[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 138 (Friday, July 18, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41898-41900]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16806]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0400; FRL-9913-81-Region-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri, Auto Exhaust Emission Controls

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the state of Missouri on January 14, 2014, for the purpose
of removing an outdated rule. This action amends the SIP to remove a
rule that was originally approved in 1972 but has now been rescinded.
The rule's purpose was to control emissions from all vehicles subject
to required vehicle safety inspections in areas outside of the Kansas
City, Springfield, and St. Louis metropolitan areas. Vehicle
manufacturers now produce newer technology in exhaust emissions
equipment in order to meet more stringent Federal motor vehicle
standards.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective on September 16, 2014,
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by August
18, 2014. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2014-0400, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2014-0400. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
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 through www.regulations.gov or
email information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site 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 email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public 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
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30
excluding Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24
hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:

    I. What is being addressed in this document?
    II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been
met?
    III. What action is EPA taking?

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve the SIP revision
submitted by the state of Missouri on January 14, 2014, for the purpose
of removing an outdated rule. This action amends the SIP to remove a
rescinded rule that was originally approved in 1972 and was intended to
control emissions from all vehicles subject to required vehicle safety
inspections in areas outside of the Kansas City, Springfield, and St.
Louis metropolitan areas. In this action, EPA is removing rule 10 CSR
10-3.010 ``Auto Exhaust Emission Controls'' from the Missouri SIP.
Since the most recent update to this rule in 1978, vehicle
manufacturers have had to produce newer technology in order to meet
more stringent Federal motor vehicle standards. Missouri rule 10 CSR
10-3.010 referred to exhaust emission control components that are no
longer manufactured. This rule has been rescinded in Missouri,
effective January 30, 2014.

II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    EPA has analyzed the state's request and compared the provisions of
the rescinded rule to current Federally approved provisions. Rescinding
this rule will not have an adverse effect on air quality since current
Federal motor vehicle emission standards are more stringent. The state
submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the
completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as
explained above the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of
the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking direct final action to remove 10 CSR 10-3.010 from
the Missouri SIP. We are publishing this rule without a prior proposed
rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate
no adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of
today's Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that
will serve as the proposed rule to approve this SIP revision. If
adverse comments are received on this direct final rule, we will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further
information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of
this document.
    If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this
direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public
comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms
of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 16, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the
effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this
direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the
parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the
proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 1, 2014.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

PART 52--[APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart AA--Missouri

Sec.  52.1320  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320 the table in paragraph (c) is amended by removing
the entry for 10-3.010.

[FR Doc. 2014-16806 Filed 7-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 102 (Friday, May 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 25735]
[FR Doc No: E9-12555]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8910-7]

Biennial Determination of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's
Compliance With Applicable Federal Environmental Laws for the Period
2006 to 2008

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Based on documentation submitted by the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or ``we'') determined that between
2006 and 2008, DOE operated the WIPP facility in compliance with
applicable Federal statutes, regulations, and permit requirements
designated in Section 9(a)(1) of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, as
amended. The Secretary of Energy was notified of the determination via
a letter from EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson dated May 22, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nick Stone; telephone number: (214)
665-7226; address: WIPP Project Officer, Mail Code 6PD-O, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX
75202.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0324; FRL-XXXX-X]. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket in
the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 Air and Radiation
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. As provided in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR
Part 2, and in accordance with normal EPA docket procedures, if copies
of any docket materials are requested, a reasonable fee may be charged
for photocopying.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

II. Background

    EPA made this determination under the authority of Section 9 of the
WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (WIPP LWA). (Pub. L. 102-579 and 104-201.)
Section 9(a)(1) of the WIPP LWA requires that, as of the date of the
enactment of the WIPP LWA, DOE shall comply with respect to WIPP with
(1) regulations for the management and storage of radioactive waste (40
CFR Part 191, Subpart A); (2) the Clean Air Act; (3) the Solid Waste
Disposal Act; (4) the Safe Drinking Water Act; (5) the Toxic Substances
Control Act; (6) the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act; and (7) all other applicable Federal
laws pertaining to public health and safety or the environment. Section
9(a)(2) of the WIPP LWA requires DOE biennially to submit to EPA
documentation of continued compliance with the laws, regulations, and
permit requirements set forth in Section 9(a)(1). (DOE must also submit
similar documentation of compliance with the Solid Waste Disposal Act
to the State of New Mexico.) Section 9(a)(3) requires the Administrator
of EPA to determine on a biennial basis, following the submittal of
documentation of compliance by the Secretary of DOE, whether the WIPP
is in compliance with the pertinent laws, regulations, and permit
requirements, as set forth at Section 9(a)(1).
    We determined that for the period 2006 to 2008, the DOE-submitted
documentation showed continued compliance with 40 CFR Part 191, subpart
A, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Toxic Substances
Control Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act. With respect to other applicable
Federal laws pertaining to public health and safety or the environment,
as required by Section 9(a)(1)(G), DOE's documentation also indicates
that DOE was in compliance with the Clean Water Act, the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and certain
statutes under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.
    This determination is not in any way related to, or a part of, our
certification and recertification decisions regarding whether the WIPP
complies with EPA's disposal regulations for transuranic radioactive
waste at 40 CFR Part 191.

    Dated: May 22, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-12555 Filed 5-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 164)]
[Notices]
[Page 50108]
[DOCID:fr24au06-84]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension: Rule 15c3-1; SEC File No. 270-197; OMB Control No. 3235-
0200.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 15c3-1 (17 CFR 240.15c3-1) under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) requires brokers and dealers to have at
all times sufficient liquid assets to meet their current liabilities,
particularly the claims of customers. The rule facilitates monitoring
the financial condition of brokers and dealers by the Commission and
the various self-regulatory organizations. It is estimated that
approximately 6,100 active broker-dealer respondents registered with
the Commission incur an aggregate burden of 88,181 hours per year to
comply with this rule. Finally, the estimated cost for the annual hour
burden for Rule 15c3-1 is approximately $22.7 million.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Comments should be directed to: R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or send
an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB
within 60 days of this notice.

    Dated: August 16, 2006.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-14022 Filed 8-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Record Index for the Metal Products and Machinery ( MP& M) OW 2002 033 ( W 99 23) Final Rule ( Section 23) 4/ 16/ 03 23 1 SECTION DCN CBI TYPE TITLE RECIPIENT SENDER DATE PAGES 23.1 17836 No DATA DMR Data For Platt Saco Lowell M. Rubin, EPA V. Giordano, GE 10/ 22/ 02 90 23.1 17837 No PER/ DAT Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant Supplemental Information and DMR Data M. McNall/ J. Hamilton, ERG C. Johnston, EPA 11/ 8/ 02 16 23.1 17838 No DATA Permit Application and Wastewater Data for GE Gas Turbine M. McNall, ERG C. Johnston, EPA 11/ 11/ 02 20 23.1 17839 No DATA DMR Data for GE Aircraft Engines M. McNall, ERG C. Johnston, EPA 11/ 11/ 02 24 23.1 17840 No DATA Permit Application and Limits for Harley Davidson M. McNall, ERG C. Johnston, EPA 11/ 11/ 02 16 23.1 17852 No DATA Monitoring Data for Sargent & Greenleaf, Inc. M. Rubin, EPA/ EAD V. Giordano, GE 8/ 23/ 02 50 23.1 17854 No MEN Wastewater Destination for SUNDS Defibrator Inc. Record C. Johnston, EPA 11/ 19/ 02 3 23.1 17855 No MEN Wastewater Destination for Packaging Machinery Service Co. Record C. Johnston, EPA 11/ 19/ 02 6 23.1 17882 Yes NOTES Additional Industry Correspondence Relating to Site Discharge Destination or Unit Operation Updates Record J. Hamilton, ERG 2/ 11/ 03 2 23.1 17895 No TEL Correspondence with Bob Franczak of AAR Record J. Hamilton, ERG 12/ 6/ 02 1 23.1 17913 No MEM Costs of Upgrading Metal Finishing Job Shops from Part 413 to 433 ( TASKEM) Y. Guilaran, EPA P. Hanson, ERG 8/ 2/ 02 20 23.1 17914 No MEM Costs for conversion of a 413 Facility to a 433 Facility ( APC) Y. Guilaran, EPA P. Hanson, ERG 8/ 7/ 02 49 23.1 17921 No DATA Sampling Data from Emergency One Y. Guilaran, EPA S. Fischer, Golder Associates 12/ 11/ 02 7 23.1 17967 No DATA John Deere Unit Op Update for Phase I Sampling Episode 4470 C. Johnston, EPA J. Howard, John Deere 7/ 8/ 02 17 23.1 31384 No EMAIL Treatment of Chromium with Stannous chloride U. S. EPA Bill Stapp 7/ 22/ 02 14 23.2 17956 No MEN Development of a COD Discharge Concentration for the General Metals Subcategory Using PCS Record M. McNall, ERG 2/ 7/ 03 2 23.2.1 17954 No DATA PCS Data Used in the PCS/ DMR Benchmark Analysis Record L. Crabtree, ERG 8/ 21/ 02 1 23.2.1 17955 No DATA PCS Data Used to Estimate COD Discharge Concentrations Record M. McNall, ERG 2/ 13/ 03 1 23.2.2 17936 No DATA Municipality Submitted Local Limit Data For Region 1 U. S. EPA EPA Region 1 7/ 23/ 02 2 23.2.2 17937 No DATA Municipality Submitted Local Limit Data For Missouri U. S. EPA St. Louis, MS Sewer District 7/ 23/ 02 1 Record Index for the Metal Products and Machinery ( MP& M) OW 2002 033 ( W 99 23) Final Rule ( Section 23) 4/ 16/ 03 SECTION DCN CBI TYPE TITLE RECIPIENT SENDER DATE PAGES 23 2 23.2.2 17938 No DATA Municipality Submitted Local Limit Data For New York U. S. EPA EPA Region 2 7/ 23/ 02 1 23.2.2 17939 No DATA Municipality Submitted Local Limit Data For Region 6 U. S. EPA EPA Region 6 7/ 23/ 02 3 23.2.2 17940 No DATA Municipality Submitted Local Limit Data For Massachusetts U. S. EPA EPA Region 1 7/ 23/ 02 2 23.2.2 17941 No DATA Municipality Submitted Local Limit Data For Maine U. S. EPA EPA Region 1 7/ 23/ 02 1 23.2.2 17942 No DATA Municipality Submitted Local Limit Data For New Hampshire U. S. EPA EPA Region 1 7/ 23/ 02 1 23.2.2 17943 No DATA Municipality Submitted Local Limit Data For Rhode Island U. S. EPA EPA Region 1 7/ 23/ 02 2 23.2.2 17944 No DATA Municipality Submitted Local Limit Data For Illinois S. Barash, EPA/ OW M. Gluckman 7/ 23/ 02 12 23.2.2 17945 No DATA Municipality Submitted Local Limit Data For Michigan S. Barash, EPA/ OW G. Scott, Michigan DEQ 8/ 15/ 02 11 23.2.2 17946 No DATA Municipality Submitted Local Limit Data For Kentucky U. S. EPA EPA Region 4 7/ 15/ 02 30


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 32 (Friday, February 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11167-11168]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03501]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC13-1-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-592); Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Comment request.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting the information
collection, FERC-592 (Standards of Conduct for Transmission Provider;
and Marketing Affiliates of Interstate Pipelines), to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the

information collection requirements. Any interested person may file
comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments
to the Commission as explained below. The Commission issued a Notice in
the Federal Register (77 FR 70746, 11/27/2012) requesting public
comments. FERC received no comments on the FERC-592 and is making this
notation in its submittal to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by March 18,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No.
1902-0157, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be
reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, identified by the Docket No. IC13-1-000, by
either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web Site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-592 (Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers;
and Marketing Affiliates of Interstate Pipelines).
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0157.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-592 information
collection requirements with no changes to the reporting requirements.
    Abstract: The Commission uses the information maintained and posted
by the respondents to monitor the pipeline's transportation, sales, and
storage activities for its marketing affiliate to deter undue
discrimination by pipeline companies in favor of their marketing
affiliates. Non-affiliated shippers and other entities (e.g. state
commissions) also use information to determine whether they have been
harmed by affiliate preference and to prepare evidence for proceedings
following the filing of a complaint.

18 CFR Part 358 (Standards of Conduct)

    Respondents maintain and provide the information required by Part
358 on their internet Web sites. When the Commission requires a
pipeline to post information on its Web site following a disclosure of
non-public information to its marketing affiliate, non-affiliated
shippers obtain comparable access to the non-public transportation
information, which allows them to compete with marketing affiliates on
a more equal basis.

18 CFR 250.16, and the FERC-592 log/format

    This form (log/format) provides the electronic formats for
maintaining information on discounted transportation transactions and
capacity allocation to support monitoring of activities of interstate
pipeline marketing affiliates. Commission staff considers discounts
given to shippers in litigated rate cases.
    Without this information collection:
     The Commission would be unable to effectively monitor
whether pipelines are giving discriminatory preference to their
marketing affiliates; and
     Non-affiliated shippers and state commissions and others
would be unable to determine if they have been harmed by affiliate
preference or prepare evidence for proceedings following the filing of
a complaint.
    Type of Respondents: Natural Gas Pipelines.
    Estimate of Annual Burden \1\: The Commission estimates the total
Public Reporting Burden for this information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

   FERC-592--Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers; and Marketing Affiliates of Interstate Pipelines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of                       Average burden
            Number of respondents              responses per   Total number of     hours per     Estimated total
                                                 respondent       responses         response      annual burden
(A)                                                      (B)        (A)x(B)=(C)            (D)                (C)x(D)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
85..........................................               1               85           116.62            9,913
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $684,092
[9,913 hours / 2080 \2\ hours per year = 4.76586 * $143,540/year \3\ =
$684,092]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 2080 hours/year = 40 hours/week * 52 weeks/year.
    \3\ Average annual salary plus benefits per employee in 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: February 8, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-03501 Filed 2-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 35111]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15482]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-1821-002]

Panda Stonewall LLC; Notice Establishing Answer Period

    On July 10, 2019, Panda Stonewall LLC (Panda) filed a Motion for
Extension of Time (Motion), from July 18, 2019 to October 8, 2019, to
file briefs opposing exceptions to the Initial Decision, in the above
referenced proceedings. Included in the Motion was a request that the
Commission shorten to two days the period for answers to the Motion.
Joint Customers \1\ and Commission Trial Staff filed answers opposing
Panda's request for a shortened answer period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Joint Customers are Old Dominion Electric Cooperative,
North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation, Northern Virginia
Electric Cooperative, Inc., and Dominion Energy Services, Inc., on
behalf of Virginia Electric and Power Company d/b/a Dominion Energy
Virginia/North Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that answers to Panda's
Motion are due by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 17, 2019.

    Dated: July 16, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-15482 Filed 7-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


PETITION TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
FOR AN EXEMPTION UNDER THE
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT
TO IMPORT POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB) AND PCB ITEMS FOR
DISPOSAL

(1)  Petitioner:  Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), a component of the United States (U.S.)
Department of Defense (DoD), 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22061.   Contact:
Mr. Jan Reitman, Staff Director, DLA Enterprise Support Environment, Safety and Occupational
Health,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Mr. Barton McFarlane, DLA Environmental Quality Staff,
(703) 767-1567.

(2)  Exemption requested:  An exemption is sought under 15 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 2605(e)(3)(B)
to import and dispose of transformers, switches, used oil, circuit breakers, debris (e.g., rags,
small parts, packaging materials) and related material containing polychlorinated biphenyls at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) permitted storage, treatment, and disposal
facilities in the U.S.  These PCBs and PCB items are currently in temporary storage on U.S.
military installations in Japan, or are in use and scheduled to be removed from service sometime
before the expiration of any exemption granted based on this petition.   U.S. military forces
generate this material when the PCB articles are taken out of service on U.S. military
installations in Japan.  We believe that the PCBs contained in the articles were originally
manufactured or acquired outside the U.S.
(3)  Manufacturing sites requiring exemption:  None.  Exemption is sought for import and
disposal only of items generated by U.S. forces located in Japan.
(4)  Length of time requested for exemption:  One year.
(5)  Estimated amount of PCBs and PCB items to be imported for disposal:  It is the intent
of the DLA to utilize this exemption, if granted, to allow for environmentally sound disposal of
PCBs in DoD’s inventory in Japan, which are currently in storage or can be removed from
service for disposal before the expiration of any exemption granted.  Attachment 1  provides an
estimated inventory of the items to be imported for disposal.  The inventory contains items with
various concentrations of PCBs ranging from non-detected or less than 2.0 parts per million
(ppm) to greater than 500 ppm.  Nearly all of this material would be considered regulated PCBs
in Japan.   Based on data currently available, DLA anticipates that approximately 70 percent of
the inventory estimate included within this petition request would be material containing PCBs at
less than 50 ppm, which is a level lower than that regulated for disposal under U.S. law.
     The inventories include the following types of items:  transformers (drained and undrained),
large and small capacitors, voltage regulators, switches, electromagnets, circuit breakers,
reclosers, electrical cable, electric light ballasts, transformer oils, used oils, contaminated soil,
and debris.  The terms “PCBs” and “PCB items” are used to refer to PCB containing materials
generally throughout this petition, and no portion of the petition is seeking to make distinctions
between “types” of PCB containing material or how they may be defined under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) implementing regulations at Title 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 761.
(6)  Risk of injury to health or environment:  Given the EPA’s finding in response to DLA’s
previous petitions that compliant disposal in the U.S. presents “no unreasonable risk,”  as well as
DLA’s successful experience in disposing of PCB items under the initial exemption, the
Administrator should find that allowing the DoD to return PCB containing items from its
inventory in Japan for compliant disposal in the U.S. presents no unreasonable risk to health or to
the environment.  The following discussion evaluates the risks of the proposed import for
disposal in the U.S. and balances them with the alternatives.
    a.  Evaluation of risk for import for disposal in the U.S.
1.	 PCB concentrations.  Foreign-manufactured PCBs and PCB items do not differ in
chemical composition from domestically-manufactured PCBs and PCB items, and they
present the same risks to human health and the environment as domestic PCBs and PCB
items.  A description of the parts per million concentrations and the types of PCBs and
PCB items under the purview of this exemption request is provided at Attachment 1.  As
noted in paragraph (5) above, the vast majority of this material would not qualify as PCB
waste under 40 CFR 761, Subpart D.

2.	Packaging and transportation.  When the DoD ships PCB items or waste from Japan,
packaging, marking, labeling and shipping papers will conform to the applicable modal and
inter-modal (sea, air, land) national and/or international regulations.  The packaging will be
in accordance with the United Nations Performance Oriented Packaging standards.
Shipments must also comply with modal or intermodal regulatory requirements outlined in
the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code/International Maritime Organization,
International Civil Aviation Organization Technical Instructions of the International Air
Transport Association, United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous
Goods Code, and U.S. Title 49 CFR 100-199.  DoD policy and procedures implementing
these standards are found in DoD Joint Regulations .  Proper handling and shipping shall
include blocking, bracing, over-packing, and the inclusion of secondary spill containment
devices, as required by applicable transportation regulations.

3.	   Handling, treatment, and disposal in compliance with U.S. laws and regulations.  The
DLA has considerable experience and expertise in awarding and administering disposal
contracts for PCB waste in the U.S.  The DLA has been safely returning U.S.-
manufactured items generated by U.S. forces overseas for compliant and environmentally
sound disposal in the U.S. for many years.  For over a decade, the DLA has successfully
returned millions of pounds of U.S.-manufactured/U.S. Government owned and controlled
PCBs for disposal in the U.S.  Additionally, the DLA has successful experience in
importing and disposing of approximately 2.7 million pounds of PCBs and PCB items
pursuant to a previous exemption granted by the Administrator under TSCA Section 6,
which covered the period April 18, 2003, to April 17, 2004.

     If the exemption requested in this petition is granted, the DLA will award contracts for
treatment and disposal services with commercial firms.  Contracts will be awarded in
accordance with all applicable federal procurement statutes and the Federal Acquisition
Regulations.   Only companies utilizing federal and/or state-permitted treatment storage,
and disposal facilities for handling PCBs and PCB items would be eligible for such
contracts.

     Specifically, upon approval of this petition under TSCA Section 6, the material will be
imported in accordance with the regulations issued under the authority of TSCA Section
13(b), 15 U.S.C. 2612(b), and all applicable U.S. Customs regulations.  Upon arrival in
the U.S., the material will be transported, handled, treated, and disposed of in
conformance with the U.S. EPA regulations at 40 CFR 761.  These regulations set out
specific treatment and disposal methods for PCBs and PCB items, depending on the type
of item and the concentrations of PCBs in the item or liquids/fluids.  The foreign-
manufactured PCB items described herein are similar in chemical and physical
composition to U.S.-manufactured PCBs and PCB items, and their treatment and disposal
required by EPA regulations is the same.  Used oils will be dechlorinated and recycled
where feasible or will be used as fuel for energy recovery.  Mixed metals and other
materials will be treated, detoxified and recycled where feasible.  Non-recyclable
material will be treated and disposed of as residual solid waste.  Alternative disposal
methods could be used if approved by the Administrator.

     As noted above, the DLA and its contractors have extensive experience in safely
returning PCBs and PCB items to the U.S. for disposal.  Prior to safely returning and
disposing of 2.7 million pounds of PCB items under the Administrator’s previously
granted exemption, DLA returned 2.4 million of pounds of U.S.-manufactured PCBs and
PCB items from Japan since 1991 for compliant disposal without incident.  Throughout
the course of this experience, DLA has used the same standards and procedures described
above without incurring a spill or safety problems affecting human health or the
environment.

    b.  Evaluation of long term storage risks in Japan.

1.	Lack of permitted PCB disposal facilities in Japan to process U.S. waste.  The DoD
intends to pursue in-country disposal when capacity comes on line and when disposal
services can be reasonably acquired.  However, as has been noted internationally, Japan
has insufficient disposal capacity to handle PCB decontamination and destruction.
Reports by the United Nations Environmental Program Agency note the lack of disposal
facilities.   The Japan Times and other Japanese media have also focused on the issue.
In 2001, the Japanese Diet passed legislation designed to facilitate the construction of
PCB disposal capacity, known as the “Law Concerning Special Measures Against PCB
Waste”.   Although Japan is developing domestic capacity to dispose of PCBs, no
commercial facilities are known to be operational at this time, and capacity is expected to
be very limited for the next several years.

      A precise estimate of the overall backlog of PCB waste material inventories currently
awaiting disposal in Japan is not readily available.  Japan has banned PCB production
since 1974.  Before that date very significant quantities of pure PCBs were produced and
utilized in various electrical and insulating capacities.   Given the significant backlog of
Japanese generated PCBs and given the very limited in-country disposal capacity, it is not
likely that there will be disposal facilities available to treat and dispose of U.S. forces-
generated waste for a number of years.  By contrast, the United Nations reports
referenced above and EPA’s web site identifying permitted PCB disposal facilities
indicate there are a significant number of facilities in the U.S that are permitted to dispose
of PCB wastes in a compliant manner that presents no unreasonable risk to human health
or the environment.
2.  Limited DoD storage capacity in Japan.  Since Japan has no disposal or permitted
storage capacity currently available to U.S. military generators, U.S. forces are required
to accumulate PCBs on their installations pending final disposal solutions.  At the time of
DLA’s previous petitions, DoD interior storage space in Japan was severely impacted,
and much inside storage space that could have been devoted to more direct mission
support was utilized to store PCBs in order to mitigate the risks as much as possible.
Following the successful removal of 2.7 million pounds of PCBs, much of this storage
has reverted to previous uses and now more directly supports the missions of the U.S.
Forces in Japan (USFJ).

     Without the benefit of an exemption from the TSCA import ban DoD’s current storage
capacity limits will be reached and PCB waste from smaller temporary storage locations
will eventually have to be transported over public roads to other larger storage areas until
disposal can be effected.  In addition, non-PCB property currently in certain storage areas
would need to be moved to allow that space to revert to PCB storage.  The PCB wastes
and the adjoining material will be subject to increased moves and handling.  These
factors demonstrate the risks of long term storage and show that this strategy is
inappropriate for DoD’s management of its PCBs in Japan and supports the rationale
behind requesting these items to be returned for compliant disposal in the U.S.  Based on
current estimates of new PCB waste generations, some DoD facilities in Japan will reach
existing storage capacity limits within the next year, and several more will reach capacity
by the time the exemption being requested by this petition may be granted.

3.  Risks of long-term storage of PCBs and PCB items increase with time.  Although
significant progress has been made in drawing down the DoD inventory of PCBs and
PCB items located in Japan, the continuing shortage of in-country disposal capacity does
not allow for reductions of the remainder of the DoD foreign-manufactured PCB
inventory.  Absent a waiver to the import ban, DoD will be dependent on long term
storage on its foreign military installations as a means to manage its PCB waste.

     Continued accumulation over extended time periods increase the risk of exposure to
U.S. military personnel, to people living in and around the U.S. installations where the
PCBs are stored, and to the environment should releases occur due to human error, or
unforeseen severe weather, or seismic events.  In addition, storage containers will
deteriorate with time, increasing the likelihood that personnel who must monitor such
items and repack them if they suspect leakage are exposed to the PCBs.  Long-term
storage may increase the DoD’s liability for clean-up costs if spills occur.  This would
increase exposure to U.S. personnel, and local citizens, and could potentially result in
ground and water contamination.  Each time an item is handled, another opportunity for a
spill or exposure is created.  The storage situation is exacerbated in Japan because the
installations where these materials are located are relatively small, storage space is at a
premium, and the surrounding civilian communities are located in very close proximity to
the stored PCBs.  Moreover, the situation for the DoD is further complicated because of
the perceptions of the local communities regarding PCBs, as addressed in
paragraph 6 (b) 4 below.
     Additionally, Japan is in an area of the world subject to severe weather and seismic
activity.  Typhoons, earthquakes and tsunamis could flood or severely damage storage
areas and buildings, increasing the potential for releases and increasing DoD’s liability
for subsequent environmental clean-up or damage to human health.  PCBs and PCB
waste items stored for an indefinite period abroad may therefore present a greater risk to
human health and the environment than short term storage for timely disposal in the U.S.
     The EPA has previously noted the risks inherent in extended storage in its 1996 PCB
Import for Disposal Final Rule:
“EPA believes that PCB wastes which are not disposed of for extended
periods of time or which are not disposed of in facilities providing
equivalent protection from release to the environment may pose an
unreasonable risk to health and the environment.”
     The same Rule also underscored the benefit of prompt disposal in the U.S:
“Based on the persistence of PCBs in the global environment and EPA’s
finding that any exposure to human beings or the environment may be
significant, EPA believes that the safe disposal of PCBs in approved
U.S. facilities poses less risk of injury to health or the environment in the
U.S. than the continued presence of PCBs in other countries, since
proper disposal in this country provides protection against possible
hazards from improper disposal elsewhere.”
     EPA affirmed its positions regarding the risks of long term storage abroad and the
benefits of prompt disposal in its Final Rule addressing DLA’s previous petitions.
Moreover, this position is consistent with the position of the U.S. Government regarding
the proper management of PCBs as expressed in multilateral arrangements and
international conventions such as the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants,  and in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) Decision (C(73)1) on the “Protection of the Environment by the Control of
PCBs, 2/13/73, and the OECD Decision (C(87)2(final)) on “Further Measures for the
protection of the environment by control of PCBs, 2/13/87.”   Very generally stated,
these arrangements require or recommend bans on production or new uses of PCBs and
advocate “accelerated” disposal of PCBs and PCB items currently in use where possible.
4.  PCB disposal issues can strain U.S.-Japanese international relations.  In 1968, a tragic
human poisoning episode in Western Japan affected over 1,000 people causing 22
deaths.   The “Yusho” or “rice oil disease” was attributed to the consumption of rice
bran oil contaminated with PCBs and served as a catalyst for current PCB prohibitions
such as those imposed by TSCA,  the Stockholm Convention, and Japanese domestic
law.  As a result of this highly publicized incident, Japanese citizens exhibit particular
sensitivity to PCB issues.  Delicate U.S.-Japan relations over the presence and operation
of U.S. military installations could be adversely affected by denial of this petition.
     The presence of PCBs on U.S. military bases in Japan has in the past attracted
significant adverse attention from Japanese politicians, the Japanese press, Japanese
environmental groups, and local citizens.   There has been constant local surveillance of
U.S. military PCB storage in Sagamihara and demands for inspections and sampling for
PCBs since at least 1992, when a member of Congress released a report outlining the
storage and presence of PCBs and other hazardous materials on U.S. bases in Japan.
Any perception that the U.S. would return to stockpiling and long term storage of these
materials invites unwarranted claims that the U.S. military is neglecting its environmental
responsibilities.

5.  Summary.  In light of the risks cited above, allowing PCB material to remain in
storage indefinitely may lead to degradation of storage containers and releases of PCBs
into the environment from the materials located at temporary or permanent storage
facilities.  PCBs released into the environment as a result of disasters, accidents,
container degradation or other events can present significant exposure risks.  This
material is currently stored, or will need to be stored, on crowded DoD facilities in close
proximity to where U.S. military and civilian personnel and the local community live and
work.  Since there are no permitted PCB disposal facilities available to U.S. forces in
Japan, and because of the unique environmental conditions in Japan, as noted above, the
potential for PCB contamination via leaks from aging containers or accidental spills is
higher at these locations than at EPA permitted disposal facilities in the U.S.  DoD
civilian employees, U.S. military personnel, and contractors employed by the U.S.
Government are at greatest risk.

c.  Balancing risks and interests.  The benefits of prompt disposal of this material in the U.S.
eliminates the risks inherent in extended long term storage of PCBs and far outweighs any
risk associated with the DLA’s proposed course of action.  Granting this petition presents no
unreasonable safety or health risks and will serve to mitigate the risk of injury to human
health and the environment.  Approval of this petition will demonstrate environmentally
responsible behavior by the U.S. and will further the U.S.’ interests by maintaining good
international relations with a valued ally, and will significantly reduce the health risk to
persons of both nations and to the environment in Japan.

    Additionally, as noted above, granting this petition to allow DoD to manage its PCBs in
an environmentally sound manner (i.e., import of DoD owned and generated items to the U.S.
for compliant disposal) is consistent with U.S. interests and obligations, such as those
expressed in OECD Decisions (e.g., paragraph (6) b 3 above regarding management and
treatment of PCBs); the Basel and Stockholm Conventions; and the Toxic Substances Control
Act itself.  This petition envisions DLA removing these items from a country where suitable
disposal cannot currently be obtained and ensures that suitable disposal will occur in a
manner consistent with U.S. law and regulation.  Accordingly, this application meets the
statutory standard that “no unreasonable risk” may result from the grant of an exemption
under the TSCA 6(e) authority.
(7)  Substitutes for Disposal in the U.S.  TSCA Section 6(e)(3)(B)(ii) requires the
Administrator to find that “good faith efforts have been made to develop a chemical substance
which does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment and
which may be substituted for PCBs.”  To satisfy the requirement in the context of a petition to
import, EPA looks at why such activity should occur in the U.S., including what steps the
petitioner has taken to find an alternative to importing the PCBs for disposal.   The DLA
submits that despite its good faith efforts to find alternatives to domestic disposal in the U.S.,
there is currently no reasonable alternative to domestic disposal.
	a.  Alternative treatment and disposal on U.S. installations in Japan.  As DLA noted in its
previous exemption requests, there are significant impediments to disposal on DoD military
installations in Japan.  To be properly processed, PCB materials should be separated into three
streams: 1) metallic components to be decontaminated and recycled; 2) used oils to be
treated/dechlorinated and recycled or burned for energy recovery; and 3) non-recyclable material
to be treated and disposed of as residual solid wastes.  Although certain portable treatment
technologies are becoming available in Japan, the domestic regulatory standards are very
stringent and would require PCB decontamination levels to be less than 0.5 ppm without dilution
to qualify an item as being “non PCB”.  Complicating the situation further is that any transfer or
sale of property from the U.S. military installations into Japanese commerce is considered an
“import.” of property.  Japan has banned the importation of PCBs at any detectable concentration
including concentrations below the very stringent 0.5 ppm level at which Japan regulates
domestic PCBs.   DLA is not aware of any available technologies that are permitted in Japan
that would treat all PCBs items to the level that PCBs are completely removed or that could be
acquired at a cost that is economically feasible.  Moreover, if such technology were to become
available, it would not resolve the issue of the residual “non-recyclable” waste that would remain
or result from the treatment process.  There are no permitted commercial disposal facilities
currently available to the U.S. military for PCB disposal in Japan; hence, treatment outside of
Japan would still be required for the residual wastes resulting from any “on-installation”
treatment process.
     Additionally, the local Japanese communities next to, or near U.S. installations would likely
object to the construction of processing facilities.  In light of the concerns cited above, engaging
in on-site processing activities in Japan would present significantly greater public relations
challenges and potentially greater environmental and health risks than shipping the materials to
existing U.S. permitted treatment and disposal facilities where the technology, infrastructure and
expertise are available to process them properly.  Finally, DoD’s policy on the environmentally
sound management of hazardous waste, as incorporated in bilateral agreements with the Japanese
Ministry of the Environment (MOE),   prohibits the treatment of this material on U.S.
government installations.  In the event that DoD reached agreement with the MOE to change the
policy to allow treatment on U.S. installations, any proposed treatment would likely require
permissions from other government agencies, including local prefectures.
    As noted in paragraph 6(b)1 of this petition, Japan passed laws in 2001 for the purpose of
making the country PCB-free by 2016, and the government is promoting the construction and
operation of new disposal facilities.  The first plant capable of PCB disposal is expected to come
on-line in November 2005, with four more facilities to follow.  Sufficient processing capacity to
dispose of DoD generated PCB wastes in Japan is not likely in the foreseeable future.  In
addition, other factors preclude in-country disposal as a viable alternative for DoD in the near
term because local community resistance is expected and because the original intent of the 2001
Japanese environmental laws was to promote construction of facilities to process Japan’s
domestic wastes.  Japanese companies currently do not have other viable alternatives for PCB
disposal.  Accordingly, PCBs located on U.S. installations were not even considered in the
planning factors for designing disposal capacity to ensure Japan could be PCB-free by 2016.
The DoD continues to pursue potential access to future Japanese disposal capacity with the
MOE; however, since the sufficient disposal capacity is not currently available to the Japanese
commercial sector, DLA does not anticipate getting access to in-country facilities prior to the
expiration of any exemption that may be granted pursuant to this request, the timing of which is
intended to ensure USFJ does not experience significant storage impacts (i.e., exceed existing
capacity).   Finally, there is the issue of cost of disposal in Japan.  The cost of commercial PCB
disposal in Japan appears to be many times greater than the cost of returning this waste for
disposal in the U.S.  Even if the international relations concerns and capacity concerns with
respect to in-country disposal were to be resolved, it would be very difficult to justify payment of
higher prices to foreign companies with limited capacity when the cost is lower in the U.S. and
capacity is ample.  The DoD currently has contracts with U.S. waste disposal companies with a
history of safely and efficiently processing PCBs.
    b.  Feasibility of third country disposal.  The lack of suitable alternatives for disposal of PCBs
generated by U.S. defense activities overseas is an ongoing concern and was explored in a 1999
DoD report to Congress.   Since PCBs are covered by the Basel Convention on the
Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal (hereafter “Basel
Convention”), the DLA contractor hired to arrange disposal was required to comply with the
cooperation notices and consent regime required under that convention.
     Prior to submitting its previous request to EPA for an exemption from the TSCA PCB import
ban, DLA and its primary disposal contractor made contacts over a period of several years with
Japanese officials and with disposal facilities located outside the U.S. in an effort to identify
firms that could dispose of waste PCB items overseas while satisfying Basel Convention
requirements.  The DoD also consulted with State Department officials in Japan and the U.S.
whose responsibilities included international environmental matters.  These consultations
resulted in a consensus that use of existing facilities in other developed countries was not a
reasonable alternative.  Even if other countries would accept these wastes, non-governmental
organizations could be expected to oppose disposal of its U.S. waste in third countries,
principally because the U.S. already has the technical capability to dispose of PCBs.
     Discussions held with USFJ personnel prior to submitting this petition suggest that it is
unlikely there will be disposal capacity available to the U.S. within Japan in the near term.  In
addition, the previous TSCA exemption appears to have affirmed the perspective of Government
of Japan (GoJ) officials that the U.S. Government should dispose of U.S.-generated PCBs in the
U.S.  USFJ officials have pursued the viability of third country disposal with their Japanese
counterparts.  The MOE clearly pointed out that Article 4 paragraph 5 of the Basel Convention
prohibits export and import of hazardous wastes between a Party and non-Party and that any
PCB disposal that may take place “would be a matter between the U.S. and the third country.”
They went on to say “they believe it (i.e., third country disposal) would be against the spirit of
the Basel Convention.”   This is a clear indication that the MOE position (i.e., of declining to
act as the exporting country under the Basel Convention for wastes not generated by Japanese)
will not change and therefore the DoD will not be able to obtain Japan’s consent to act as an
“exporting country” under the Basel Convention.
     The DLA’s attempts to locate appropriate disposal sites outside the U.S. demonstrate its good
faith efforts to pursue alternatives for disposal within the U.S. and fulfill the requirements of
TSCA 6(e)(3)(B).    USFJ officials will continue to explore the potential that Japanese PCB
disposal capacity may become available to the U.S. at some time in the future.  Should such
disposal capacity become available its use will be seriously considered.
(8)  Economic consequences if petition is denied.  The broad economic consequences of
denying this petition are not readily susceptible to objective quantification.  For example, there is
no reliable way to assess the potential economic consequences to the U.S. stemming from
potential international criticism or non-cooperation that may result from a U.S. decision not to
import PCB waste for disposal, waste that the U.S. itself generated at its military activities
overseas.  Similarly, it is difficult to estimate the economic consequences of continued long term
storage of the material in Japan along with the attendant exposure risks to U.S. personnel and the
risk of release to the local environment, a risk that increases over time.  These potential
consequences, while difficult to quantify, are of potentially greater magnitude than the direct
costs of continued storage in Japan.
(9)  Conclusion:  The U.S. Armed Forces are an indispensable and highly visible instrument of
U.S. foreign policy.  Through our military presence overseas, the U.S. exerts influence on the
global community.  This influence is manifested in our approach to security arrangements,
alliances, and international arrangements ranging from the non-proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction to trade and the environment.  However, this presence overseas unavoidably results
in the generation of wastes, some of it hazardous, and some of it related to PCBs manufactured
before their hazards were recognized or their distribution banned.
     This exemption meets the statutory requirement for relief under Section 6(e)(3) of the TSCA.
The treatment and disposal facilities that DLA will utilize if this request is granted are compliant
with U.S. law, and the import proposed would not result in an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment.  Granting this petition would eliminate the risks inherent in continued
storage of this material in Japan and will avoid exposing the U.S. to international criticism for
not disposing of its own PCB waste.  Additionally, the DLA has made reasonable efforts to
locate appropriate disposal sites outside the U.S. as a substitute to making this request.
     For all the foregoing reasons, the DLA respectfully requests that the Administrator grant the
proposed exemption.

					     KEITH W. LIPPERT
					     Vice Admiral, SC, USN
					      Director

  The Defense Logistics Agency is the DoD component that provides supplies and services to America’s military
forces in 48 states and 28 foreign countries.  The DLA manages more than 5.2 million consumable items and
processes 54,000 requisitions per day.  DLA supports 124 nations with sales that are expected to total more than 31
billion dollars annually in FY 2005.  When the military no longer needs an item, the DLA arranges for its
reutilization or ultimate disposition through the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS), a DLA field
activity.
  For purposes of this petition, DLA’s estimates of waste quantities generated are based on CY 2007 being the
approximate effective period of any exemption granted.  Actual generations may be adjusted lower or higher
depending on the actual exemption period.
  In a meeting at Yokota Air Base March 1-2, 2005, representatives of the U.S. installations generating PCBs in
Japan determined that the PCBs generated in the 12 month period from February 2004 are representative of annual
generations expected to continue at least through 2008.
  In Japan, as in the U.S., imported PCBs are regulated differently from domestic PCBs.  Under the Law Concerning
the Examination and Regulation on Manufacture of Chemical Substances, and related Japanese legislation, use and
distribution of material containing PCBs above 0.5 ppm is strictly regulated and new production banned.  However,
DRMS personnel have been advised by officials at the Japan Ministry of Environment that “no” material containing
“any levels” of PCBs may be recycled, sold or otherwise transferred into the Japanese economy because such
transfers would be considered imports, as are other transfers of property from U.S. Government control to private
Japanese parties.  Furthermore, an Import Response from the Government of Japan published under the Rotterdam
Convention of Prior Consent  indicates that no PCBs may be imported without permission from the Minister of
International Trade and Industry (MITI) and that no such permissions have been granted (Rotterdam Convention on
Prior Informed Consent (PIC)) Import Responses, as of July 2004, (CAS number 1336-36-3).
  See attachment 1 for characterization of waste streams by type of material and PCB concentration.
  68 Fed. Reg. 4938.
  DLA Directive 4145.41/Army Regulation 700-143/Air Force Joint Instruction 24-201/Navy Supply Instruction
4040.55/Marine Corps Order 4030.40A.
  The DLA has an existing PCB disposal contract that is used for disposal of PCBs returned from overseas.  The
contract is held by Clean Harbors, of Coffeyville, Kansas.  In addition to the PCB transformer
decontaminating/decommissioning performed at that site, other Clean Harbors facilities are EPA permitted to
perform chemical dechlorination, chemical waste landfilling and incineration.  However, that contract will expire at
the end of FY 2005, and a new contract(s) will need to be awarded to handle any imported PCBs authorized as a
result of any exemption granted pursuant to this petition.
  United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), August 2000, “Survey of Currently Available Non-
Incineration PCB Destruction Technologies,” Annex.2.
  Cabinet Set to Approve Two Bills on PCB Disposal, February 22, 2001, Japan Times, available at
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/contact.htm.  The article explains that once the Diet approves construction of facilities
under this bill, it would be another five to ten years before facilities are able to operate and take care of the backlog
of items for disposal.
  Effective date July 15, 2001 English translation from Japan Environmental Safety Corporation (JESCO) website.
The JESCO (formerly known as JEC) is the quasi-governmental organization charged with the construction and
operation of PCB disposal facilities as mandated by law.  The law requires the central government to develop a
framework to develop capacity to dispose or consign disposal of current PCB inventories by 2016.  Under the law,
prefectures establish plans under the national framework and waste holders report PCB storage and disposal at the
prefectural level, consigning disposal in accordance with their plans.  An overview of the law can be found at
www.jesconet.co.jp/eg/pcblaw.htm.  An overview of the domestic PCB waste treatment program can be found at
www.jesconet.co.jp/eg/pcb.htm.
  ib.  See also, footnote 13.
  See PCB Treatment in Japan, International Business Strategies, January 2002.  Based on a report and survey by
Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW) in 1998, approximately 54,000 tons of PCBs were
consumed domestically prior to the 1974 ban.  This is absolute weight of pure PCBs.  This volume of PCBs will
yield considerably greater volumes of PCB items or material contaminated by PCBs.  The same report notes that
there is currently approximately 126,000 tons of PCB contaminated insulation oil in storage in Japan.  Manufactured
PCBs used in heat conducting insulation oil, for example, accounted for considerably less PCB production (8585
tons) than did electrical power equipment uses (approx 37,156 tons).  While reliable data on the stockpile of PCB
contaminated fluids and material (by weight) is not readily available, the MHLW report listed the following
stockpiles:  high voltage transformers/condensers, 390,000 units in use or storage; low voltage
transformers/condensers, 712,000 units; PCB bearing waste pressure sensitive paper, 27 tons; PCB waste, 778
kilolitres; waste polluted materials, 6300 tons; pole mounted transformers, 4,026,000 units.
  www.epa.gov/opptintr/pcb/stordisp.html.
  DLA has submitted this request in anticipation of an exemption period that would allow removal of the maximum
amount of PCB material without exceeding DoD’s existing overall storage capacity in the country.  (Please see
Attachment 2, table, “Storage Impacts”.
  This situation results in DoD repeatedly being unable to comply with its own internal guidance and Final
Governing Standards agreed to in bilateral arrangements with Japan  (see, Department of Defense, 2001, Japan
Environmental Governing Standards,  Version 1.1, revised June 2002, hereafter “JEGS”) as negotiated in
accordance with the U.S./Japan “Status of Forces Agreement,” entry into force, Jan. 19, 1960, and DoD’s “Overseas
Environmental Baseline Guidance Document,” DoDD 4715.5-G, March 2000.   Generally speaking, the JEGS
require compliance with host nation or U.S. environmental requirements, “whichever is more stringent.”  The lack
of  “in country” or “third country” disposal options combined with the impact of the TSCA ban on PCB imports
often results in DoD having to store PCBs in Japan for periods longer than would be allowable under U.S. law.
Also, the JEGs incorporate a bilateral agreement that the U.S. will dispose of its PCBs (except GoJ provided
equipment) outside of Japan, JEGS 14-3.5b.
  [Federal Register (Fed Reg.):  March 18, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 53)][Rules and Regulations] [Page 11099]
  ib.
  68 Fed. Reg. 4937
  The U.S. has signed, but not ratified this convention.  Under Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties, signatories to treaties are expected not to take actions to “frustrate” the purpose of the Treaty.  In any event,
the current U.S. administration has indicated it supports the goals of the Stockholm Convention.
  With this decision OECD member countries, including the U.S., committed themselves to ban virtually all new
uses for PCBs, and recommended that members “accelerate” the phasing out of PCBs from existing uses, control
PCBs in existing products, articles or equipment, and ensure appropriate disposal methods for wastes containing
PCBs.”
  See Michel Mercier & Morrell Draper, Chemical Safety:  The International Outlook, World Health Organization
(1994); Leonard T. Flynn, Ph.D., M.B.A. & Cindy F. Klein\man, M.P.H., Public Health Concerns about
Polychlorinated Biphenyl’s (PCBs), Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 38, 71-84 (1997).
  ib.
  See, Defense Agency will Inspect PCB Storage, The Yomiuri Shimbun (Tokyo), Aug. 20, 2000, at 2;  Pollution at
Okinawa Bases Cannot be left Uncorrected, Asahi Shimbun Jan 14, 1999;  David Armstrong, U.S. Presence on
Foreign Soil is Tainted, Boston Globe, Nov. 15, 1999; Danielle Knight, Environment:  Asian Women Demand
Cleanup of U.S. Military Bases, Inter Press Service, Oct. 16, 1998; Probe Fails to Confirm Source of Pollutant at
Kadena Air Base, Kyodo News Service, Sept. 28, 1998; High Level of PCB Detected in Okinawa, Jiji Press Ticker
Service, Feb. 21, 1997; Toxic PCB Detected at Ex-U.S. Facility, Jiji Press Ticker Service, Oct. 2, 1996.
  See, MOFA, Environment agency to Investigate Base PCB Dumping, Ryuku Shimpo, Aug. 19, 1998; Editorial:
Probe Pollution at U.S. Bases, Ryuku Shimpo, Aug. 18, 1998; U.S. Base Pollution, Ryuku Shimpo, Aug. 28, 1998;
U.S. Rejects Request for PCB Test at Kadena, Japan Economic Newswire, No. 25, 1998.  The DLA has also
received several requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act from members of the Sagamihara
City Council seeking copies of delivery orders and other documentation of hazardous materials containing PCBs at
the Sagami Depot.
  68 Fed. Reg. 4936, statement regarding the applicable test from the EPA Final Rule granting DLA’s earlier
petitions requesting an exemption to import PCBs from U.S. installations in Wake Island and Japan for disposal.
  See footnote 3, above.
  Even if such facilities become available in the future, the United States Government would still need to enter
bilateral arrangements with Japan permitting the U.S. to “import” PCBs into Japan.  For many reasons, not the least
of which is the disparity between the PCB disposal capacities of our two nations, it seems unlikely the U.S. would
be able to obtain such permission in the next five years.
  See footnote 15.  The JEGS currently prohibit treatment on USFJ installations.
  USFJ and DoD officials work closely with Japanese Ministry of Environment (MOE) officials on environmental
matters pertaining to U.S. forces there and participate in an Environmental Steering Committee, and the PCB
Technical Working Group (PCB TWG).  The GoJ takes the position that U.S. generated PCBs should be disposed of
at U.S. facilities and that the limited disposal capacity being developed in Japan was intended only to meet Japanese
requirements according to the commitments the GoJ has made in its 2001 law (enacted for the purpose of disposing
of domestic Japanese PCBs by 2016). See, for example, Environmental Subcommittee, PCB Technical Working
Group, Minutes of Second Meeting, Oct. 25, 2002.  Like other documents from the PCB TWG, this is a bilateral
U.S./GoJ document for official use only and not available for release outside the USFJ and GoJ MOE, unless the
consent of the MOE is obtained.  Requests to the Japanese MOE through USFJ may be made by contacting the
DLA-P LNO, Maj. Mike Ercolano, DSN:<PHONE_NUMBER>; cell phone number 090-6861-4245; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>  The commercial price list JESCO provides to its Japanese customers contains disposal rates that appear to be
many times greater than disposal rates in the U.S. and significantly higher than DoD’s costs for domestic disposal
even when ocean transportation is factored in.  For example, the JESCO 2005 price list offers 1810 yen/kg for light
ballasts, equating to approximately $8.00/lb; 422,000 yen per 10-15 kg transformers which equates to approximately
$4,200.00 for an average sized 33 lb. transformer (not including the costs of in-country transportation to the disposal
facility).  By contrast, DRMS’ PCB disposal prices average about $0.40/lb., not including ocean or domestic
transportation costs.
   The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, section 324, directed the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the Congress regarding foreign manufactured PCB waste under control overseas.  The EPA
concurred in its release, noting that it looked forward to working with DoD to ensure all PCB wastes are handled in
an environmentally sound manner.  The report stated in pertinent part:

                     “Shrinking access to adequate disposal facilities overseas is an impediment
                     to the environmentally sound disposal of foreign-manufactured PCB wastes.
                     Most of the facilities that can dispose of PCBs in accordance with DLA
                     standards are located in Europe or North America.  Over the past several
                     years, the European Union (EU) member States have been revising their
                     waste policies to restrict transboundary movements of hazardous waste.
                     Currently, EU law prohibits imports into the EU of waste for disposal,
                     except for parties to the Basel Convention.  However, Basel parties
                     wishing to export waste into the EU for final disposal must obtain prior
                     approval from the importing country and must affirmatively show that
                     they do not have and cannot acquire facilities to dispose of the waste
                     in an environmentally sound manner domestically.  It is not easy to
                     obtain the cooperation of both the importing and exporting countries
                     and the approval process is very time consuming.”

(Report to Congress, Foreign Manufactured PCBs at U.S. Military Installations Overseas, page 15, March 1999).
  Since that time two more international conventions addressing international trade or controls in toxic chemicals
have come into effect: the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS), entry into force on May
17, 2004, and the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent, (PIC), entry into force, June 2004.  Like the
Basel Convention, the U.S. has signed, but not ratified, these conventions.
  Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan Memorandum for U.S. Forces Japan dated June 20, 2005.
Subject: Basel Notification for PCB Disposal
  This issue has been pursued repeatedly in discussions between the two governments, and has been subject to
discussions within the Environmental Steering Committee and other environmental and diplomatic channels.  The
latest of these, a formal written USFJ request to the MOE on May 18, 2005, has not yielded positive results.
  In addition to DLA’s efforts, it should be noted that the Department of Defense has consistently sought to obtain
relief from the situation DLA faces when trying to obtain disposal resources overseas in host nations without
sufficient capacity.  DoD’s 1999 Report to Congress (i.e., see footnote 32) requested legislation to amend the TSCA
import ban, to allow the U.S. to import PCBs for disposal in the U.S., and requested legislation to implement the
Basel Convention.  DoD has not obtained this legislative relief.

Attachments

12
June 2005
Defense Logistics Agency
Request for Exemption under Sec. 6(e)(3)(B) of the Toxic Substances Control Act
June 2005
Defense Logistics Agency
Request for Exemption under Sec.6(e)(3)(B) of the Toxic Substances Control Act