of all ballasts and 

contaminated materials as PCB waste. A 

high school building where 

contamination was found was closed 

from February to June, but reopened for 

summer school. The cleanup for the 4 

buildings at Standing Rock cost BIA 

more than $500,000 (Ref. 35). The 

estimated cost for removing the nonleaking ballasts from 60 other buildings 

in the BIA Great Plains Region (formerly 

the Aberdeen Area) was $60,000. 

J. Environmental Justice Considerations 

EPA seeks comments on any 

disproportionate environmental and 

public health impacts that PCB use and 

distribution in commerce for use may 

have on minority, low-income, tribal, 

and disadvantaged populations. As 

explained in Unit III.D., it is noted that 

ATSDR has concluded that there may be 

an adverse impact on the health of 

persons who eat fish contaminated with 

PCBs. Disadvantaged populations may 

be more exposed to PCBs in 

contaminated fish than members of the 

general population. Some disadvantaged 

communities, such as Indian tribes, 

have subsistence lifestyles and rely on 

fish and mammals that may be caught 

in PCB contaminated waters and 

environs, as a primary source of 

nutrition. Fish in these waters may have 

been contaminated by both PCB wastes 

disposed of prior to the use 

authorizations, as well as releases that 

have occurred from the currently 

authorized use, distribution in 

commerce and disposal of PCBs (Refs. 

14, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41). 

In addition, EPA is concerned about 

the presence of the potential risks to 

urban environmental justice 

communities from PCB releases at 

railroad substations, electrical 

substations, and electrical equipment 

storage areas. EPA seeks specific 

information about the prevalence of 

spills and other releases, including fires, 

from the use of PCBs in environmental 

justice areas. The focus of the 

information gathering in Unit XIV. is 

owners and operators of regulated 

electrical equipment and those using 

PCBs which are authorized in part 40 

CFR part 761. However, EPA also seeks 

comments from minority, low-income, 

tribal, and disadvantaged persons and 

their representatives, who are not direct 

owners or users of PCBs and PCB 

equipment. 

EPA is also announcing public 

meetings to discuss the Agency’s 

reassessment of the existing PCB use 

authorizations at several locations 

around the country. The dates, 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 17653 

locations, and times of the meetings are 

included in Unit XIII. Any additional 

meetings will be announced on the PCB 

website (http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/ 

hazard/tsd/pcbs/index.htm) at least 30 

days prior to the first meeting date. 

Please refer to the PCB website or call 

Christine Zachek at (202) 566–2219 for 

further details. At these meetings, 

representatives of minority, low-income, 

tribal, and disadvantaged populations 

will be able to provide oral comments 

on the proposed regulations. These 

persons will also have the opportunity 

to provide comments to EPA as part of 

this ANPRM. 

VI. Summary of Possible Regulatory 

Changes for PCB-Containing Equipment 

Under Consideration 

This unit identifies possible changes 

to the PCB use regulations that EPA may 

consider in a future notice of proposed 

rulemaking. Any future regulatory 

action to propose these changes will be 

supported by an analysis of costs and 

benefits, as is required by TSCA. This 

analysis will be supported, in part, by 

the quality of the data submitted as a 

result of the ANPRM. 

A. Options for Initial Phaseout 

Regulations 

A potential phaseout of any PCB use 

authorizations might be implemented 

gradually, allowing some use to 

continue under more restrictions before 

the end of the use authorization. The 

Agency may consider a number of 

regulatory measures, including, but not 

limited to, the following: 

• Require testing of equipment which 

is stored for reuse or removed from 

service for any reason, and which is 

assumed to contain PCBs at 

concentrations ≥ 50 ppm in accordance 

with §761.2. 

• Require that where such equipment 

is found to contain PCBs at 

concentrations ≥ 50 ppm after testing, 

within 30 days of receiving the test 

results the owner must either reclassify 

the equipment to < 50 ppm PCBs or 

designate it for disposal. 

• Eliminate all currently authorized 

PCB equipment servicing except for 

reclassification. 

• Require marking of all equipment 

which is known or assumed (in 

accordance with §761.2) to contain 

PCBs at ≥ 50 ppm. 

• Increase the inspection frequency to 

a minimum of once every month for 

non-leaking known or assumed ≥ 500 

ppm PCB equipment in use. 

• Before the final phaseout date(s), 

broaden the prohibition on the use of 

PCBs in transformers that pose an 

exposure risk to food or feed to include 

use of PCB-contaminated transformers. 

• Broaden the definition of PCB 

article (this would also require changing 

other definitions) to include all 

equipment containing > 0.05 liters (or 

approximately 1.7 fluid ounces) of 

dielectric fluid with ≥ 50 ppm PCBs, in 

place of the current definition which 

regulates transformers and capacitors 

containing ≥ 3 lbs. of dielectric fluid. 

• Require registration of PCB large 

capacitors containing a specified 

volume of dielectric fluid or having a 

specified external volume or 

dimensions. 

• Eliminate the authorization for 

storage of PCB equipment for reuse. 

• Eliminate the use authorization for 

PCBs in carbonless copy paper. 

• Eliminate totally enclosed 

determination for distribution in 

commerce. 

• Require reporting/notification to 

EPA Regional Administrators when 

PCBs are found in any pipeline system, 

regardless of the source of PCBs or the 

owner of the pipeline. 

B. Potential Time Frames for 

Completing the Removal of PCB 

Equipment From Service 

These measures would phaseout all 

PCB-electrical equipment uses with 

interim deadlines by equipment 

concentration and type. 

• By 2015, eliminate all use of askarel 

equipment (≥ 100,000 ppm PCBs), 

removing from service the equipment in 

high potential exposure areas first. EPA 

is considering allowing exceptions on a 

case-by-case basis based on hardship 

and no unreasonable risk. Exceptions 

may be granted based on an application 

and approved exceptions may be 

published on the PCB website. 

• By 2020, eliminate all use of oilfilled PCB equipment (≥ 500 ppm) and 

the authorization for use of PCBs at ≥ 50 

ppm in pipeline systems. 

• By 2025, eliminate all use of any 

PCB contaminated equipment (≥ 50 

ppm), which is still authorized for use. 

VII. Information to Be Considered 

During EPA Reassessment of PCB Use 

Authorizations 

This unit outlines what information 

EPA believes is important to consider 

when reassessing PCB use 

authorizations. EPA seeks comment on 

any other information, which may not 

be included in this unit, but which you 

believe is important for EPA to consider 

when reassessing PCB use 

authorizations. 

A. Liquid-filled Electrical Equipment 

(Except Railroad Transformers and 

Mining Equipment) 

EPA seeks information on the specific 

population of any electrical equipment 

that contains greater than 2 fluid ounces 

of dielectric fluid with PCBs ≥ 1 ppm 

and that was manufactured prior to July 

31, 1979: Transformers (regulated at 40 

CFR 761.30(a)), electromagnets 

(regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(a)), 

switches (regulated at 40 CFR 

761.30(h)), voltage regulators (regulated 

at 40 CFR 761.30(h)), electrical 

capacitors (regulated at 40 CFR 

761.30(l)), circuit breakers (regulated at 

40 CFR 761.30(m)), reclosers (regulated 

at 40 CFR 761.30(m)), liquid-filled cable 

(regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(m)), and 

rectifiers (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(r)). 

Each unit describes specifically what 

information EPA solicits. EPA 

encourages small business owners and 

small municipal and cooperative 

utilities to provide details on their PCBcontaining electrical equipment 

population characteristics and their 

management activities for the 

equipment. 

1. Population characteristics for 

transformers, electromagnets, switches, 

voltage regulators, electrical capacitors, 

circuit breakers, reclosers, liquid-filled 

cable, and rectifiers. Information that 

EPA seeks about the use of this 

equipment appears in questions, which 

are located in Unit XIV.A.–E. 

2. Servicing. Since the first use 

regulations for liquid-filled PCBcontaining equipment, EPA has 

continued to prescribe conditions for 

authorized servicing (maintaining or 

repairing) this equipment, which 

facilitated extending the life of the 

equipment, in order to ease the hardship 

an immediate ban would have caused 

owners. Most life-extending use 

conditions are included in the 

authorization for servicing: 

• Draining, repairing, and putting 

back into service PCB-contaminated 

electrical equipment. 

• Topping off and putting back into 

service PCB-electrical equipment. 

• Blending the oil drained from 

multiple pieces of PCB-containing 

equipment for servicing. 

• Adding blended or other PCBcontaining oil into repaired, drained 

equipment. 

• Reclassifying. 

• Distributing PCB-containing 

equipment in commerce for repair 

without manifesting. 

• Storing company-owned 

equipment for servicing without any 

conditions to protect against leaks or 

spills. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

17654 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

• Servicing equipment which is 

owned by others, without having 

commercial storage approvals. 

EPA believes that this equipment is 

nearing the final stages of useful life, 

after a minimum of 30 years of use. 

When this aging equipment fails to 

function in use or is otherwise removed 

from service, and if there is a need to 

prolong the life of the equipment, EPA 

believes that the PCBs should be 

removed from the equipment and 

disposed of in accordance with the 

regulations in 40 CFR part 761, subpart 

D. The reclassification of out-of-service 

equipment could be considered 

preventive maintenance and does not 

require service interruption, lost 

revenue, or liability costs of losses to 

other parties. In the brochure, entitled 

‘‘Promoting the Voluntary Phase-Down 

of PCB-Containing Equipment,’’ 

published in October 2005 by the 

Utilities Solid Waste Activities Group 

(USWAG) (Ref. 42), it states that: 

Many utility companies across the country 

have procedures in place to ensure that most 

equipment containing PCBs in 

concentrations > 50 ppm identified after 

removal from the field is either disposed of 

and not returned to service or retrofilled 

before being returned to service. This 

practice helps ensure the accelerated 

retirement from service of a large class of 

potentially PCB-containing equipment (e.g., 

distribution pole-top and padmount 

transformers) that could otherwise lawfully 

be placed back into service. USWAG will 

continue to actively promote these systematic 

practices of voluntarily identifying and 

retiring PCB-containing equipment from 

service. 

On April 2, 2001, EPA provided new 

reclassification procedures which 

include refilling mineral oil filled 

equipment with liquid containing < 2 

ppm total PCBs (Ref. 10). A majority of 

liquid-filled equipment which was 

manufactured to contain mineral oil 

dielectric fluid (mineral oil) and which 

remains in use can be easily reclassified 

to contain < 50 ppm with a thorough 

draining and refilling with liquid 

containing < 2 ppm PCBs. If an owner 

determines that the equipment is not 

worth reclassifying, there currently are 

numerous disposal options and excess 

disposal capacity for the equipment. 

EPA seeks information on the types and 

extent of service-extending maintenance 

and rebuilding of PCB-containing 

transformers, railroad transformers, heat 

transfer systems, hydraulic systems, 

electromagnets, switches, voltage 

regulators, circuit breakers, reclosers, 

cable, and rectifiers. EPA’s questions 

about servicing are located in Unit 

XIV.F. 

3. Identifying and managing the use, 

removal from use, and disposal. In the 

public comments provided during the 

1979 rulemaking, electrical equipment 

owners stated that they did not know 

where PCB-containing equipment was 

located (Ref. 3). In the 30 years since, 

EPA believes that it would have been 

prudent for owners to implement a plan 

during that time to locate any regulated 

equipment. The common use and 

availability of bar code labels and 

scanning equipment and user-friendly 

computerized inventory management 

systems, plus the ability of global 

positioning systems to precisely specify 

locations, should facilitate the 

development and maintenance of an 

inventory of PCB-containing regulated 

equipment. Equipment owners 

previously told EPA that it was not 

possible to determine whether mineral 

oil-filled equipment contained PCBs 

unless the oil was tested, and testing 

was expensive. EPA agrees that it is 

necessary to collect oil to test it and 

there is a cost associated with the oil 

sample collection and chemical 

analysis. However, at the time of 

disposal it is already necessary to test to 

determine the PCB concentration to 

determine how the equipment is 

regulated for disposal. Based on current 

regulatory requirements, the cost of 

chemical analysis would have to be paid 

at the time of the disposal of the 

equipment, regardless of a non-attritionbased phaseout. Collection and analysis 

of oil would only be an additional cost 

if EPA imposes a new requirement to 

test in-service and energized equipment. 

Currently there are several options 

available for equipment that is no longer 

operable, or is otherwise designated for 

disposal. For equipment with recyclable 

metals, some disposal companies are 

paying for this equipment, because they 

can recover their costs and make a 

profit, even when paying the waste 

generator for ‘‘scrap metal.’’ In 2001, 

EPA facilitated the reclassification of 

electrical equipment making this a cost 

effective means of removing the risk 

from PCBs in equipment, while 

continuing to use the equipment until it 

no longer functions or is voluntarily 

removed from service for disposal (Ref. 

10). 

In 1996, EPA surveyed the PCB 

disposal industry and found that there 

was a large capacity surplus (Ref. 35). 

However, as the PCB disposal market 

increasingly becomes smaller, it may be 

that fewer disposers will find it 

economical to retain licenses and 

disposal facilities for this small market, 

decreasing the number of options 

available and very likely increasing the 

costs for the remaining options. Any 

increased cost of fuel employed in many 

disposal technologies and for the 

transportation of equipment to disposers 

will likely also increase disposal costs 

in the future. The potential increase in 

disposal costs in the future may make it 

economically advantageous to either 

reclassify equipment or dispose of it 

now, even if it has not reached the end 

of its useful life. 

Owners commented in 1979 that there 

were few commercial storers for PCB 

wastes (Ref. 3). Currently, EPA believes 

that there is an excess of storage 

capacity. Like disposal, commercial 

storage capacity could also decrease as 

the supply of PCB equipment 

diminishes. EPA seeks information on 

whether advancing the date of testing 

from some future disposal date to a date 

closer to the present time would present 

cost, economic, or management 

difficulties or advantages to the owners 

and operators of PCB-containing 

equipment. 

4. Information about an increased 

failure rate of vintage electrical 

equipment. A 2002 report, Life Cycle 

Management of Utility Transformer 

Assets, by the Hartford Steam Boiler 

Inspection and Insurance Company, 

uses information from claims filed by 

policy holders with the insurer for 

failed transformers, regardless of 

whether they contained PCBs (Ref. 23). 

The information has been used to 

estimate or predict when equipment 

will fail, based on historical failures for 

which claims were filed. This document 

also highlights that the electricity 

demand load grew 35% and the 

transmission capacity grew 18% over 

the 10 preceding years. EPA is 

concerned that the rate of failures for 

transformers manufactured in the 1950s, 

1960s, and 1970s may increase 

substantially in the future. EPA seeks 

data on the failure rate in the last 10 

years and the results and documentation 

of recent modeling of projections of 

failures into the future. EPA seeks 

information on any differences in failure 

rate for different types of equipment of 

different vintages, and differences in 

failure rates for equipment which is 

located indoors as compared to outdoors 

and what effect, if any, that electronic 

monitoring and other maintenance 

methods have had on failure rates. 

EPA’s questions about failure rates are 

located in Unit XIV.G. 

5. Severe weather event and other 

natural disasters increase the potential 

risk from PCBs. There have been recent 

severe weather events (e.g., Hurricane 

Katrina (Ref. 44), Tornado in 

Greensburg, KS (Ref. 45)) where there 

was significant damage to electrical 

equipment of all ages, both containing 

PCBs and not containing PCBs. 

Although there have not been reports of 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 17655 

natural disasters such as earthquakes, 

mudslides, or volcanic eruptions which 

resulted in significant spills of PCBs, 

there is a possibility that this could have 

occurred in some regions of the country. 

These unpreventable events contribute 

to catastrophically ending the useful life 

of PCB-containing equipment and the 

uncontrolled release of PCBs. EPA 

believes that one cost-effective 

protection against PCB releases from 

these weather events and natural 

disasters may be a proactive program to 

test equipment that is taken out of 

service for PCBs, and to remove, test, 

and replace or retrofill equipment in 

service that is known or assumed to 

contain PCBs, especially the equipment 

in locations and areas where a release 

would present the greatest risk. EPA is 

also concerned about areas which may 

not be directly contaminated from 

nearby equipment ravaged by severe 

weather, but where spilled PCBs from 

that weather event might be expected to 

migrate and accumulate, such as 

spillways and drinking water reservoirs. 

Answers to the questions about severe 

weather events in Unit XIV.H. and other 

related comments will assist EPA in the 

reassessment of the use of PCBcontaining electrical equipment. 

6. Alternatives to PCB liquids. One 

type of information the Agency is 

soliciting for its proposed rulemaking 

relates to alternatives to the use of PCBs 

in liquid-filled equipment. To EPA’s 

knowledge, satisfactory substitutes are 

available to replace PCBs in all 

electrical equipment applications. The 

Agency welcomes comments on the 

comparative costs and the effectiveness 

of various substitutes in reducing fires 

and heat-related degradation or 

destruction of equipment. EPA seeks 

information on the hazards and the risks 

posed by these PCB substitutes. EPA’s 

questions about alternatives to PCB 

liquids are located in Unit XIV.I. 

7. Removal and replacement costs. 

EPA seeks information on the costs of 

removing and replacing old PCBcontaining equipment with new or used 

non-PCB equipment based on attrition 

(i.e., end of equipment’s useful life) and 

based on removal in advance of 

attrition. In particular, EPA would like 

to have information on: 

• How often any equipment (PCBcontaining or non-PCB–containing) of 

the same age or size is replaced per year 

and the costs for replacement. 

• Costs for replacement include 

cheapest source, foreign, or domestic, 

including transport and transaction 

costs. 

• The price for replacement of 

various types and classes of equipment 

each year over the last 30 years, as well 

as estimated or projected future prices. 

EPA seeks information that explains: 

• The impact of changes in system 

distribution and transmission voltage on 

the potential obsolescence of mineral 

oil-filled equipment, which was 

manufactured before 1979 would be 

useful. 

• The cost impact of replacing 

mineral oil-filled equipment, which was 

manufactured before 1979, with more 

modern equipment with respect to 

efficiency, longevity, or any other 

attribute which would create an 

economic incentive to hasten the 

phaseout of older equipment. 

Further, EPA solicits information on the 

numbers of these units manufactured 

before 1979 that are: 

• Expected to be replaced or 

excessed during system voltage changes. 

• Planned for distribution in 

commerce for use. EPA would also like 

to know to whom these excessed units 

would most likely be sold. 

EPA seeks information on the costs of 

service interruptions and revenue loss 

which may result from equipment 

replacement, either scheduled or 

unplanned. Similarly, EPA solicits 

comments on the current and estimated 

future supply of replacement 

equipment, when PCB–containing 

equipment is moved out of service 

before the end of its useful life. 

Reclassification options and procedures 

in the regulations were broadened in 

2001 (Ref. 10) and EPA seeks comments 

on the costs and advantages found for 

this option, as opposed to disposal. EPA 

encourages small business owners, and 

small municipal and cooperative 

utilities to provide details on their PCBcontaining electrical equipment 

replacement schedules and costs. EPA’s 

questions about PCB equipment removal 

and replacement costs are located in 

Unit XIV.J. 

8. Current PCB waste disposal 

capacity. EPA solicits comments on the 

availability of disposal capacity for 

PCBs in liquids at concentrations ≥ 50 

ppm by weight, and for other materials 

in drained electrical equipment. EPA 

also seeks comments on the economic 

benefits of decontamination and 

recycling of liquids or non-liquids in 

this equipment, where possible. In 1979, 

PCB disposal options and capacity were 

limited and the potential demand on 

disposal capacity from a ban or 

phaseout of PCB-containing equipment 

would have been high. EPA also seeks 

information on whether there currently 

is a charge to the equipment owner 

(waste generator) for disposing of 

equipment which will be 

decontaminated and then sold as scrap 

metal. EPA also seeks information on 

the cost for disposing of mineral oil 

contaminated with PCBs. EPA has seen 

a continuous decrease in the numbers of 

PCB disposal approvals issued over the 

last 10 years. EPA seeks comment on 

what the disposal industry predicts with 

respect to the future number of 

approved PCB disposal and storage 

companies, future disposal and storage 

capacity, and the future cost of 

commercial storage and disposal of 

electrical equipment waste as compared 

to current disposal costs. EPA’s 

questions about PCB waste disposal 

capacity are located in Unit XIV.K. 

9. Current equipment management 

practices. EPA solicits information on 

the current management practices 

intended to reduce the risk from PCBs 

in the following types of equipment that 

contain PCBs at concentrations of ≥ 1 

ppm: Electrical transformers, railroad 

transformers, mining equipment, 

electromagnets, switches, voltage 

regulators, electrical capacitors, circuit 

breakers, reclosers, liquid-filled cable, 

and rectifiers. EPA encourages small 

business owners, small municipal and 

cooperative utilities to provide details 

on their PCB-containing electrical 

equipment management activities. 

EPA’s questions addressing the 

information that EPA seeks about 

equipment current management 

practices are located in Unit XIV.L. 

10. Electrical equipment which 

contains non-liquid PCBs at 

concentrations ≥ 1 ppm. EPA seeks 

information on electrical equipment, 

such as tar-filled equipment, which was 

manufactured prior to July 31, 1979, in 

the following categories: Containing 

non-liquid PCBs at concentrations ≥ 1 

ppm and < 50 ppm, ≥ 50 ppm and < 500 

ppm, ≥ 500 ppm and < 100,000 ppm, 

and ≥ 100,000 ppm. EPA seeks this 

information for the following non-liquid 

filled equipment types: Transformers, 

electromagnets, switches, voltage 

regulators, electrical capacitors, circuit 

breakers, reclosers, rectifiers, and any 

other equipment populations (such as 

paper insulated lead cable and 

bushings). EPA’s questions about 

electrical equipment which contains 

non-liquid PCBs at concentrations ≥ 1 

ppm are located in Unit XIV.M. 

11. Impact of vandalism and theft on 

the risk from PCBs. The presence of 

PCBs in equipment subject to vandalism 

incidents could increase potential risk 

not only to the vandal, but to others in 

the area. In particular, EPA is concerned 

about areas which may not be directly 

contaminated from the nearby 

equipment impacted by vandalism but 

also areas where spilled PCBs from that 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

17656 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

vandalism might be expected to migrate 

and accumulate such as low-lying 

residential neighborhoods and cropland. 

EPA solicits data on the number of units 

lost and the cost from losses from 

vandalism and theft of electrical 

transformers, railroad transformers, 

mining equipment, heat transfer 

systems, hydraulic systems, 

electromagnets, switches, voltage 

regulators, electrical capacitors, circuit 

breakers, reclosers, liquid-filled cable, 

and rectifiers. EPA seeks information on 

the rate of occurrence of vandalism 

events involving PCB-containing 

equipment in each calendar year 

starting from 1998 until 2008, including 

how many gallons of oil have been lost 

from equipment and what has been the 

cost from this loss of oil. EPA’s 

questions about the impact of vandalism 

and theft on the risk from PCBs are 

located in Unit XIV.N. 

12. Fraudulent export for scrap metal 

recovery. EPA is concerned about the 

potential for incidents where used 

electrical equipment is exported for 

purported reuse, but where the 

equipment is actually scrapped or 

smelted for recovery of metal 

components. Elimination of the totally 

enclosed determination for distribution 

in commerce will restrict the fraudulent 

practice of export of equipment in the 

guise of reuse, when the exported 

equipment will not be used, properly 

reclassified/decontaminated, or 

disposed of in an environmentally 

sound manner. EPA is concerned that 

metal recycling facilities may not 

manage the exported equipment and the 

PCBs in an environmentally sound 

manner; and scrap metal management 

workers may not be protected from 

exposure to PCBs or even know that 

PCBs are present in the exported 

equipment. 

13. Reclassification of askarel 

transformers. EPA is concerned that 

reclassification of askarel transformers 

(which were manufactured to contain ≥ 

500,000 ppm PCBs) is generally 

ineffective because PCBs leach back out 

of internal components several years 

after the active processing to reclassify 

is completed. This seems plausible 

because of the nature of the inner 

structure of transformers. EPA is 

considering whether to restrict the 

reclassification option to electrical 

equipment which at the time of 

manufacture contains < 10,000 ppm (< 

1%) PCBs, based on the inability to 

drain and flush PCBs efficiently from 

askarel PCB equipment. EPA’s questions 

about the reclassification of askarel 

transformers are located in Unit XIV.O. 

14. Registration of PCB large 

capacitors. PCBs were formulated at 

concentrations from about 75 weight 

percent to about 100 weight percent (or 

750,000 ppm to 1,000,000 ppm) in 

capacitors (Ref. 46). Therefore, the 

amount of PCBs in the smallest PCB 

large capacitor, which contains 1.36 kg 

or 3 lbs. of dielectric fluid, is about 1.02 

kg. (or about 2.25 lbs.). There could be 

as much PCBs of the same PCB 

formulation in the smallest PCB large 

capacitor as the approximately the same 

amount of PCBs in a transformer which 

contains 600 gallons of 500 ppm PCBs 

in mineral oil dielectric fluid. The 

regulations currently require that a 

mineral oil transformer containing 600 

gallons of 500 ppm PCBs and even a 

much smaller 1–gallon transformer 

containing 500 ppm of PCBs in mineral 

oil dielectric fluid to be registered with 

EPA. In order to protect first responders 

and others who might potentially be 

accidentally exposed to PCBs from PCB 

large capacitors, EPA is assessing 

whether to require registration of some 

or all PCB capacitors currently in use 

with EPA. EPA could publish and post 

the register of the capacitors on the PCB 

website as it has the Transformer 

Registration Database. 

B. Railroad Transformers (Regulated at 

40 CFR 761.30(b)) 

At the time of the 1979 rulemaking 

there were a limited number of PCB 

transformers used on electric railroad 

engines and cars. The railroads where 

the askarel PCB equipment was used 

were located in the northeastern part of 

the country, mainly in Pennsylvania, 

New Jersey, and New York (Ref. 47). 

Because of the known leakage from this 

equipment and the requirement for 

frequent servicing, EPA found that the 

distribution in commerce of this 

equipment was not totally enclosed. The 

leaks from the use of this equipment 

have resulted in Superfund PCB 

cleanups of some Southeastern 

Pennsylvania Transportation Authority 

(SEPTA) track areas. EPA assumes that 

by now, all of the PCB railroad 

transformers have either been removed 

from service or the dielectric fluid has 

been replaced and that all railway 

transformers are now operating with 

dielectric fluid which contains < 50 

ppm PCBs. EPA seeks comments on the 

continued use of PCBs in railroad 

transformers, and is considering 

eliminating the authorization for the use 

of PCBs in railroad transformers at 

concentrations greater than 1 ppm. 

EPA’s questions about the railroad 

transformers are located in Unit XIV.P. 

C. Mining Equipment (Regulated at 40 

CFR 761.30(c)) 

In 1978, there were only very limited 

uses of PCBs in electric motors in fewer 

than 1,000 mining machines (Ref. 2). 

The motors were manufactured in the 

1960s and early 1970s by one company 

and used in machinery manufactured by 

another company. The PCBs were used 

as a motor coolant. Because of its 

operating conditions, this equipment 

must frequently be rebuilt. Based on the 

small usage in 1979 and the expected 

relative short life of this limited use 

population, EPA believes it is likely that 

PCBs are no longer used in the motors 

of mining equipment. EPA seeks 

comments on whether there is any 

continued use of PCBs in such electric 

motors in mining equipment and 

whether EPA should eliminate the 

authorization for the use of PCBs in 

mining equipment at concentrations > 1 

ppm. EPA’s questions about mining 

equipment are located in Unit XIV.Q. 

D. Heat Transfer Systems (Regulated at 

40 CFR 761.30(d)) and Hydraulic 

Systems (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(e)) 

Heat transfer systems and hydraulic 

systems have been authorized for use 

since 1984, when they contain PCBs at 

concentrations < 50 ppm. Because of the 

common leakage from this equipment 

and the frequent requirement for 

servicing, the distribution in commerce 

of this equipment was not found to be 

totally enclosed. The regulatory 

provisions for this equipment at 40 CFR 

761.30(d) and (e) have been in place for 

almost 25 years. EPA seeks information 

on the number of these units, their 

types, and how frequently draining and 

refilling takes place. Because these types 

of equipment are often serviced by 

draining and refilling with new PCBfree fluid, EPA believes it is likely that 

any residual PCBs present in equipment 

that was in use in 1984, has been 

diluted through servicing to a 

concentration far below 50 ppm. There 

may be no reason to continue an 

authorization of PCBs in equipment at 

measurable concentrations. EPA seeks 

information demonstrating a need to 

continue to use PCBs in heat transfer 

systems and hydraulic systems at 

concentrations greater than 1 ppm. 

E. Carbonless Copy Paper (Regulated at 

40 CFR 761.30(f)) 

In 1979, there were many files 

containing carbonless copy paper. EPA 

does not have information on whether 

the information on this 30–year old, 

thin carbon copy paper is still legible, 

and if it is not legible, why it cannot be 

disposed of. Thirty years later it may be 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 17657 

feasible and economical to convert any 

necessary, legible information and 

records from carbonless copy paper to a 

different storage medium. EPA seeks 

information on the volume of records on 

carbonless copy paper, the records’ 

locations, and the types of business, 

government agencies, or other holders of 

such documents. EPA would like to 

know whether holders of such 

documents are smaller or larger 

businesses, and whether the size or type 

of the business would affect the 

economic feasibility of document 

conversion. EPA seeks comments on 

whether carbonless copy paper 

containing PCBs is still in use and 

whether there is a need to continue the 

existing use authorization for this paper. 

F. Continued Use of Porous Surfaces 

Contaminated with PCBs Regulated for 

Disposal by Spills of Liquid PCBs 

(Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(p)) 

EPA is considering changing 40 CFR 

761.30(p) to reflect the continued 

potential risk from contaminated porous 

surfaces. Persons who are potentially 

exposed to contaminated porous 

surfaces should be protected from air 

emissions, which are not eliminated 

under the existing use authorizations by 

encapsulation or metal covers. EPA’s 

questions about the use of contaminated 

porous surfaces are located in Unit 

XIV.R. 

G. Use in Fluid and Gas Transmission 

and Distribution Systems (Regulated at 

40 CFR 761.30(i), 40 CFR 761.30(s), and 

40 CFR 761.30(t)) 

In comments on the June 7, 1978, 

proposed rule (Ref. 5), which was 

finalized in 1979, two natural gas 

transmission companies claimed that 

they had PCBs in turbine compressors at 

concentrations ≥ 50 ppm, but they could 

not reduce these concentrations to 

levels < 50 ppm in the near future. One 

company claimed to have removed all of 

the PCB turbine oil in 1972. The 

companies claimed that the PCBs would 

not leak out of the compressors into 

other parts of the natural gas pipeline 

system. In the May 31, 1979 final rule 

(Ref. 3), EPA prohibited the use of PCBs 

at concentrations > 50 ppm in natural 

gas pipeline systems, effective as of May 

1, 1980. 

In the early 1980s, PCBs were found 

in a cold trap in the gas line outside a 

home in New York. In 1981, EPA 

entered into agreements with 13 natural 

gas transmission companies which had 

PCBs at concentrations ≥ 50 ppm in 

their systems but outside of turbine 

compressors (Ref. 48). 

It is not clear exactly how the PCBs 

entered the systems if they did not come 

from the turbine compressors. After 

nearly 30 years of operations and after 

all known sources of PCBs were 

removed from these systems, EPA has 

information indicating that PCBs at 

levels ≥ 50 ppm continue to be found in 

natural gas pipeline systems including 

within equipment which is not 

specifically designed to collect such 

material. EPA believes that the 

authorized use conditions in the current 

regulations should have resulted in 

companies removing PCBs to the extent 

that there no longer are PCBs in the 

systems at concentrations ≥ 50 ppm. 

EPA is considering requiring 

sampling and analyzing individual 

condensate samples (not composites or 

accumulations) to determine the extent 

of the PCB contamination when any 

person finds PCBs in any pipeline 

system at concentrations ≥ 1 ppm. 

Owners would be required to analyze 

condensate from surrounding areas to 

confirm that regulated PCBs were not 

present in the system. Regardless of the 

original or current source of the PCBs, 

owners would report results of ≥ 50 

ppm findings to EPA. EPA is also 

considering whether to propose ending 

the use authorization for PCBs at 

concentrations ≥ 1 ppm in these systems 

by 2020 or an earlier date. In this phasedown approach, owners would also be 

required to analyze current condensate 

in areas having historical PCB 

measurements to confirm the absence of 

PCBs during the period prior to the final 

phaseout date. If PCBs are found, 

owners would have to demonstrate they 

have reduced PCB concentrations to < 1 

ppm or have implemented engineering 

controls similar to the current 

requirements in 40 CFR 

761.30(i)(1)(iii)(A)(4) to reduce and 

prevent migration of PCB impacted 

material. EPA seeks comments on the 

continued use of PCBs in fluid and gas 

transmission and distribution systems. 

EPA’s questions about use in gas 

transmission and distribution systems 

are located in Unit XIV.S. 

EPA has little information on the need 

to continue the use authorizations at 40 

CFR 761.30(s) for air compressor 

systems and 40 CFR 761.30(t) for other 

gas or liquid transmission systems. The 

10 years that these authorizations have 

been in place should have allowed 

owners sufficient time to purge the 

PCBs from their systems. EPA is 

considering whether to terminate or 

significantly limit the duration of these 

authorizations. 

H. Use in Research and Development 

(Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(j), 

Scientific Instruments (Regulated at 40 

CFR 761.30(k)), and Decontaminated 

Materials (Regulated at 40 CFR 

761.30(u)) 

EPA is not currently planning to 

reassess the authorizations for: Use in 

research and development, scientific 

instruments, and decontaminated 

materials. However, EPA welcomes 

comments on these use authorizations. 

I. No Use Authorization for PCBContaining Electrical Equipment Parts 

There is no use authorization for parts 

or detached ancillary equipment, such 

as bushings, for electrical equipment 

when separate from that equipment. 

Bushings contain insulating material 

separated from the primary equipment’s 

insulating fluid. Bushings may be 

removed from equipment during 

servicing or transportation. Utilities 

have told EPA that it is necessary to 

store bushings for reuse, especially for 

large transmission electrical equipment. 

There is no use authorization in 40 CFR 

part 761, subpart B, for bushings, which 

are no longer attached to or associated 

with a specific article of authorized 

equipment (Ref. 10). EPA seeks 

information on the feasibility of 

reclassifying bushings or other ancillary 

equipment, which can be used as spare 

parts. EPA seeks information on the 

economic value of continuing to 

maintain such PCB-containing parts and 

ancillary equipment in inventories of 

utility companies and industrial 

facilities. EPA’s questions about the use 

of PCB-containing electrical equipment 

parts are located in Unit XIV.Y. 

J. Reassessment of the Possible 

Authorization of the Use of Some NonLiquid PCB-Containing Products 

The use of PCBs at concentrations of 

50 ppm or greater in caulk products, 

regardless of whether the PCBs were 

created by an inadvertent chemical 

reaction during the manufacturing 

process or were added to the caulk 

afterward, is not currently authorized 

under TSCA section 6. EPA requests 

comments on whether the use of PCBs 

in caulk should be authorized, and what 

data or other information is available on 

which to evaluate the risks and benefits 

of the use of PCB-containing caulk. 

EPA’s questions about authorization of 

some non-liquid PCB-containing 

products are located in Unit XIV.Z. 

VIII. Storage for Reuse of PCB Articles 

(Regulated at 40 CFR 761.35) 

EPA established limits on storage of 

PCB articles for reuse at 40 CFR 761.35. 

These limits were established to curtail 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

17658 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

storage practices which were not in 

keeping with the statutory objectives of: 

1. A general ban on use with limited 

exceptions. 

2. Quick disposal of PCB-containing 

equipment which was no longer used or 

usable. 

3. Protection of human health and the 

environment from risks presented by 

PCBs. 

When the PCB regulations were first 

promulgated in the late 1970’s, EPA 

recognized that it might be necessary to 

have PCB-containing spare equipment 

to press into use when other new or 

reasonably new equipment needed to be 

replaced. However, nearly 30 years 

later, the demand for PCB-containing 

equipment replacements should be 

much lower. EPA has information 

indicating that the older unused PCB 

equipment, now 30 years old or older, 

does emit PCBs even when sealed and 

still can leak even when it is not 

energized. EPA also seeks information 

about whether stored non-askarel 

equipment could be reclassified while it 

is in storage for reuse. EPA also is 

concerned that equipment, which is 

stored for reuse outside of a secure 

storage facility, is more susceptible to 

potential releases of PCBs to the 

environment from accidents, both 

weather-related and the result of the 

owner’s activities, and to vandalism or 

theft. 

EPA seeks information on the location 

of equipment being stored for reuse, 

especially in relationship to the 

equipment it is to replace. EPA seeks 

information on the economic value of 

continuing to maintain PCB-containing 

equipment which is not in use, in 

inventories of utility companies and 

industrial facilities. EPA’s questions 

about storage for reuse of PCB articles 

are located in Unit XIV.T. 

IX. Distribution in Commerce of 

Electrical Equipment (Regulated at 40 

CFR 761.20) 

PCBs have been measured in the 

ambient air coming from PCBcontaining equipment in storage for 

disposal in an approved PCB storage 

facility. Information about the 

measurement of PCBs in the ambient 

environment around stored electrical 

equipment indicates that aging 

equipment appears to no longer be 

airtight, even if seemingly ‘‘intact and 

non-leaking’’ upon cursory visual 

inspection (Ref. 11). If this stored 

equipment is not airtight, there must 

also be releases during use and 

transportation (distribution in 

commerce) of this equipment, despite 

its deenergized state. EPA is also 

concerned about and seeks information 

on the frequency of PCB surface 

contamination on this equipment and 

the practice of routine inspection for the 

presence of residual PCB surface 

contamination on equipment, by using a 

standard wipe test. For this reason, EPA 

questions whether the historical 

determination that distribution in 

commerce of PCBs in electrical 

equipment still can be considered 

totally enclosed in accordance with 

TSCA section 6(e)(2)(C). Elimination of 

distribution in commerce of this PCBcontaining equipment for reuse could 

also prevent the fraudulent practice of a 

guise of resale for reuse. One fraudulent 

practice is a claim of the export of 

regulated PCB-containing equipment for 

reuse to avoid proper domestic 

reclassification or disposal, when the 

equipment is intended only for foreign 

scrap metal recovery. EPA’s questions 

about distribution in commerce are 

located in Unit XIV.U. 

X. Reconsideration of the Use of the 50 

ppm Level for Excluded PCB Products, 

in Particular for PCBs in Caulk 

The level of 50 ppm has been used in 

PCB use regulations since 1979. Based 

on regulatory history, this number is 

based almost entirely on economic 

considerations. There are no traditional 

exposure and risk assessment 

calculations (Refs. 3 and 8). EPA seeks 

comments on the application of the 

value of 50 ppm as the upper value in 

the definition of Excluded PCB products 

in 40 CFR 761.3. One such excluded 

product is PCBs in caulk where PCBs 

are present at concentrations < 50 ppm. 

EPA is seeking comment and any 

supporting data or other information on 

whether the number 50 ppm should be 

changed given the recent realization that 

the use of PCBs in caulk may be 

widespread and may be an undue 

burden for schools if the exclusion 

continues at 50 ppm. EPA’s questions 

about excluded PCB products are 

located in Unit XIV.X. 

XI. Definitional Changes Under 

Consideration (Located at 40 CFR 

761.3) 

EPA is considering proposing changes 

to the following definitions found at 

§761.3, and solicits comments on these 

changes. 

A. PCB Articles 

The definition of PCB articles in 

§761.3 includes transformers and 

capacitors, but it has no mention of size 

or the volume of liquid contained in the 

article. EPA is considering changing this 

definition to regulate equipment 

containing ≥ 0.05 liters (approximately 

1.7 fluid ounces) of dielectric fluid. 

Definitions for Capacitor, PCB 

Capacitor, PCB Transformer, and PCBcontaminated Electrical Equipment 

would be adjusted accordingly. This 

revision would correspond to minimum 

volumes for liquid-filled equipment 

found in the Stockholm Convention. 

EPA seeks information on the type 

and volume of PCB products that would 

be affected by such changes in the 

definition, as well as the cost, economic, 

and other impacts of these changes. 

B. Excluded Manufacturing Process 

The current definition states, ‘‘The 

concentration of inadvertently generated 

PCBs in products leaving any 

manufacturing site or imported into the 

United States must have an annual 

average of less than 25 ppm, with a 50 

ppm maximum.’’ EPA is considering 

whether to eliminate the annual average 

and whether the maximum 

concentration should be set at < 1 ppm. 

EPA’s questions about excluded 

manufacturing processes are located in 

Unit XIV.V. 

C. Recycled PCBs 

The current definition states, ‘‘The 

concentration of PCBs in paper products 

leaving any manufacturing site 

processing paper products or paper 

products imported into the United 

States must have an annual average of 

less than 25 ppm, with a 50 ppm 

maximum.’’ EPA is considering whether 

to revise the annual average and 

whether the maximum should be 

lowered. Additionally, the definition 

requires the release of PCBs to ambient 

air at any point be at concentrations < 

10 ppm. EPA is considering whether the 

maximum allowable PCB concentration 

released to air should be lowered to be 

consistent with what the Agency has 

said about PCB exposures from PCBs in 

caulk (Ref. 49). EPA’s questions about 

recycled PCBs are located in Unit 

XIV.W. 

D. Quantifiable Level/Level of Detection 

In the years since this definition was 

first promulgated, analytical 

measurement technology has improved 

so that the current quantitation level/ 

level of detection is lower. Currently, 

the quantitation level in mineral oil can 

be as low as, or lower than, 1 ppm and 

the level of detection can be as low as, 

or lower than, 0.5 ppm. The 

quantitation level and level of detection 

in other media such as air and water can 

be three orders of magnitude or more 

lower than the values for mineral oil. 

EPA is evaluating whether to change 

this definition to reflect to most current 

science, and solicits any information 

regarding such a change. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 17659 

XII. Marking of All PCB Articles 

EPA is considering requiring marking 

of all PCB articles, which includes 

electrical equipment containing ≥ 50 

ppm PCBs, and all storage areas. Some 

≥ 50 ppm PCBs items are already 

required to be marked in 40 CFR 761.40: 

• Above-ground sources of PCB 

liquids in natural gas pipeline systems. 

• PCB containers. 

• Electric motors using PCB coolants. 

• Hydraulic systems using PCB 

hydraulic fluid. 

• PCB heat transfer systems. 

• PCB article containers. 

• Areas used to store PCBs and PCB 

items for disposal. 

• Transportation vehicles 

transporting more than 45 kg or 99.5 lbs 

of items containing ≥ 50 ppm liquids, 

containers of ≥ 50 ppm liquids, or one 

(or more) PCB transformers. 

EPA discussed concerns about PCB 

releases from liquid-filled equipment, 

regardless of concentration, during 

natural disasters in Unit VII.A.5. The 

consequences of natural disasters and 

other events such as automobile 

collisions with equipment and 

vandalism (e.g., shots from firearms), 

may be more significant when damaging 

older and over-loaded electrical 

equipment. In addition to those persons 

who might be accidentally exposed, it is 

important that public emergency 

responders as well as owners/ 

maintainers be advised of the PCB 

content of PCBs in use or those 

catastrophically released from use as 

quickly as possible. In addition, 

residents and the public in proximity to 

regulated equipment have the right to 

know of the presence of PCBs. Many 

owners already know the locations of 

and have already marked PCBcontaminated equipment. EPA believes 

that marking of PCB-contaminated 

equipment also aids in planning 

management of equipment during 

transportation and storage for disposal. 

A possible requirement under 

consideration is for owners to locate and 

label PCB-contaminated equipment. 

This would require an owner to take 

additional labeling action beyond what 

is required in the current regulations for 

the use of PCB-contaminated equipment 

and the assumptions in 40 CFR 761.2. 

Once equipment was marked for use, it 

would not need to be re-marked at the 

time of disposal. In Unit XIV.A.–E., M., 

P., Q., and S. EPA has asked for specific 

numbers of PCB-contaminated 

equipment and the size of populations 

of equipment which is assumed by 

regulation to contain PCBs ≥ 50 ppm. 

XIII. Public Participation 

In addition to the requests for 

information and comments contained in 

this document, EPA intends to involve 

stakeholders through a series of public 

meetings taking place in locations 

across the country. The purpose of these 

meetings is to receive stakeholder 

comments on the issue of EPA’s 

reassessment of PCB use authorizations, 

including the questions described in 

Unit XIV. 

A. Meeting Dates and Locations 

The meetings will be held as follows: 

1. New York, NY, May 4, 2010, from 

1 p.m. to 5 p.m. at EPA Region 2 offices, 

Room 2735, Conference Room A (27th

Floor), 290 Broadway. 

2. Chicago, IL, May 18, 2010, from 1 

p.m. to 5 p.m., at the EPA Region 5 

offices, Lake Michigan Room (12th

Floor), 77 West Jackson Blvd. 

3. Atlanta, GA, May 25, 2010, from 1 

p.m. to 5 p.m., at EPA Region 4 offices, 

Rooms 9D and 9E, Sam Nunn Atlanta 

Federal Center, 61 Forsyth St., SW. 

4. Washington, DC, May 27, 2010, 

from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., at EPA 

Headquarters, EPA East, Room 1153, 

1201 Constitution Ave., NW. 

B. Meeting Procedures 

For additional information on the 

scheduled meetings, please see the PCB 

website (http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/ 

hazard/tsd/pcbs/index.htm) or contact 

Christine Zachek at (202) 566–2219 or 

zachek.christine@epa.gov. 

The meetings will be open to the 

public. To ensure that all interested 

parties will have an opportunity to 

comment in the allotted time, oral 

presentations or statements will be 

limited to 10 minutes. EPA therefore 

recommends that stakeholders who 

present oral comments also submit 

written comments following the 

instructions provided under ADDRESSES. 

Interested parties are encouraged to 

contact the technical person at least 10 

days prior to the meeting to schedule 

presentations. Since seating for outside 

observers will be limited, those wishing 

to attend the meetings as observers are 

also encouraged to contact the technical 

person at the earliest possible date, but 

no later than 10 days before the 

meetings, to ensure adequate seating 

arrangements. 

To request accommodation of a 

disability, please contact Christine 

Zachek at (202) 566–2219 or 

zachek.christine@epa.gov, preferably at 

least 10 days prior to the meeting, to 

give EPA as much time as possible to 

process your request. 

XIV. Request for Comment and 

Additional Information 

EPA invites public comment and any 

additional information in response to 

the questions identified in Unit XIV.A 

through Unit XIV.AA. Unit I.B. contains 

a description of points commenters 

should consider when preparing 

comments for submission to EPA, 

including how to submit any comments 

that contain CBI. No one is obliged to 

respond to these questions, and anyone 

may submit any information and/or 

comments in response to this request, 

whether or not it responds to every 

question in this unit. 

A. Populations of Transformers 

(Containing Greater Than 2 Fluid 

Ounces of Dielectric Fluid) 

1. What percentage of your entire 

transformer inventory in use or storage 

for reuse was manufactured each year 

between 1950 and 1980, all years up to 

1949, and all years from 1981 to date? 

If this information is not available, 

please provide alternative information, 

such as: What percentage of the entire 

transformer inventory is 30 years old, 40 

years old, and 50 years old? 

2. Of the inventory information 

provided in the previous question, how 

does the percentage differ for the 

following applications: Transmission, 

substation, pole top, and pad mount? 

3. What percentage of your 

transformer population consists of PCB 

transformers? How many units are in 

this population? How does the 

percentage and population compare for 

major interstate utilities, municipal 

utilities, cooperative utilities, industrial 

owners, and other groups? 

4. What percentage of your 

transformer population consists of PCBcontaminated transformers? How many 

units are in this population? How does 

the percentage and population compare 

for major interstate utilities, municipal 

cooperatives, industrial owners, and 

other groups? 

5. For electrical utilities and other 

owners, have you tested all potentially 

(based on year of manufacture and other 

information) contaminated equipment? 

Do you know where all regulated PCB 

equipment is currently located? Have 

you removed all askarel containing PCB 

transformers? Have you removed all 

mineral oil containing PCB 

transformers? Have you removed all 

mineral oil containing PCBcontaminated transformers? 

6. What percentage of the transformer 

population consists of transformers 

which contain measurable PCBs 

between 1 and 50 ppm and were 

manufactured before July 31, 1979? How 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

17660 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

many units are in this population? How 

does the percentage and population 

compare for major interstate utilities, 

municipal cooperatives, industrial 

owners, and other groups? 

7. What would be the difference in 

cost (and why) for removing within 10 

years the PCBs from the transformers 

through reclassification and disposing 

of the transformers, versus disposing of 

the transformers without reclassification 

at the end of their useful life? 

8. How much equipment is being used 

indoors? How much equipment is being 

used outdoors? 

9. Geographically and topographically 

exactly where, in the form of global 

positioning system coordinates or maps, 

is the PCB-containing equipment 

located? What is the age of the PCBcontaining equipment at each of these 

locations? 

10. What active or passive safety 

systems and equipment are installed 

and operating for PCB-containing 

equipment, including dikes, berms, 

safety valves, expansion chambers, 

remote monitoring systems and capture 

basins? 

B. Populations of Electromagnets, 

Switches, and Voltage Regulators 

(Containing Greater Than 2 Fluid 

Ounces of Dielectric Fluid) 

1. What percentage of your entire 

electromagnets, switches, and voltage 

regulators inventory in use or stored for 

reuse was manufactured each year 

between 1950 and 1980, all years up to 

1949, and all years from 1981 to 2007? 

If this information is not available, 

please provide alternative information, 

such as: What percent of the entire 

transformer inventory is 30 years old, 40 

years old, and 50 years old? 

2. What percentage of the 

electromagnets, switches, and voltage 

regulators population contains dielectric 

fluid with PCB concentrations ≥ 50 ppm 

PCB? How many units are in each 

population? How does the percentage 

and population compare for major 

interstate utilities, municipal 

cooperatives, industrial owners, and 

other groups? 

3. The original use authorization for 

electromagnets was for a very restricted 

number of known applications in coal 

mine processing operations. How many 

electromagnets in these coal mining 

operations still use PCBs? 

4. For electrical utilities and other 

owners, have you tested all potentially 

(based on year of manufacture and other 

information) contaminated 

electromagnets, switches, and voltage 

regulators? Do you know where all 

regulated PCB-containing 

electromagnets, switches, and voltage 

regulators are currently located? Have 

you removed all askarel containing PCB 

electromagnets, switches, and voltage 

regulators? Have you removed all 

mineral oil containing PCB 

electromagnets, switches, and voltage 

regulators? Have you removed all 

mineral oil containing PCBcontaminated electromagnets, switches, 

and voltage regulators? 

5. What would be the difference in 

cost (and why) for removing the PCBcontaining electromagnets, switches, 

and voltage regulators and disposing of 

them within 10 years, versus disposing 

of the electromagnets, switches, and 

voltage regulators at the end of their 

useful life? 

6. How much equipment is being used 

indoors? How much equipment is being 

used outdoors? Geographically and 

topographically exactly where, in the 

form of global positioning system 

coordinates or maps, is the PCBcontaining equipment located? 

7. What is the age of the PCBcontaining equipment at each of these 

locations? 

8. What active or passive safety 

systems and equipment is installed and 

operating, including dikes, berms, safety 

valves, expansion chambers, and 

capture basins? 

C. Populations of Electrical Capacitors 

(Containing Greater Than 2 Fluid 

Ounces of Dielectric Fluid) 

1. What percentage of your entire 

capacitor inventory in use or stored for 

reuse was manufactured each year 

between 1950 and 1980, all years up to 

1949, and all years from 1981 to 2007? 

If this information is not available, 

please provide alternative information, 

such as: What percentage of the entire 

transformer inventory is 30 years old, 40 

years old, or 50 years old? 

2. How does the percentage differ of 

these 30, 40, and 50 year-old and older 

capacitors for the following 

applications: Transmission, substation, 

pole top, and pad mount? 

3. What percentage of the total 

capacitor population is made up of PCB 

large capacitors? How many units are in 

this population? How does the percent 

and population compare for major 

interstate utilities, municipal 

cooperatives, industrial owners, and 

other groups? 

4. What percentage of your capacitor 

population is PCB-contaminated? How 

many units are in this population? How 

does the percentage and population 

compare for major interstate utilities, 

municipals cooperatives, industrial 

owners, and other groups? 

5. For electrical utilities and other 

owners, have you tested all potentially 

(based on year of manufacture and other 

information) contaminated equipment? 

Do you know where all regulated PCB 

equipment is currently located? Have 

you removed all askarel containing PCB 

capacitors? Have you removed all 

mineral oil containing PCB capacitors? 

Have you removed all mineral oil 

containing PCB-contaminated 

capacitors? 

6. What would be the difference in 

cost (and why) for removing the 

regulated PCB capacitors and disposing 

them within 10 years as opposed to at 

the end of the useful life of the 

capacitors? 

7. How many PCB capacitors which 

are still in active use (not stored for 

reuse) contain ≥ 2 ounces of dielectric 

fluid and < 3 lbs. of dielectric fluid? 

8. What is the best way to determine 

whether a capacitor contains ≥ 2 ounces 

of dielectric fluid other than reading a 

nameplate or actually draining and 

weighing the dielectric fluid? 

9. What are the most likely minimum 

dimensions of a capacitor, which 

contains 2 or more ounces of PCB 

dielectric fluid? 

10. What percentage of the total 

population of PCB capacitors that are 

currently in use contain ≥ 0.05 liters (or 

approximately 1.7 fluid ounces) of 

dielectric fluid and 1.36 kg. (< 3 lbs.) of 

dielectric fluid? 

11. What would be the difference in 

cost (and why) for removing within 10 

years the PCBs from the PCB capacitors 

and disposing of them versus disposing 

of the PCB capacitors at the end of their 

useful life? 

12. How much equipment is being 

used indoors? How much equipment is 

being used outdoors? Geographically 

and topographically exactly where, in 

the form of global positioning system 

coordinates or maps, is the PCBcontaining equipment located? 

13. What is the age of the PCBcontaining equipment at each of these 

locations? 

14. What active or passive safety 

systems and equipment is installed and 

operating, including dikes, berms, safety 

valves, expansion chambers, and 

capture basins? 

D. Populations of Circuit Breakers, 

Reclosers, and Liquid-filled Cable 

(Containing Greater Than 2 Fluid 

Ounces of Dielectric Fluid) 

1. What percentage of circuit breakers, 

reclosers, and liquid-filled cables 

inventory in use or stored for reuse was 

manufactured each year between 1950 

and 1980, all years up to 1949, and all 

years from 1981 to 2007? If this 

information is not available, please 

provide alternative information, such as: 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 17661 

What percent of the entire transformer 

inventory is 30 years old, 40 years old, 

and 50 years old? 

2. What percentage in each 

population of your circuit breakers, 

reclosers, and liquid-filled cable 

population contains dielectric fluid 

with PCB concentrations ≥ 50 ppm is 

PCB? How many units are in each 

population? 

3. For electrical utilities and other 

owners, have you tested all potentially 

contaminated breakers, reclosers, and 

liquid-filled cables? Do you know where 

all regulated PCB breakers, reclosers, 

and liquid-filled cables are currently 

located? Have you removed all circuit 

breakers, reclosers, and liquid-filled 

cables containing mineral oil with ≥ 50 

ppm PCBs-contaminated circuit 

breakers, reclosers, and liquid-filled 

cables? 

4. What would be the difference in 

cost (and why) for removing within 10 

years the PCB breakers, reclosers, and 

liquid-filled cables and disposing of 

them versus disposing of the PCB 

breakers, reclosers, and liquid-filled 

cables at the end of their useful life? 

5. How much equipment is being used 

indoors? How much equipment is being 

used outdoors? Geographically and 

topographically exactly where, in the 

form of global positioning system 

coordinates or maps, is the PCBcontaining equipment located? 

6. What is the age of the PCBcontaining equipment at each of these 

locations? 

7. What active or passive safety 

systems and equipment is installed and 

operating, including dikes, berms, safety 

valves, expansion chambers, and 

capture basins? 

E. Populations of Rectifiers (Containing 

Greater Than 2 Fluid Ounces of 

Dielectric Fluid) 

1. What percentage of your rectifiers 

inventory in use or stored for reuse was 

manufactured each year between 1950 

and 1980, all years up to 1949, and all 

years from 1981 to 2007? If this 

information is not available, please 

provide alternative information, such as: 

What percentage of the entire rectifier 

inventory is 30 years old, 40 years old, 

and 50 years old? 

2. What percentage of your rectifier 

population contains dielectric fluid 

with PCB concentrations ≥ 50 ppm 

PCBs? How many units are in this 

population? 

3. What percentage of your rectifier 

population is PCB-contaminated? How 

many units are in this population? 

4. For electrical utilities and other 

owners, have you tested all potentially 

contaminated rectifiers? Do you know 

where all regulated PCB rectifiers are 

currently located? Have you removed all 

askarel PCB rectifiers? Have you 

removed all rectifiers containing 

mineral oil with ≥ 500 ppm PCBs? Have 

you removed all rectifiers containing 

mineral oil with ≥ 50 ppm and < 500 

ppm PCBs? 

5. What percent of electrical utilities 

and other owners has removed all 

mineral oil PCB rectifiers? 

6. What percent of electrical utilities 

and other owners has removed all 

mineral oil PCB-contaminated rectifiers? 

7. What would be the estimated cost 

(and why) for removing these PCB 

rectifiers and disposing of them within 

10 years as opposed to at the end of the 

useful life of the rectifiers? 

8. How much equipment is being used 

indoors? How much equipment is being 

used outdoors? Geographically and 

topographically exactly where, in the 

form of global positioning system 

coordinates or maps, is the PCBcontaining equipment located? 

9. What is the age of the PCBcontaining equipment at each of these 

locations? 

10. What active or passive safety 

systems and equipment is installed and 

operating, including dikes, berms, safety 

valves, expansion chambers, and 

capture basins? 

F. Servicing 

1. How long does servicing extend the 

useful service life of each type of 

equipment? 

2. How does servicing alter the 

likelihood of equipment failures? 

3. How does servicing change the 

ultimate likelihood of the release of 

PCBs? 

G. Failure of Vintage PCB-Containing 

Electrical Equipment 

1. How do failure rates differ for 

equipment which has been rebuilt or 

serviced in particular ways, relative to 

equipment that remains substantially as 

it was originally installed? 

2. EPA seeks information to project 

the rate, location, and amount of PCB 

releases, and the causes of the releases. 

For example, what are the risks of 

failure involving electrical surges, 

insulation failure, or electrical fires as 

compared to the rupture of the tanks 

containing the PCBs? 

3. What percentage of the entire 

transformer inventory, which was in use 

or storage for reuse and which was 

manufactured before July 31, 1979, 

failed in the following time periods: 

a. All years between January 1, 1940 

and December 31, 1949; 

b. Each year between 1950 and 1980; 

and 

c. All years between January 1, 1981 

and December 31, 2008? 

4. If this information is not available, 

please provide information for alternate 

time intervals. 

5. What forms of preventive 

maintenance or remote monitoring are 

used to warn owners or operators of a 

potential or impending equipment 

failure? 

6. With respect to a company’s PCBcontaining equipment, on what 

equipment are these or other preventive 

maintenance or remote monitoring 

techniques employed? 

7. For drainable and refillable mineral 

oil containing PCB articles, how do the 

purchase price and operational costs for 

this approach compare to 

reclassification for transformers or 

reclassifiable equipment? 

8. How do failure rates differ for 

equipment which has been rebuilt or 

serviced in particular ways, compared 

to equipment that remains substantially 

as it was originally installed? 

9. What have been and are the 

insurance costs for the replacement of 

failed PCB-containing equipment and 

cleanup of PCB spills from this 

equipment over the past 30 years? 

10. How would these insurance costs 

for the replacement of failed PCBcontaining equipment and cleanup of 

PCB spills from this equipment be 

expected to change in the next 20 years? 

H. Damage to Equipment During Severe 

Weather Events 

1. What kind of steps can be taken to 

prevent release of dielectric fluid from 

damage during adverse severe weather 

events such as hurricanes, tornados, 

floods, and earthquakes? 

2. What is the cost per unit of these 

steps compared to the cost of: Removal 

and disposal of askarel containing units; 

or reclassification or removal and 

disposal of the mineral oil containing 

units? 

3. What is the cost to cleanup an 

average catastrophic weather release of 

dielectric fluid and the disposal of the 

waste and the equipment plus any 

damages to private or public property? 

4. How does this cleanup and related 

costs compare to the cost of: Removal 

and disposal of askarel containing units; 

or reclassification or removal and 

disposal of the mineral oil containing 

units? 

5. What have been and are the 

insurance costs as the result of damage 

from severe weather events for the 

replacement of failed PCB-containing 

equipment and cleanup of PCB spills 

from this equipment over the past 30 

years? 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

17662 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

6. How would these insurance costs 

as the result of damage from severe 

weather events for the replacement of 

failed PCB-containing equipment and 

cleanup of PCB spills from this 

equipment be expected to change in the 

next 20 years? 

7. How has the weather-related 

liability insurance cost changed for 

owners of PCB-containing equipment 

over the last 30 years? Over the last 20 

years? Over the last 5 years? 

8. EPA seeks information on the rate 

of occurrence of severe weather events 

involving PCB-containing equipment in 

each calendar year starting from 1998 

until 2008: 

a. What types of equipment were 

involved? 

b. Where was the equipment located 

(indoors or outdoors)? 

c. Did spills occur as a result of the 

severe weather events? 

d. What was the amount released in 

gallons of liquid, and if PCBs were 

presents what was the concentration in 

ppm? 

e. How much liquid was contained 

and recovered? 

f. What human health or 

environmental exposure and effects 

were observed or recorded? 

g. How were the exposures and effects 

estimated or measured? 

I. Alternatives to PCB Liquids 

1. What are the PCB substitutes 

currently available commercially? 

2. What are the human health and 

environmental effects of exposure to 

PCB substitutes when they are released 

to the environment? 

3. What are the human health and 

property damage risks due to the 

flammability properties of the PCB 

substitutes? 

4. What is the likelihood that 

equipment containing the PCB 

substitutes have releases of the 

substitute materials, compared with the 

likelihood that equipment containing 

PCBs have releases of PCBs? 

5. What other information about PCB 

substitutes is available that would 

inform EPA’s consideration of the tradeoffs that would be required by a PCB 

phaseout? 

J. Removal and Replacement Costs 

1. How many PCB liquid disposal 

companies have been operating at the 

end of each year for the last 10 years? 

2. How many PCB equipment 

(drained or undrained) disposal 

companies have been operating at the 

end of each year for the last 10 years? 

3. What has the average disposal cost 

been for a gallon of PCB oil containing 

≥ 50 ppm and < 500 ppm at the end of 

each year for the last 10 years? 

4. What has been the average disposal 

cost for a gallon PCB oil containing from 

≥ 500 ppm to ≤ 10,000 ppm at the end 

of each year for the last 10 years? 

5. What has been the average disposal 

cost for a gallon or of askarel oil 

containing > 100,000 ppm PCBs at the 

end of each year for the last 10 years? 

6. What has been the average cost per 

ton for disposing of drained, oil-filled 

equipment, which contained ≥ 50 ppm 

and < 500 ppm PCB at the end of each 

year for the last 10 years? 

7. What has been the average cost per 

ton for disposing of drained, oil-filled 

equipment which contained ≥ 500 ppm 

PCB at the end of each year for the last 

10 years? 

8. What has been the average cost per 

ton for disposing of drained askarelfilled equipment > 100,000 ppm PCB at 

the end of each year for the last 10 

years? 

9. What has been the average cost per 

pound, per ton, or per kilovolt amp 

(KVA) been for recycling the metal from 

drained oil-filled transformers which 

contained ≥ 50 ppm and < 500 ppm PCB 

at the end of each year for the last 10 

years? 

10. What sorts of incentives might 

enable organizations with limited 

budgets to remove regulated PCBs and 

PCB equipment for their systems and 

facilities? 

K. PCB Waste Disposal Capacity 

1. What has been the permitted PCB 

disposal capacity for liquid PCBs for 

companies which have been operating 

at the end of each year for the last 10 

years? 

2. At what average percent of 

permitted PCB disposal capacity have 

the PCB liquid disposal companies 

operated per year for the last 10 years? 

3. What has been the permitted PCB 

disposal capacity for drained PCB 

equipment for companies which have 

been operating at the end of each year 

for the last 10 years? 

4. At what average percent of 

permitted PCB disposal capacity have 

the drained PCB equipment disposal 

companies operated per year for the last 

10 years? 

5. For a transformer containing 100 

gallons of 250 ppm oil, how does the 

cost compare for: 

a. Reclassifying to a non PCB 

transformer (draining, refilling with 

new/clean oil, and disposing of the PCB 

oil and reusing the transformer)? 

Reclassifying to a transformer 

containing < 1 ppm PCBs? 

b. Disposing of the oil and landfilling 

the drained transformer? 

c. Disposing of the oil and recovering 

the metal for recycling? 

L. Current Management Practices for 

Equipment (Other Than Equipment 

Included in Unit XIV.A.-F.) 

1. If you are a PCB equipment owner, 

which of the following have you 

completed: 

a. Identified all PCB-containing 

equipment? 

b. Routinely tested equipment for its 

PCB content? 

c. Tested all equipment known or 

assumed to contain PCBs? 

d. Reclassified known PCB equipment 

or equipment, which is newly tested 

and found to be positive for PCBs? 

e. Disposed of, without recycling 

metals, known PCB equipment, or 

equipment which is newly tested and 

found to be positive for PCBs? 

f. Disposed of, to include recycling 

metals, known PCB equipment, or 

equipment which is newly tested and 

found to be positive for PCBs? 

g. Distributed in commerce to 

someone else for use known PCB 

equipment, or equipment which is 

newly tested and found to be positive 

for PCBs? 

h. Recorded the locations of all 

equipment or a particular type of 

equipment, such as transformers or 

capacitors, containing > 500 ppm PCBs? 

i. Recorded the locations of all of a 

particular type of equipment, such as 

transformers containing > 50 ppm 

PCBs? 

j. Recorded the locations of all of a 

particular type of equipment, such as 

transformers containing > 1 ppm PCBs? 

k. Tested all mineral oil containing 

equipment, or a particular type of 

equipment (such as transformers), 

which was manufactured before 1979? 

l. Labeled all PCB-containing 

equipment, even though PCB equipment 

containing < 500 ppm is not required to 

be marked? 

m. Removed from service and 

disposed of all PCB-containing 

equipment or a particular type of 

equipment (such as PCB-contaminated 

transformers or PCB large capacitors)? 

2. What are the costs associated with 

such activities in question No. 1 in Unit 

XIV.L.? 

3. What are the costs of the practice 

of preventive maintenance and the rebuilding of equipment to meet changing 

service requirements and/or industry or 

company codes? 

4. How well does preventive 

maintenance or rebuilding effect 

extension of the expected service life of 

equipment? 

M. Equipment Containing Non-liquid 

PCBs 

1. What is the total number of units 

(liquid filled plus non-liquid filled) in 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 17663 

each equipment category, such as 

transformers? 

2. What total number of non-liquid 

units in each equipment category, such 

as transformers, is in each of these PCB 

concentration ranges: ≥ 1 ppm and < 50 

ppm, ≥ 50 ppm and < 500 ppm, ≥ 500 

ppm and < 100,000 ppm, and ≥ 100,000 

ppm? 

For example, fill in the following 

table: 

Category 

Total number of liquid 

filled plus non-liquid 

filled units in 

population 

Number of non-liquid 

filled units with ≥ 1 

parts per million (ppm) 

and < 50 ppm PCBs 

Number of non-liquid 

filled units with ≥ 50 

ppm and < 500 ppm 

PCBs 

Number of non-liquid 

filled units with ≥ 500 

ppm and 

< 100,000 ppm PCBs 

Number of non-liquid 

filled units with 

≥ 100,000 ppm PCBs 

Transformers 1,000 0 2 0 0 

Capacitors 200 0 0 0 10 

Etc. 

3. What is the difference in the 

locations used for liquid filled units, 

versus non-liquid filled units located? 

4. How much does it cost to test 

(sample collection, extraction, chemical 

analysis, and recordkeeping) non-liquid 

filled equipment to determine the PCB 

concentration? 

5. Other than chemical analysis, what 

methods (such as application type, 

nameplate, model number, 

manufacturer name, etc.) can be used to 

identify PCB containing non-liquid 

filled equipment? 

N. Damage Due to Vandalism or Theft 

1. What types of equipment were 

involved? 

2. Where was the equipment located 

(indoors or outdoors)? Did spills occur 

as a result of the vandalism? 

3. What was the amount released in 

gallons of liquid, and if PCBs were 

present what was the concentration in 

ppm? 

4. How much liquid was contained 

and recovered? 

5. What human health or 

environmental exposure and effects 

were observed or recorded? 

6. How were the exposures and effects 

which were reported in response to 

question No. 5 in Unit XIV.N. estimated 

or measured? 

7. What have been and are the 

insurance costs as the result of 

vandalism or theft for the replacement 

of failed PCB-containing equipment and 

cleanup of PCB spills from this 

equipment over the past 30 years? 

8. How would these insurance costs 

as the result of vandalism or theft for the 

replacement of failed PCB-containing 

equipment and cleanup of PCB spills 

from this equipment change in the next 

20 years? 

O. Reclassification of Askarel 

Transformers 

1. If you have attempted to reclassify 

an askarel-filled unit and have been 

unsuccessful, how long did you spend 

draining and refilling and how many 

times did you drain and refill when 

PCBs still ‘‘leached back’’ to a 

concentration ≥ 500 ppm for each unit? 

2. What was the cost of each 

unsuccessful reclassification? 

3. How many askarel transformers or 

other askarel PCB articles (such as 

voltage regulators) have you reclassified 

successfully to PCB-contaminated status 

or non-PCB status? 

4. For each piece of successfully 

reclassified askarel-filled equipment, 

how many times was it necessary to 

drain and refill the equipment? 

5. For each piece of successfully 

reclassified askarel-filled equipment, if 

the equipment was also flushed, what 

flushing procedure did you use? 

6. For each piece of successfully 

reclassified askarel-filled equipment, 

how long did it take to reclassify the 

equipment from the first drain and 

refilling to a permanent PCB 

measurement at the new regulatory 

status of PCB-contaminated or non-PCB? 

How often was reclassification later 

proven to be unsuccessful, because 

PCBs leached back above the target 

reclassification level? 

7. What was the cost of each 

successful reclassification? 

P. Railroad Transformers 

1. In what railroad systems are PCB 

transformers and PCB-contaminated 

transformers still in use as railroad 

transformers? 

2. What percentage of railroad 

transformers are PCB transformers? 

3. How many railroad transformers 

are PCB transformers? 

4. What percentage of railroad 

transformers are PCB-contaminated 

transformers? 

5. How many railroad transformers 

are PCB-contaminated transformers? 

6. What is the expected life of a 

transformer now in service as a railroad 

transformer before it requires routine 

servicing of the dielectric fluid? 

7. What would be the difference in 

cost (and why) for removing within 10 

years the PCBs from the railroad 

transformers through reclassification 

and disposing of them versus disposing 

of the railroad transformers without 

reclassification at the end of their useful 

life? 

Q. Mining Equipment 

1. At what locations and for what 

applications are PCBs currently used in 

mining equipment? 

2. What percent of these pieces of 

equipment, which are found in these 

applications, contain PCBs? 

3. How many pieces of equipment in 

these applications contain PCBs? 

4. What would be the difference in 

cost (and why) for removing within 10 

years the PCBs from the mining 

equipment and disposing of them versus 

disposing of the mining equipment at 

the end of their useful life? 

R. Use of Contaminated Porous Surfaces 

1. What has the average per ton, 

drum, or cubic yard disposal cost been 

to dispose of contaminated non-liquid 

material (such as soil or concrete) from 

a spill of PCB oil containing ≥ 50 ppm 

each year for the last 10 years? Please 

differentiate costs based on PCB 

concentration (e.g., < 50 ppm PCB 

waste, ≥ 50 ppm, etc.) and based on type 

of disposer (e.g., landfill, incinerator, 

etc.). 

2. How often is there a planned major 

outage to equipment mounted on 

concrete pads or floors? How long is 

such a planned outage? 

S. Use in Natural Gas Transmission and 

Distribution Systems 

1. How many gallons of ≥ 50 ppm 

condensate have been removed and 

disposed of annually from natural gas 

pipelines owned by each individual gas 

transmission company and distribution 

company starting in 1998? 

2. Do transmission companies 

regularly test the condensate for PCBs? 

If so, what is done with the PCBs when 

found? 

3. What locations in the system have 

the most condensate removed? 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

17664 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

4. What time of year is most 

condensate removed? 

5. How do natural gas transmission 

and distribution companies test for 

PCBs in dry systems? 

T. Storage for Reuse of PCB Articles 

1. How many pieces of in-use 

equipment are the stored equipment 

items being kept to replace? 

2. Where is the equipment which is to 

be replaced by the stored equipment 

located with respect to other potential 

indoor secure storage areas? 

3. What is the historical lifetime and 

turnover (removal from storage for 

disposal) rate per year of the in-use 

equipment? 

4. When do owners plan to replace 

this in-use equipment with non-PCB 

equipment or reclassify this in-use 

equipment? 

5. When do owners plan to replace 

the stored equipment with non-PCB 

equipment or reclassify this stored 

equipment? 

6. What is the annualized cost of 

storing and managing this equipment? 

7. What would be the cost of 

replacement of this equipment? 

8. What would be the cost of 

reclassifying this equipment, where 

authorized? 

9. What is the likelihood and 

consequences of service interruptions 

and loss of revenue if these replacement 

devices were not available at the site of 

the equipment to be replaced? 

10. What is the history (number of 

occurrences, dates, amounts and cost to 

clean up) of spills or other releases of 

PCBs from this equipment, which is 

being stored for reuse? 

U. Distribution in Commerce 

1. What is the annual sale price or 

dollar value and what is the number of 

units which were distributed in 

commerce each year over the last 5 

years of used but working askarel-filled 

equipment? 

2. What is the annual sale price or 

dollar value and what is the number of 

units which were distributed in 

commerce each year over the last 5 

years of used but working mineral oil 

filled PCB (≥ 500 ppm) equipment? 

3. What is the annual sale price or 

dollar value and what is the number of 

units which were distributed in 

commerce each year of used but 

working mineral oil filled PCBcontaminated (≥ 50 ppm and < 500 

ppm) equipment? 

4. How many units of regulated PCBelectrical equipment were sold each 

year over the last 5 years for domestic 

scrap metal recovery? 

5. How many units of regulated PCBelectrical equipment were sold each 

year over the last 5 years for foreign 

scrap metal recovery? 

6. How many units of regulated PCBelectrical equipment were exported for 

use each year over the last 5 years for 

use? 

7. What has been the average 

purchase price of a new or rebuilt (PCBfree) 100 KVA mineral oil filled 

transformer and a new (PCB-free) 100 

KVAR capacitor every year over the last 

10 years? 

8. How different is the average 

purchase price of new or rebuilt (PCBfree) larger or smaller transformers and 

capacitors? 

9. What is the average number of days 

between an order and delivery for a new 

or rebuilt replacement PCB-free 100 

KVA transformer and a new 

replacement PCB-free 100 KVAR 

capacitor every year over the last 10 

years? 

10. How long does it take for a 

delivery for a replacement for a new or 

rebuilt PCB-free large (> 250 KVA) 

transformer, a smaller (< 250 KVA) 

transformer, and larger (> 1.36 kg [3 lbs.] 

of dielectric fluid) capacitors? 

V. Excluded Manufacturing Processes 

1. How many excluded manufacturing 

processes are currently operating or, if 

not currently operating, expect to be 

operating in the next 5 years? 

2. What is the estimated total annual 

weight in tons of PCBs produced each 

year over the last 5 years and in the next 

5 years in each of the following 

categories: Products, solid waste, waste 

water, and air emissions? 

3. What are the type and volume of 

PCB products that would be affected by 

such changes in the definition, as well 

as the cost, economic, and other impacts 

of these changes? 

W. Recycled PCBs 

1. In any of the last 5 years have you 

anyone found PCBs at concentrations ≥ 

1 ppm in recycled paper? How often? 

What was the source of the feedstock 

paper? 

2. What steps can be taken or have 

been taken to reduce the PCB 

concentration in recycled paper? 

3. What is the cost of implementing 

these steps to reduce the PCB 

concentration in recycled paper if they 

have not already been implemented? 

4. What are the type and volume of 

PCB products that would be affected by 

a potential change in the definition of 

recycled paper (required to contain less 

than 1 ppm PCBs), as well as the cost, 

economic, and other impacts of these 

changes? 

X. Reconsideration of the Use of the 50 

ppm Level for Excluded PCB Products 

(e.g., Caulk) 

1. What should the maximum PCB 

concentration, if any, be for the 

‘‘excluded PCB products’’ as defined in 

40 CFR 761.3? 

2. What should the minimum PCB 

concentration be for the ‘‘excluded PCB 

products’’ as defined in 40 CFR 761.3? 

3. Should there be a new separate use 

authorization for certain currently 

excluded PCBs found in certain 

products such as paint, gaskets, or 

caulk? 

4. What types of non-liquid products 

(adhesives, caulk, coatings, grease, 

paint, rubber/plastic electrical 

insulation, gaskets, sealants, waxes, 

etc.), which were manufactured before 

1979 and are currently in use, contain 

PCBs at concentrations between 1 ppm 

and 50 ppm? 

5. What types of liquid products 

(pump oil, solvent, or other fluid), other 

than those authorized for use in 40 CFR 

761.30, contain PCBs at concentrations 

between 1 ppm and 50 ppm? 

6. For each class of non-liquid and 

liquid product, what percent of the 

overall product market share is taken by 

the PCB-containing product? 

a. What is the estimated total weight 

or volume of each type of product in 

current use? 

b. What kinds of use has each product 

been applied to, on, or in? 

c. What is the geographic distribution 

of each product use? 

d. What is the average expected 

lifetime of the product? 

e. When would the product normally 

be replaced as part of preventive 

maintenance? 

Y. Use of PCB-Containing Electrical 

Equipment Parts 

1. What PCB-containing spare parts, 

such as bushings and other ancillary 

equipment, are currently needed for 

what equipment? 

2. What is the feasibility of 

reclassifying PCB-containing spare 

parts? 

3. What is the annualized cost of 

storing and managing PCB-containing 

spare parts? 

4. What would be the cost of 

replacement of PCB-containing spare 

parts? 

5. What are the likelihood and 

consequences of service interruptions 

and loss of revenue if the PCBcontaining spare parts were not 

available? 

6. Where are these spare parts located 

geographically in relation to the 

equipment they will be used on? 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 17665 

7. In what industrial or commercial 

settings can the equipment, which the 

spare parts will be used on, be found? 

Z. Reassessment of the Possible 

Authorization of the Use of Some NonLiquid PCB-Containing Products 

1. What comments can you provide 

that will inform EPA as to whether to 

authorize or not authorize the use of 

caulk, paint, or other non-liquid PCB 

product at concentrations exceeding the 

level of 50 ppm currently provided in 

the PCB regulations for excluded PCB 

products? 

2. What data or other information is 

available on which to evaluate the risks 

and benefits of the use of PCBcontaining caulk, paint, or other nonliquid PCB product? 

3. What PCB concentrations should be 

authorized for the use of PCB-containing 

caulk, paint, or other non-liquid PCB 

products? 

AA. PCBs on Maritime Vessels 

1. In what vessel systems is PCBcontaining equipment still in use on 

vessels? 

2. What percentage of vessel 

equipment uses liquid PCBs? 

3. What percentage of vessel 

equipment uses non-liquid PCBs? 

4. What is the expected life of 

equipment containing PCBs on vessels 

now in service before it requires routine 

servicing? 

5. What is the difference in the 

locations used for liquid filled 

equipment, versus non-liquid filled 

equipment located? 

6. How much does it cost to identify 

and test (sample collection, extraction, 

chemical analysis, and recordkeeping) 

liquid filled equipment and/or nonliquid filled equipment on vessels to 

determine the PCB concentration? 

7. Other than chemical analysis, what 

methods (such as application type, 

nameplate, model number, 

manufacturer name, etc.) can be used to 

identify PCB-containing equipment? 

8. Do non-liquid PCBs enclosed in 

cabling pose any greater risk to the 

health of the public than liquid PCBs 

enclosed in cabling? 

9. Should the ‘‘totally enclosed’’ 

exemption accorded to liquid PCBs 

enclosed in cabling be extended to solid 

PCBs? 

XV. References 

As indicated under ADDRESSES, a 

docket has been established for this 

rulemaking under docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0757. The 

following is a listing of the documents 

that are specifically referenced in this 

document. The docket includes these 

documents and other information 

considered by EPA in developing this 

ANPRM, including documents that are 

referenced within the documents that 

are included in the docket, even if the 

referenced document is not physically 

located in the docket. For assistance in 

locating these other documents, please 

consult the technical person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

1. Hutzinger, O.; Safe, S.; and Zitko, 

V. Chemistry of PCBs. Robert E. Krieger 

Publishing Company. 1983. 

2. EPA. Microeconomic Impacts of the 

Proposed ‘‘PCB Ban Regulation.’’ EPA 

560/6–77–035. 

3. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

(PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, 

Distribution in Commerce, and Use 

Prohibitions; Final Rule. Federal 

Register (44 FR 31514, May 31, 1979) 

(FRL–1075–2). 

4. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

(PCBs), Toxic Substances Control; 

Notice. Federal Register (42 FR 65264, 

December 30, 1977) (FRL–837–1). 

5. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

(PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, 

Distribution in Commerce, and Use 

Bans; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 

(43 FR 24802, June 7, 1978) (FRL–886– 

6). 

6. Environmental Defense Fund v. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 636 

F2d 1267 (D.C. Cir. 1980). 

7. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

(PCBs); Use in Electrical Equipment; 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. Federal Register (46 FR 

16096, March 10, 1981) (FRL–1773–2). 

8. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

(PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, 

Distribution in Commerce, and Use 

Prohibitions; Use in Electrical 

Equipment Final Rule. Federal Register 

(47 FR 37342, August 25, 1982) (FRL– 

2184–6). 

9. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls in 

Electrical Transformers Final Rule. 

Federal Register (50 FR 29170, July 17, 

1985) (FRL–2835–6). 

10. EPA. Reclassification of PCB and 

PCB-Contaminated Electrical 

Equipment; Final Rule. Federal Register 

(66 FR 17602, April 2, 2001) (FRL– 

5790–7). 

11. Mills III, William James. Thesis for 

the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in 

the Graduate College Public Health 

Sciences of the University of Illinois at 

Chicago. Polychlorinated Biphenyls, 

Dioxins and Furans in Ambient Air 

During the Smithville PCB Incineration 

Project. 2001. 

12. EPA. PCBs: Cancer Dose Response 

Assessment and Application to 

Environmental Mixtures (EPA/600/P– 

96/001F). Available on-line at: http:// 

cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/ 

recordisplay.cfm?deid=12486. 

13. EPA. Integrated Risk Information 

System (IRIS) Polychlorinated 

Biphenyls (PCBs) (CASRN 1336–36–3). 

June 1, 1997. Available on–line at: 

http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/subst/ 

0294.htm. 

14. ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). 

November 2000. Available on–line at: 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/ 

tp17.html. 

15. EPA. Compilation of Total Annual 

PCB Large Capacitors and Total PCB 

Trnsformers Disposed in the United 

States From Annual Reports from 

Commercial PCB Disposal Companies 

from 1991–2007. 

16. EPA. PCB Transformer 

Registration Database. January 2008. 

Available on–line at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/ 

pcbs/pubs/data.htm. 

17. EPA. Region 9. Exxon Transformer 

Case Press Release. Available on–line at: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/

admpress.nsf/

2dd7f669225439b78525735900400c31/

66964079fdc4700e852574ac006f4537. 

18. United States Coast Guard. 

National Response Center. Available 

on–line at: http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/ 

nrclegal.html. 

19. E-mail messages from Nichaulus 

C. Threatt of the National Response 

Center to John Smith, dated 8–19–2009 

and 9–10–2009. 

20. Stockholm Convention on 

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) 

Ratification Status. Available on–line at: 

http://chm.pops.int/Countries/ 

StatusofRatification/tabid/252/ 

language/en-US/Default.aspx. 

21. The 1998 Aarhus Protocol on 

Persistent Organic Pollutants (LRTAP 

POPs). Available on–line at: http:// 

www.unece.org/env/lrtap/status/ 

98pop_st.htm. 

22. Environment Canada. PCB 

Regulations Canada Gazette. Part II, 

Vol. 142, No. 19, pp. 2078–2140. 

September 17, 2008. 

23. Bartley, W. Life Cycle 

Management of Utility Transformer 

Assets. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection 

& Insurance Company. October 10–11, 

2002. 

24. EPA. Exposure and Human Health 

Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-

Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) 

and Related Compounds National 

Academy Sciences (NAS) Review Draft. 

October 2004. Available on-line at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/dioxin/ 

nas-review. 

25. Great Lakes Binational Toxics 

Strategy, Stakeholder Forum–1998, 

Implementing the Binational Toxics 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

17666 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Strategy, Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

(PCBs) Workshop Great Lakes 

Monitoring. Available on-line at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/grtlakes/bnsdocs/pcbsrce/ 

pcbsrce.html. 

26. Panero, M.; Boehme, S.; and 

Mun ̃oz, G. Pollution Prevention and 

Management Strategies for 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the New 

York/New Jersey Harbor. Report from 

the Harbor Consortium of the New York 

Academy of Sciences. February 2005. 

27. Covaci, A.; Voorspoels, S; 

Schepens, P.; Jorens, P.; Blust, R.; and 

Neels, H. The Belgian PCB/dioxin 

crisis–8 years later: An overview. 

Environmental Toxicology and 

Pharmacology. Vol. 25, Issue 2. March 

2008. 

28. van Larebeke, N.; Hens, L.; 

Schepens, P.; Covaci, A.; Baeyens, J.; 

Everaert, K.; Bernheim, J.; Vlietinck, R.; 

and De Poorter, G. The Belgian PCB and 

Dioxin Incident of January-June 1999: 

Exposure Data and Potential Impact on 

Health. Environmental Health 

Perspectives. 109:265–273. 2001. 

29. Buzby, J. and Chandran, R. 

Chapter 8, The Belgian Dioxin Crisis 

and Its Effects on Agricultural 

Production and Exports. International 

Trade and Food Safety/AER–828 

Economic Research Service, USDA. 

30. Reuters. Used Oil May have 

Caused Irish Food Crisis: Paper. 

December 10, 2008. 

31. British Broadcasting Corporation 

(BBC) News. Irish pork contaminations 

probed. December 8, 2008. Available online at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/ 

2/hi/uk_news/7770476.stm. 

32. Food Safety Authority of Ireland. 

Recall Information last reviewed March 

9, 2009. Available on-line at: http:// 

www.fsai.ie/food_businesses/

topics_of_interest/recall_of_pork_dec08/

recall_information.html. 

33. EPA, OPPT. PCB Spill Cleanup in 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. EPA–745– 

N–98–001. OPPT Tribal News. Vol. 1, 

Issue 1, pp. 1–2. September 1998. 

34. Senator Byron Dorgan text from 

the Congressional Record. pp. S2914– 

2915. Available on-line at: http:// 

frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ 

getpage.cgi?position=all&page

=S2914&dbname=1998_record. 

35. EPA. John H. Smith personal 

communication with J. Gidner, BIA. 

September 1999. 

36. EPA, Office of Water. Guidance for 

conducting fish and wildlife 

consumption surveys. EPA–823–B–98– 

007. 1998. Available on-line at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/fishadvisories/files/ 

fishguid.pdf. 

37. EPA. Methodology for Deriving 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the 

Protection of Human Health. 

Washington, DC: Office of Water. EPA– 

822–B–00–004. 2000. Available on-line 

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

criteria/humanhealth/method/ 

complete.pdf. 

38. Fitzgerald, E.; Hwang, S.; Gomez, 

M.; Bush, B.; Yang, B.; and Tarbell, A. 

Environmental and occupational 

exposures and serum PCB 

concentrations and patterns among 

Mohawk men at Akwesasne. Journal of 

Exposure Science and Environmental 

Epidemiology. 17:269–278. 2007. 

39. Tribal Rights and Fish 

Consumption Workshop, University of 

Washington School of Public Health. 

August 12–13, 2009. Available on-line 

at: http://depts.washington.edu/ 

tribalws/index.php?doc=schedule. 

40. Hardy, J. Evaluation of 

Contaminants in Puget Sound Fish and 

Resulting Fish Advisory. Washington 

State Department of Health. November 

2, 2009. Available on-line at:http:// 

www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/forum/ 

2009/day1d.ppt. 

41. Sandau, C.; Ayotte, P.; Dewailly, 

E.; Duffe, J.; and Norstrom, R. Analysis 

of Hydroxylated Metabolites of PCBs 

(OH-PCBs) and Other Chlorinated 

Phenolic Compounds in Whole Blood 

from Canadian Inuit. Environ Health 

Perspect. 108:611–616. July 2000. 

Available on-line at: [Online 25 May 

2000] http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/ 

members/2000/108p611-616sandau/ 

108p611.pdf. 

42. USWAG. Promoting the Voluntary 

Phase-Down of PCB-Containing 

Equipment. October 2005. 

43. EPA. Disposal of Polychlorinated 

Biphenyls; Import for Disposal; Final 

Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 11096, 

March 18, 1996) (FRL–5354–8). 

44. Helmick, R. W. and Zemanek, J. H. 

How Entergy Battled Back-to-back 

Hurricanes. Entergy Corporation, 

Electric Light and Power. January 2006. 

45. EPA. EPA Personnel Deployed to 

Greensburg, Kansas, for Tornado 

Response. May 7, 2007. Available online at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/ 

admpress.nsf/ 

8b770facf5edf6f185257359003fb69e/

c0b30985df7b3cac852572d5006f3917

!OpenDocument&Start=1&

Count=5&Expand=1. 

46. ASTM International. D2233–86 

(1997). Standard Specification for 

Chlorinated Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

(Askarels) for Capacitors (Withdrawn in 

2003). 

47. EPA. Support Document/ 

Voluntary Environmental Impact 

Statement and PCB Manufacturing, 

Processing, Distribution in Commerce, 

and Use Ban Regulation: Economic 

Impact Analysis. pp. 32–43. April 1979. 

48. EPA. Information on the Natural 

Gas Pipeline Agreement with Texas 

Eastern. pp. 33. 1981. 

49. EPA. PCBs in Caulk in Older 

Buildings. Available on-line at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/pcbsincaulk. 

XVI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

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

this action was submitted to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review. Any changes to the document 

that were made in response to OMB 

comments received by EPA during that 

review have been documented in the 

docket as required by the Executive 

Order. 

Since this document does not impose 

or propose any requirements, and 

instead seeks comments and suggestions 

for the Agency to consider in possibly 

developing a subsequent proposed rule, 

the various other review requirements 

that apply when an agency imposes 

requirements do not apply to this 

action. Nevertheless, as part of your 

comments on this document, you may 

include any comments or information 

that you have regarding the various 

other review requirements. 

In particular, EPA is interested in any 

information that would help the Agency 

to assess the potential impact of a rule 

on small entities pursuant to the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); to consider 

voluntary consensus standards pursuant 

to section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note); 

to consider environmental health or 

safety effects on children pursuant to 

Executive Order 13045, entitled 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or 

to consider human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations pursuant to 

Executive Order 12898, entitled 

‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

The Agency will consider such 

comments during the development of 

any subsequent proposed rule as it takes 

appropriate steps to address any 

applicable requirements. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 761 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

substances, Labeling, Polychlorinated 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 17667 

biphenyls (PCBs), Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: March 31, 2010. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7751 Filed 4–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2008-0067] 

[MO 92210-0-0008-B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition to Reclassify the Delta Smelt 

From Threatened to Endangered 

Throughout Its Range 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12–month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12–month finding on a petition to 

reclassify the delta smelt (Hypomesus 

transpacificus) under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended. After 

review of all available scientific and 

commercial information, we find that 

reclassifying the delta smelt from a 

threatened to an endangered species is 

warranted, but precluded by other 

higher priority listing actions. We will 

develop a proposed rule to reclassify 

this species as our priorities allow. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on April 7, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS–R8–ES–2008–0067. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish 

and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, 

W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825. Please 

submit any new information, materials, 

comments, or questions concerning this 

finding to the above address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Grim, San Francisco Bay-Delta 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 650 Capitol 

Mall, 5th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814; 

by telephone at 916-930-5634; or by 

facsimile at 916-414-6462. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for 

any petition to add a species to, remove 

a species from, or reclassify a species on 

one of the Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants, we first 

make a determination whether the 

petition presents substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. To the maximum extent 

practicable, we make this determination 

within 90 days of receipt of the petition, 

and publish the finding promptly in the 

Federal Register. 

If we find the petition presents 

substantial information, section 

4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires us to 

commence a status review of the 

species, and section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act 

requires us to make a second finding, 

this one within 12 months of the date 

of receipt of the petition, on whether the 

petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted, 

(b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but the 

immediate proposal of a regulation 

implementing the petitioned action is 

precluded by other pending proposals to 

determine whether any species is 

threatened or endangered, and 

expeditious progress is being made to 

add or remove qualified species from 

the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. We must publish 

these 12–month findings in the Federal 

Register. 

Species for which listing is warranted 

but precluded are considered to be 

‘‘candidates’’ for listing. Section 

4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that a 

petition for which the requested action 

is found to be warranted but precluded 

be treated as though resubmitted on the 

date of such finding, i.e., requiring a 

subsequent finding to be made within 

12 months. Each subsequent 12–month 

finding is also to be published in the 

Federal Register. We typically publish 

these findings in our Candidate Notice 

of Review (CNOR). Our most recent 

CNOR was published on November 9, 

2009 (74 FR 57804). 

Previous Federal Action 

We were originally petitioned to list 

the delta smelt as endangered on June 

26, 1990. We proposed the species as 

threatened and proposed the 

designation of critical habitat on 

October 3, 1991 (56 FR 50075). We 

listed the species as threatened on 

March 5, 1993 (58 FR 12854), and we 

designated critical habitat on December 

19, 1994 (59 FR 65256). The delta smelt 

was one of eight fish species addressed 

in the November 26, 1996, Recovery 

Plan for the Sacramento–San Joaquin 

Delta Native Fishes (Service 1996, pp. 1- 

195). We completed a 5–year status 

review of the delta smelt on March 31, 

2004 (Service 2004, pp. 1-50). 

On March 9, 2006, we received a 

petition to reclassify the listing status of 

the delta smelt, a threatened species, to 

endangered on an emergency basis. We 

sent a letter to the petitioners dated June 

20, 2006, stating that we would not be 

able to address their petition at that time 

because further action on the petition 

was precluded by court orders and 

settlement agreements for other listing 

actions that required us to use nearly all 

of our listing funds for fiscal year 2006. 

We also stated in our June 20, 2006, 

letter that we had evaluated the 

immediacy of possible threats to the 

delta smelt, and had determined that an 

emergency reclassification was not 

warranted at that time. 

On July 10, 2008, we published a 90– 

day finding that the petition presented 

substantial scientific information to 

indicate that reclassifying the delta 

smelt may be warranted (73 FR 39639). 

We announced the initiation of a status 

review at that time, and requested 

comments and information from the 

public on or before September 8, 2008. 

We reopened the comment period on 

December 9, 2008, and that comment 

period closed February 9, 2009 (73 FR 

74674). 

Species Information 

Description and Taxonomy 

Delta smelt are slender-bodied fish, 

generally about 60 to 70 millimeters 

(mm) (2 to 3 inches (in)) long, although 

they may reach lengths of up to 120 mm 

(4.7 in) (Moyle 2002, p. 227). Delta 

smelt are in the Osmeridae family 

(smelts) (Stanley et al. 1995, p. 390). 

Live fish are nearly translucent and 

have a steely blue sheen to their sides 

(Moyle 2002, p. 227). Delta smelt feed 

primarily on small planktonic (freefloating) crustaceans, and occasionally 

on insect larvae (Moyle 2002, p. 228). 

Delta smelt usually aggregate into loose 

schools, but their discontinuous strokeand-glide swimming behavior likely 

makes schooling difficult (Moyle 2002, 

p. 228). 

The delta smelt is one of six species 

currently recognized in the Hypomesus 

genus (Bennett 2005, p. 8). Within the 

genus, delta smelt is most closely 

related to surf smelt (H. pretiosis), a 

species common along the western coast 

of North America. In contrast, delta 

smelt is a comparatively distant relation 

to the wakasagi (H. nipponensis), which 

was introduced into Central Valley 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS