Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 64721 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this proposed 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits would 

justify their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that would 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes that this regulatory action is 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action would not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

In assessing the potential costs and 

benefits—both quantitative and 

qualitative—of this proposed regulatory 

action, we have determined that the 

benefits of the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria justify the costs. We believe that 

the proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria would 

not impose significant costs on eligible 

TEAs that receive assistance through the 

STEP program. We also believe that the 

benefits of implementing the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria outweigh any 

associated costs. 

We believe that the costs imposed on 

applicants would be limited to costs 

associated with developing 

applications, including developing 

partnerships with SEAs and LEAs, and 

that the benefits of creating a 

partnership that is likely to be sustained 

after the end of the project period would 

outweigh any costs incurred by 

applicants. The costs of carrying out 

activities proposed in STEP applications 

would be paid for with program funds. 

Thus, the costs of implementation 

would not be a burden for any eligible 

applicants, including small entities. We 

also note that program participation is 

voluntary. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79, except that federally recognized 

Indian tribes are not subject to those 

rules. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: October 28, 2014. 

Deborah S. Delisle, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25968 Filed 10–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2014–0366; FRL–9918– 

55–Region–6] 

Arkansas: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) 

ACTION: Proposed rule 

SUMMARY: The State of Arkansas has 

applied to EPA for Final authorization 

of the changes to its hazardous waste 

program under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

EPA proposes to grant Final 

authorization to the State of Arkansas. 

In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section 

of this Federal Register, EPA is 

authorizing the changes by an 

immediate final rule. EPA did not make 

a proposal prior to the direct final rule 

because we believe this action is not 

controversial and do not expect 

comments that oppose it. We have 

explained the reasons for this 

authorization in the preamble to the 

direct final rule. Unless we get written 

comments which oppose this 

authorization during the comment 

period, the direct final rule will become 

effective on the date it establishes, and 

we will not take further action on this 

proposal. If we receive comments that 

oppose this action, we will withdraw 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64722 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the direct final rule and it will not take 

effect. We will then respond to public 

comments in a later final rule based on 

this proposal. You may not have another 

opportunity for comment. If you want to 

comment on this action, you must do so 

at this time. 

DATES: Send your written comments by 

December 1, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional 

Authorization Coordinator, (6PD–O), 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, at the address shown below. 

You can examine copies of the materials 

submitted by the State of Arkansas 

during normal business hours at the 

following locations: Arkansas 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

8101 Interstate 30, Little Rock, Arkansas 

72219–8913, (501) 682–0876, and EPA, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 

Texas 75202–2733, phone number (214) 

665–8533 ; or Comments may also be 

submitted electronically or through 

hand delivery/courier; please follow the 

detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES

section of the direct final rule which is 

located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alima Patterson (214) 665–8533. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information, please see the 

direct final rule published in the ‘‘Rules 

and Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: August 22, 2014. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25725 Filed 10–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Chapter I 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2014–0684; FRL–9918–27] 

Discarded Polyvinyl Chloride; TSCA 

Section 21 Petition; Reasons for 

Agency Response 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Petition; reasons for Agency 

response. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

availability of EPA’s response to a 

petition it received under the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA). The 

TSCA section 21 petition was received 

from the Center for Biological Diversity 

(CBD) on July 29, 2014. The petitioner 

requested that EPA initiate rulemaking 

under TSCA to address risks related to 

polyvinyl chloride (PVC), vinyl 

chloride, and phthalates used as 

plasticizers. The petitioner alternatively 

requested that EPA initiate rulemaking 

under TSCA to require additional 

toxicity testing of these chemical 

substances. After careful consideration, 

EPA has denied the TSCA section 21 

petition for the reasons discussed in this 

document. The TSCA section 21 

petition was accompanied by an 

independent petition for EPA to take 

action under the authority of the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). EPA continues to review 

the petitioner’s requests for action under 

RCRA. 

DATES: EPA’s response to this TSCA 

section 21 petition was signed October 

24, 2014.. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Paul 

Lewis, Chemical Control Division 

(7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 564–6738; email address: 

lewis.paul@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This action is directed to the public 

in general. This action may, however, be 

of interest to those persons who 

produce, or who use PVC, vinyl 

chloride, or phthalates used as 

plasticizers, or substitutes for such 

chemical substances. Since many other 

entities may also be interested, the 

Agency has not attempted to describe all 

the specific entities that may be affected 

by this action. 

B. How can I access information about 

this TSCA section 21 petition? 

The docket for this TSCA section 21 

petition, identified by docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2014–0684, is available at 

http://www.regulations.gov or at the 

Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPPT 

Docket is (202) 566–0280. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

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

II. TSCA Section 21 

A. What is a TSCA section 21 petition? 

Under TSCA section 21 (15 U.S.C. 

2620), any person can petition EPA to 

initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the 

issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule 

under TSCA section 4, 6, or 8 or an 

order under TSCA section 5(e) or 

6(b)(2). A TSCA section 21 petition 

must set forth the facts that are claimed 

to establish the necessity for the action 

requested. EPA is required to grant or 

deny the petition within 90 days of its 

filing. If EPA grants the petition, the 

Agency must promptly commence an 

appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies 

the petition, the Agency must publish 

its reasons for the denial in the Federal 

Register. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(3). A 

petitioner may commence a civil action 

in a U.S. district court to compel 

initiation of the requested rulemaking 

proceeding within 60 days of either a 

denial or the expiration of the 90-day 

period. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4). 

B. What criteria apply to a decision on 

a TSCA section 21 petition? 

Section 21(b)(1) of TSCA requires that 

the petition ‘‘set forth the facts which it 

is claimed establish that it is necessary’’ 

to issue the rule or order requested. 15 

U.S.C. 2620(b)(1). Thus, TSCA section 

21 implicitly incorporates the statutory 

standards that apply to the requested 

actions. In addition, TSCA section 21 

establishes standards a court must use 

to decide whether to order EPA to 

initiate rulemaking in the event of a 

lawsuit filed by the petitioner after 

denial of a TSCA section 21 petition. 15 

U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). Accordingly, EPA 

has relied on the standards in TSCA 

section 21 and in the provisions under 

which actions have been requested to 

evaluate this TSCA section 21 petition. 

III. TSCA Sections 6 and 4 

Of particular relevance to this TSCA 

section 21 petition are the legal 

standards regarding TSCA section 6 

rules and TSCA section 4 rules. 

A. TSCA Section 6 Rules 

To promulgate a rule under TSCA 

section 6, the EPA Administrator must 

find that ‘‘there is a reasonable basis to 

conclude that the manufacture, 

processing, distribution in commerce, 

use, or disposal of a chemical substance 

or mixture . . . presents or will present 

an unreasonable risk.’’ 15 U.S.C. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS