4934
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
21
/
Friday,
January
31,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
1999
submittal
revises
Colorado's
Regulation
No.
1
Emission
Control
for
Particulates,
Smokes,
Carbon
Monoxide
and
Sulfur
Dioxide
by
adding
a
new
subsection
D
to
section
II.

II.
Regulatory
Assessment
Requirements
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
this
action
is
not
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
and
therefore
is
not
subject
to
review
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget.
For
this
reason,
this
action
is
also
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211,
``
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use''
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001).
This
action
merely
approves
state
law
as
meeting
Federal
requirements
and
imposes
no
additional
requirements
beyond
those
imposed
by
state
law.
Accordingly,
the
Administrator
certifies
that
this
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
under
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.).
Because
this
rule
approves
pre­
existing
requirements
under
state
law
and
does
not
impose
any
additional
enforceable
duty
beyond
that
required
by
state
law,
it
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).
This
rule
also
does
not
have
tribal
implications
because
it
will
not
have
a
substantial
direct
effect
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
Government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
Government
and
Indian
tribes,
as
specified
by
Executive
Order
13175
(
65
FR
67249,
November
9,
2000).
This
action
also
does
not
have
Federalism
implications
because
it
does
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999).
This
action
merely
approves
a
state
rule
implementing
a
Federal
standard,
and
does
not
alter
the
relationship
or
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
established
in
the
Clean
Air
Act.
This
rule
also
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
``
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks''
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997),
because
it
is
not
economically
significant.
In
reviewing
SIP
submissions,
EPA's
role
is
to
approve
state
choices,
provided
that
they
meet
the
criteria
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
In
this
context,
in
the
absence
of
a
prior
existing
requirement
for
the
State
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
(
VCS),
EPA
has
no
authority
to
disapprove
a
SIP
submission
for
failure
to
use
VCS.
It
would
thus
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
for
EPA,
when
it
reviews
a
SIP
submission,
to
use
VCS
in
place
of
a
SIP
submission
that
otherwise
satisfies
the
provisions
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
Thus,
the
requirements
of
section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
do
not
apply.
This
rule
does
not
impose
an
information
collection
burden
under
the
provisions
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1995
(
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.).
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
rule
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
Clean
Air
Act,
petitions
for
judicial
review
of
this
action
must
be
filed
in
the
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
appropriate
circuit
by
April
1,
2003.
Filing
a
petition
for
reconsideration
by
the
Administrator
of
this
final
rule
does
not
affect
the
finality
of
this
rule
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.
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,
Particulate
matter,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
7401
et
seq.
Dated:
January
13,
2003.
Robert
E.
Roberts,
Regional
Administrator,
Region
8.

40
CFR
part
52,
Chapter
I,
title
40
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
amended
as
follows:

PART
52
 
[
AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart
G
 
Colorado
2.
Section
52.320
is
amended
by
adding
paragraph
(
c)(
98)
to
read
as
follows:

§
52.320
Identification
of
plan.

*
*
*
*
*
(
c)
*
*
*
(
98
)
On
November
5,
1999
the
Governor
of
Colorado
submitted
a
revision
to
Regulation
No.
1,
``
Emission
Control
for
Particulates,
Smokes,
Carbon
Monoxide
and
Sulfur
Dioxide.''
The
November
5,
1999
submittal
exempts
military
training
exercises
at
the
United
States
Army
Installation
Fort
Carson
and
United
States
Army
Pinon
Canon
Maneuver
Site
(
PCMS)
from
opacity
limits.
A
new
subsection
D
to
Regulation
No.
1,
section
II,
has
been
approved
into
the
SIP.
(
i)
Incorporation
by
reference.
(
A)
Colorado
Regulation
No.
1,
section
II,
subsection
D
effective
September
30,
1998.

[
FR
Doc.
03
 
2173
Filed
1
 
30
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
761
[
OPPT
 
2002
 
0013;
FRL
 
7288
 
6]

RIN
2070
 
AB20
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls;
Manufacturing
(
Import)
Exemptions
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
With
certain
exceptions,
section
6(
e)(
3)
of
the
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
(
TSCA)
bans
the
manufacture
(
including
import),
processing,
and
distribution
in
commerce
of
polychlorinated
biphenyls
(
PCBs).
One
of
these
exceptions
is
TSCA
section
6(
e)(
3)(
B),
which
gives
EPA
authority
to
grant
petitions
through
rulemaking,
to
perform
these
banned
activities
for
a
period
of
up
to
12
months,
provided
EPA
can
make
certain
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
22:
22
Jan
30,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00046
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31JAR1.
SGM
31JAR1
OPPT­
2002­
0013­
0041
9
pp
RECEIVED
OPPT
NCIC
2003
JAN31
AM
11:
49
4935
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
21
/
Friday,
January
31,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
findings.
In
January
and
April
2001,
the
United
States
Defense
Logistics
Agency
(
DLA),
a
component
of
the
Department
of
Defense
(
DoD),
submitted
two
petitions
to
EPA
to
import
foreignmanufactured
PCBs
that
DoD
currently
owns
in
Japan
and
Wake
Island
for
disposal
in
the
United
States.
EPA
is
amending
its
rules
to
grant
both
of
DLA's
petitions;
this
action
will
allow
DLA
to
engage
in
the
import
of
these
PCBs
for
disposal.
DATES:
This
rule
shall
become
effective
April
18,
2003,
and
shall
expire
on
April
17,
2004.
This
rule
shall
be
promulgated
for
purposes
of
judicial
review
at
1
p.
m.
eastern
standard
time
on
January
31,
2003.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
general
information
contact:
Barbara
Cunningham,
Acting
Director,
Environmental
Assistance
Division,
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics
(
7408M),
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001;
telephone
number:
(
202)
554
 
1404;
e­
mail
address:
TSCAHotline
epa.
gov.
For
technical
information
contact:
Peter
Gimlin,
Environmental
Protection
Specialist,
National
Program
Chemicals
Division
(
7404T),
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001;
telephone
number:
(
202)
566
 
0515;
fax
number:
(
202)
566
 
0473;
email
address:
gimlin.
peter@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
General
Information
A.
To
Whom
Does
this
Action
Apply?

This
action
applies
to
the
petitioner,
the
DLA.
Potentially
affected
categories
and
entities
include,
but
are
not
necessarily
limited
to:

Public
Administration
(
NAICS
Code
92),
e.
g.,
Petitioning
Agency
(
i.
e.,
DLA).

This
listing
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
affected
by
this
action.
Other
types
of
entities
not
listed
in
the
table
in
this
unit
could
also
be
affected.
The
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
codes
have
been
provided
to
assist
you
and
others
in
determining
whether
or
not
this
action
applies
to
certain
entities.
To
determine
whether
you
or
your
business
is
affected
by
this
action,
you
should
carefully
examine
the
applicability
provisions
in
40
CFR
part
761.
If
you
have
any
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
technical
person
listed
under
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
of
this
Document
or
Other
Related
Information?

1.
Docket.
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
docket
identification
(
ID)
number
OPPT
 
2002
 
0013.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
EPA
Docket
Center,
Rm.
B102­
Reading
Room,
EPA
West,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Reading
Room
telephone
number
is
(
202)
566
 
1744
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
OPPT
Docket,
which
is
located
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center,
is
(
202)
566
 
0280.
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/.
A
frequently
updated
electronic
version
of
40
CFR
part
761
is
available
at
http://
www.
access.
gpo.
gov/
nara/
cfr/
cfrhtml_
00/
Title_
40/
40cfr761_
00.
html,
a
beta
site
currently
under
development.
To
access
information
about
PCBs,
go
directly
to
the
PCB
Home
Page
for
the
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
pcb.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
in
Unit
I.
B.
1.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
ID
number.

II.
Background
A.
What
Action
is
the
Agency
Taking?

In
this
document,
the
Agency
is
granting
two
petitions
submitted
by
DLA
to
import
PCB
waste
for
disposal.
In
the
absence
of
an
exemption,
import
of
this
waste
would
be
banned
by
TSCA
section
6(
e)(
3).
One
petition,
dated
January
19,
2001,
is
for
an
exemption
to
import
foreign­
source
PCBs
that
were
used
on
DoD
installations
in
Japan
and
are
currently
stored
on
Wake
Island,
a
United
States
territory
in
the
Pacific
Ocean
west
of
Hawaii
(
Ref.
9).
(
While
Wake
Island
is
part
of
the
United
States,
it
is
outside
the
Customs
Territory
of
the
United
States,
and
TSCA
defines
``
manufacture''
to
include
``
import
into
the
Customs
Territory
of
the
United
States.'')
In
addition,
40
CFR
761.99(
c)
does
not
exclude
this
waste
from
EPA's
regulatory
interpretation
of
``
import,''
because
it
was
not
present
in
the
United
States
on
January
1,
1979.
For
more
information
on
these
definitional
issues,
see
the
Federal
Register
documents
of
November
1,
2000
(
Ref.
7)
and
March
30,
2001
(
Ref.
8).
The
other
petition,
dated
April
16,
2001,
is
to
import
foreign­
generated
PCBs
owned
by
DoD
that
are
currently
in
use
or
storage
in
Japan
(
Ref.
10).
(
The
term
``
foreigngenerated
PCBs''
is
used
to
identify
those
PCBs
that
DoD
acquired
from
foreign
sources
and
that
are
subject
to
the
TSCA
ban
on
import.)

B.
What
is
the
Agency's
Statutory
Authority
for
Taking
this
Action?
Section
6(
e)
of
TSCA,
15
U.
S.
C.
2605(
e),
generally
prohibits
the
manufacture
of
PCBs
after
January
1,
1979,
the
processing
and
distribution
in
commerce
of
PCBs
after
July
1,
1979,
and
most
uses
of
PCBs
after
October
11,
1977.
Section
6(
e)(
3)(
A)
of
TSCA
prohibits
the
manufacture,
processing,
and
distribution
in
commerce
of
PCBs
except
for
the
distribution
in
commerce
of
PCBs
that
were
sold
for
purposes
other
than
resale
before
July
1,
1979.
Section
6(
e)(
1)
of
TSCA
also
authorizes
EPA
to
regulate
the
disposal
of
PCBs
consistent
with
the
provisions
in
TSCA
section
6(
e)(
2)
and
(
3).
Section
6(
e)(
3)(
B)
of
TSCA
provides
that
any
person
may
petition
the
Administrator
for
an
exemption
from
the
prohibition
on
the
manufacture,
processing,
and
distribution
in
commerce
of
PCBs.
The
Administrator
may
by
rule
grant
an
exemption
if
the
Administrator
finds
that:

(
i)
an
unreasonable
risk
of
injury
to
health
or
the
environment
would
not
result,
and
(
ii)
good
faith
efforts
have
been
made
to
develop
a
chemical
substance
which
does
not
present
an
unreasonable
risk
of
injury
to
health
or
the
environment
and
which
may
be
substituted
for
such
polychlorinated
biphenyl.
(
15
U.
S.
C.
2605(
e)(
3)(
B)(
i)
 
(
ii)).

The
Administrator
may
prescribe
terms
and
conditions
for
an
exemption
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
22:
22
Jan
30,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00047
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31JAR1.
SGM
31JAR1
4936
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
21
/
Friday,
January
31,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
and
may
grant
an
exemption
for
a
period
of
not
more
than
1
year
from
the
date
the
petition
is
granted.
In
addition,
TSCA
section
6(
e)(
4)
requires
that
a
rule
under
TSCA
section
6(
e)(
3)(
B)
be
promulgated
in
accordance
with
TSCA
sections
6(
c)(
2),
(
3),
and
(
4),
which
provides
for
publication
of
a
proposed
rule
and
an
opportunity
for
an
informal
public
hearing
before
a
final
rule
can
be
issued.

C.
What
is
the
Agency's
Regulatory
Authority
for
Taking
this
Action?

EPA's
procedures
for
rulemaking
under
TSCA
section
6
are
found
under
40
CFR
part
750.
This
part
includes
Subpart
B
 
Interim
Procedural
Rules
for
Manufacturing
Exemptions
(
40
CFR
750.10
through
750.21)
that
describe
the
required
content
for
manufacturing
exemption
petitions
and
the
procedures
EPA
follows
in
rulemaking
on
these
petitions.

III.
Findings
Necessary
to
Grant
Petitions
A.
Unreasonable
Risk
Finding.

Before
granting
an
exemption
petition,
TSCA
section
6(
e)(
3)(
B)(
i)
requires
the
Administrator
to
find
that
granting
an
exemption
would
not
result
in
an
unreasonable
risk
of
injury
to
health
or
the
environment
in
the
United
States.
To
determine
whether
a
risk
is
unreasonable,
EPA
balances
the
probability
that
harm
will
occur
to
health
or
the
environment
against
the
benefits
to
society
from
granting
or
denying
each
petition
(
see
generally,
15
U.
S.
C.
2605(
c)(
1)).
Specifically,
EPA
considers
the
following
factors:
1.
Effects
of
PCBs
on
human
health
and
the
environment.
In
deciding
whether
to
grant
an
exemption,
EPA
considers
the
magnitude
of
exposure
and
the
effects
of
PCBs
on
humans
and
the
environment.
The
following
discussion
summarizes
EPA's
assessment
of
these
factors.
A
more
complete
discussion
of
these
factors
is
provided
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule:
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls;
Manufacturing,
Processing,
and
Distribution
in
Commerce
Exemptions
(
Ref.
3),
in
the
rulemaking
record
for
that
proposed
rule
(
OPTS
Docket
 
66008F),
40
CFR
761.20,
and
in
EPA's
1996
PCB
Cancer
Assessment
(
Ref.
32).
i.
Health
effects.
EPA
has
determined
that
PCBs
cause
significant
human
health
effects
including
cancer,
immune
system
suppression,
liver
damage,
skin
irritation,
and
endocrine
disruption.
PCBs
exhibit
neurotoxicity
as
well
as
reproductive
and
developmental
toxicity.
PCBs
are
readily
absorbed
through
the
skin
and
are
absorbed
at
even
faster
rates
when
inhaled.
Because
PCBs
are
stored
in
animal
fatty
tissue,
humans
are
also
exposed
to
PCBs
through
ingestion
of
animal
products
(
Ref.
32).
ii.
Environmental
effects.
Certain
PCB
congeners
are
among
the
most
stable
chemicals
known,
and
decompose
very
slowly
once
they
are
released
in
the
environment.
PCBs
are
absorbed
and
stored
in
the
fatty
tissue
of
higher
organisms
as
they
bioaccumulate
up
the
food
chain
through
invertebrates,
fish,
and
mammals.
Significantly,
bioaccumulated
PCBs
appear
to
be
even
more
toxic
than
those
found
in
the
ambient
environment,
since
the
more
toxic
PCB
congeners
are
more
persistent
and
thus
more
likely
to
be
retained
(
Ref.
32).
PCBs
also
have
reproductive
and
other
toxic
effects
in
aquatic
organisms,
birds,
and
mammals.
iii.
Risks.
Toxicity
and
exposure
are
the
two
basic
components
of
risk.
EPA
has
concluded
that
any
exposure
of
humans
or
the
environment
to
PCBs
may
be
significant,
depending
on
such
factors
as
the
quantity
of
PCBs
involved
in
the
exposure,
the
likelihood
of
exposure
to
humans
and
the
environment,
and
the
effect
of
exposure.
Minimizing
exposure
to
PCBs
should
minimize
any
eventual
risk.
EPA
has
previously
determined
that
some
activities,
including
the
disposal
of
PCBs
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
part
761,
pose
no
unreasonable
risks.
Other
activities,
such
as
long­
term
storage
of
PCB
waste,
are
generally
considered
by
EPA
to
pose
unreasonable
risks.
2.
Benefits
and
costs.
The
benefits
to
society
of
granting
an
exemption
vary,
depending
on
the
activity
for
which
the
exemption
is
requested.
The
reasonably
ascertainable
costs
of
denying
an
exemption
vary,
depending
on
the
individual
petition.
EPA
takes
benefits
and
costs
into
consideration
when
evaluating
each
exemption
petition.

B.
Good
Faith
Efforts
Finding
Section
6(
e)(
3)(
B)(
ii)
of
TSCA
also
requires
the
Administrator
to
find
that
``
good
faith
efforts
have
been
made
to
develop
a
chemical
substance
which
does
not
present
an
unreasonable
risk
of
injury
to
health
or
the
environment
and
which
may
be
substituted
for
[
PCBs].''
EPA
considers
several
factors
in
determining
whether
good
faith
efforts
have
been
made.
For
each
petition,
EPA
considers
the
kind
of
exemption
the
petitioner
is
requesting
and
whether
the
petitioner
expended
time
and
effort
to
develop
or
search
for
a
substitute.
To
satisfy
this
finding
in
the
context
of
an
exemption
to
import
PCBs
for
disposal,
EPA
looks
at
why
such
activity
should
occur
in
the
United
States,
including
what
steps
the
petitioner
has
taken
to
find
an
alternative
to
importing
the
PCBs
for
disposal.
While
requiring
a
petitioner
to
demonstrate
that
good
faith
efforts
to
develop
a
substitute
for
PCBs
makes
sense
when
dealing
with
traditional
manufacturing
and
distribution
exemption
petitions,
the
issue
of
the
development
of
substitute
chemicals
seems
to
have
little
bearing
on
whether
to
grant
a
petition
for
exemption
that
would
allow
the
import
into
the
United
States
for
disposal
of
waste
generated
by
the
DoD
overseas.
EPA
believes
the
more
relevant
``
good
faith''
issue
for
such
an
exemption
request
is
whether
the
disposal
of
the
waste
should
occur
outside
the
United
States.

IV.
Summary
of
the
Final
Action
A.
The
Petitions
1.
January
19,
2001,
petition
to
import
PCBs
located
on
Wake
Island.
On
January
19,
2001,
DLA
submitted
a
petition
for
a
1
 
year
exemption
to
import
certain
PCBs
and
PCB
items
into
the
Customs
Territory
of
the
United
States
for
disposal.
The
waste
in
question
consists
of
approximately
91
metric
tons
[
a
metric
ton
is
1,000
kilograms,
or
2,200
pounds]
of
material,
of
which
31
metric
tons
DLA
estimates
to
be
liquids.
Non­
liquid
material
consists
of
electrical
transformers,
switches,
circuit
breakers,
and
debris
(
rags,
small
parts,
and
packaging
materials).
The
laboratory
analyses
conducted
by
DLA
indicate
PCB
concentrations
of
less
than
50
parts
per
million
(
ppm)
for
all
materials
that
could
be
tested
without
disassembly.
DLA
indicates
that
while
it
believes
any
components
that
could
not
be
tested
were
excluded
from
this
waste
in
question,
there
is
a
possibility
that
inaccessible
internal
components
(
e.
g.,
small
capacitors)
of
certain
transformers
may
contain
PCB
constituents
at
or
above
50
ppm.
The
material
is
currently
stored
in
overpack
containers
at
a
U.
S.
Government­
owned
storage
site
on
Wake
Island.
DLA
proposes
to
ship
the
materials
in
these
containers
to
the
Customs
Territory
of
the
United
States
using
U.
S.
flag
carriers,
and
in
accordance
with
applicable
laws.
Upon
arrival
in
port,
the
containers
would
be
transported
by
Department
of
Transportation
(
DOT)
permitted
carriers
to
the
destination
facility.
On
April
16,2001,
DLA
also
amended
its
petition
to
include
the
possibility
that
the
materials
could
be
transported
by
air
on
U.
S.
military
aircraft.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
22:
22
Jan
30,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00048
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31JAR1.
SGM
31JAR1
4937
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
21
/
Friday,
January
31,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
DLA
proposes
in
its
January
19,
2001,
petition
to
ship
the
materials
to
an
EPAapproved
PCB
disposal
facility.
While
DLA
initially
identified
Trans
Cycle
Industries,
Inc.
(
TCI)
in
Pell
City,
Alabama
as
the
receiving
facility,
it
amended
its
petition
on
September
28,
2001,
to
include
any
EPA­
approved
PCB
disposal
facility
as
a
potential
receiving
facility,
indicating
that
it
is
premature
to
specify
which
approved
facility
would
be
contracted
to
treat
and
dispose
of
the
waste.
DLA
would
treat
and
dispose
of
all
material
in
compliance
with
the
U.
S.
PCB
regulations
at
40
CFR
part
761.
Generally,
DLA
indicates
its
intention
is
to
recycle
all
metal
components
that
can
be
decontaminated;
if
they
are
not
decontaminated
they
would
be
buried
in
a
chemical
waste
landfill
or
incinerated.
Used
oils
or
liquids
would
be
decontaminated
by
dechlorination
or
sent
for
energy
recovery
as
fuel.
Nonrecyclable
material
will
be
disposed
of
as
residual
solid
waste.
DLA
also
notes
that
EPA­
approved
alternative
disposal
methods
may
also
be
used.
(
Note
that
while
DLA
is
proposing
to
send
this
material
to
a
TSCA­
approved
facility
for
initial
processing,
this
is
not
normally
required
for
materials
containing
less
than
50
ppm
PCBs
that
have
not
been
subject
to
dilution.)
A
detailed
summary
of
this
petition
can
be
found
in
Unit
IV.
A.
1
of
the
September
17,
2002,
proposal
to
this
rule
(
Ref.
38)
2.
April
16,
2001,
petition
to
import
PCBs
located
in
Japan.
On
April
16,
2001,
DLA
submitted
a
second
petition;
this
petition
sought
a
1
 
year
exemption
to
import
PCBs
and
PCB
items
currently
in
temporary
storage
on
U.
S.
military
installations
in
Japan.
In
revised
figures
provided
in
June
2001,
DLA
estimates
that
as
much
as
4,293,621
pounds,
or
approximately
1,952
metric
tons
of
waste
containing
PCBs
could
be
generated
in
Japan
through
the
year
2006
and
beyond;
however,
much
of
this
material
is
currently
still
in
use,
and
will
not
become
waste
requiring
disposal
for
several
years.
Exactly
how
much
waste
can
be
imported
under
this
exemption
will
depend
on
what
is
available
for
shipment
for
disposal
while
the
exemption
is
in
effect,
as
the
exemption
is
limited
to
a
1
 
year
maximum.
The
material
in
Japan
consists
of
liquids,
electrical
transformers,
capacitors,
switches,
circuit
breakers,
other
miscellaneous
items,
and
debris
(
rags,
small
parts,
and
packaging
materials).
PCB
concentrations
of
the
waste
include
amounts
at
all
concentrations;
however,
most
of
the
waste
is
at
concentrations
below
50
ppm
PCB.
Details
of
particular
amounts
and
concentrations
are
provided
in
Appendix
1
(
Refs.
10
and
11).
DLA
proposes
to
package
and
transport,
treat,
and
dispose
of
this
PCB
waste
in
the
same
manner
as
waste
identified
in
the
previous
petition.
DLA
states
it
would
handle
and
dispose
of
all
PCBs
in
conformance
with
the
PCB
regulations
at
40
CFR
part
761.
DLA
notes
that
it
has
``
considerable
experience
and
expertise
in
awarding
and
administering
disposal
contracts
for
PCB
waste
in
the
United
States''
and
that
it
will
only
``
use
contracts
with
commercial
firms
providing
such
services
in
accordance
with
all
applicable
Federal
procurement
statutes
and
the
Federal
Acquisition
Regulations
(
FAR).''
DLA
states
that
it
has
not
yet
identified
the
specific
companies
that
would
receive
the
waste,
but
that
only
Federal
and
State­
permitted
facilities
would
be
used.
Proposed
treatment
would
be
in
accordance
with
the
options
allowed
by
40
CFR
part
761,
including
landfilling,
incineration,
decontamination
and
recovery
of
metal,
decontamination
or
burning
of
used
oil,
and
alternative
disposal
technologies
where
allowed.
A
detailed
summary
of
this
petition
can
be
found
in
Unit
IV.
A.
2
of
the
September
17,
2002,
proposal
to
this
rule
(
Ref.
38)

B.
Comments
On
the
Proposed
Rule
On
September
17,
2002,
EPA
published
a
notice
in
the
Federal
Register
proposing
to
grant
both
of
DLA's
petitions
(
Ref.
38).
The
notice
also
solicited
comments
on
the
proposed
action
and
offered
an
opportunity
for
a
public
hearing
if
requested.
Two
comments
were
received
on
the
proposed
action;
no
person
requested
a
public
hearing.
Both
comments
supported
the
Agency's
proposed
decision
to
grant
the
petitions.
One
commenter,
Perry
&
Spann
(
Ref.
39),
urged
EPA
to
grant
the
applicant's
petition
as
``...
the
best
manner
to
control
and
eliminate
PCBs
and
any
potential
toxic
contamination.''
The
other
commenter,
Environmental
Technology
Council
(
Ref.
40),
noted
``...
not
only
is
there
no
unreasonable
risk
...
the
risks
to
public
health
and
the
environment
will
be
decreased
by
importing
this
waste
for
proper
disposal.''
Additionally,
this
commenter
questioned
the
need
for
persons
wishing
to
import
PCB
waste
for
disposal
to
demonstrate
``
good
faith
efforts''
under
TSCA
section
6(
e)(
3)(
B)(
ii).
In
light
of
the
fact
that
the
Agency
has
determined
that
the
DLA
petitions
meet
this
``
good
faith''
test,
no
response
to
this
comment
is
necessary
at
this
time.
However,
the
Agency
does
note
that
it
does
not
agree
with
the
comment,
and
continues
to
believe
it
appropriate
to
examine
whether
there
are
good
reasons
that
disposal
of
PCB
wastes
should
occur
in
the
United
States
when
reviewing
petitions
for
exemptions
under
TSCA
section
6(
e)(
3)
that
would
authorize
import
of
PCB
wastes
for
disposal
in
this
country.

C.
EPA's
Final
Decision
on
Petitions
1.
January
19,
2001,
petition;
EPA
grants
this
petition.
EPA
agrees
with
DLA's
reasoning
in
its
petition
that
this
waste,
being
primarily
and
perhaps
exclusively
at
concentrations
below
50
ppm
PCBs,
has
little
inherent
potential
to
pose
an
unreasonable
risk
to
health
or
the
environment.
Even
more
germane
to
this
waste
than
the
``
Excluded
PCB
Products''
processing,
distribution,
and
use
standards
referred
to
by
DLA
in
the
petition
are
the
disposal
regulations
at
40
CFR
part
761,
subpart
D,
that
do
not
require
waste
below
50
ppm
PCBs
be
disposed
of
in
a
TSCA
or
RCRA
approved
facility,
provided
the
concentration
was
not
affected
by
dilution.
EPA
notes
the
prohibition
on
import
of
PCBs
at
concentrations
less
than
50
ppm
stems
from
the
TSCA
ban
on
``
manufacture''
of
PCBs
and
is
not
based
on
any
specific
finding
of
EPA
that
importing
PCBs
at
concentrations
less
than
50
ppm
for
disposal
presents
any
unreasonable
risk.
Prior
to
1997,
EPA
allowed
such
imports
for
disposal
without
restriction.
(
EPA
authorized
the
import
for
disposal
of
PCBs
at
concentrations
of
less
than
50
ppm
in
1984
(
Ref.
37),
at
40
CFR
761.20(
b)(
2),
using
the
authority
of
TSCA
section
6(
e)(
1).
This
import
provision
was
recodified
from
§
761.20(
b)
to
§
761.93(
a)(
1)(
i)
as
part
of
the
March
18,
1996,
PCB
Import
for
Disposal
Rule
(
Ref.
5).
On
July
7,
1997,
the
U.
S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Ninth
Circuit
overturned
the
PCB
Import
for
Disposal
Rule,
on
the
grounds
that
EPA
could
not
rely,
as
it
did,
on
TSCA
section
6(
e)(
1)
to
authorize
imports
of
PCBs
for
disposal.
Sierra
Club
v.
EPA,
118
F
3d
1324
(
9th
Cir.
1997).
EPA
amended
§
761.93
on
June
29,
1998
(
Ref.
6)
to
reflect
the
Sierra
Club
decision,
by
changing
it
to
state
that
no
person
may
import
PCBs
or
PCB
items
for
disposal
without
a
TSCA
section
6(
e)(
3)
exemption.)
EPA
also
concurs
with
DLA's
assessment
in
its
petition
that
transportation
of
this
waste
poses
no
significant
risk
if
conducted
in
accordance
with
all
applicable
laws
and
regulations.
Domestically,
EPA
permits
the
processing
and
distribution
in
commerce
of
PCBs
and
PCB
items
at
concentrations
less
than
50
ppm
for
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
22:
22
Jan
30,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00049
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31JAR1.
SGM
31JAR1
4938
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
21
/
Friday,
January
31,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
disposal
(
§
761.20(
c)(
4))
without
additional
restriction.
Higher
concentration
PCBs
and
PCB
items
may
be
processed
and
distributed
in
commerce
for
disposal
in
compliance
with
part
761
(
which
requires
marking,
manifesting,
registration,
recordkeeping,
etc.).
In
issuing
the
PCB
Import
for
Disposal
Rule,
EPA
investigated
and
sought
comment
on
the
risks
inherent
in
transportation
of
imported
PCB
waste,
and
determined
those
risks
to
be
insignificant
(
Ref.
5,
p.
11097).
As
this
waste
will
be
processed
and,
where
required,
disposed
of
at
EPAapproved
PCB
disposal
facilities,
EPA
finds
that
the
import
and
disposal
of
this
waste
will
not
pose
an
unreasonable
risk
of
injury
to
health
or
the
environment.
EPA
approves
all
TSCA
PCB
disposal
facilities
on
the
basis
of
this
standard,
whether
the
unit
be
an
incinerator,
chemical
waste
landfill,
or
alternative
process,
such
as
a
decontamination
or
chemical
dechlorination
operation.
Similarly,
EPA
has
previously
determined
that
other
disposal
options
for
PCB
waste
at
concentrations
below
50
ppm,
such
as
burning
used
oil
for
energy
recovery
in
compliance
with
40
CFR
761.20(
e),
pose
no
unreasonable
risk
to
health
or
the
environment.
Moreover,
any
risks
inherent
in
transportation
and
disposal
must
be
weighed
against
the
risks
of
continued
long­
term
storage.
As
DLA
noted
in
its
petition,
Wake
Island
is
a
part
of
the
United
States
and
under
TSCA
it
is
entitled
to
the
protection
against
unreasonable
risk
of
injury
to
health
or
the
environment.
Generally,
EPA
considers
long­
term
storage
of
PCB
waste
to
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
due
to
threat
of
leaks
and
spills,
and
with
certain
limited
exceptions,
EPA
limits
storage
for
disposal
of
PCB
waste
to
1
 
year
from
the
date
the
waste
was
generated
(
40
CFR
761.65(
a)).
As
discussed
at
length
by
EPA
in
recent
Federal
Register
documents
(
Refs.
7
and
8),
the
long­
term
storage
of
PCBs
in
U.
S.
territories
and
possessions
outside
the
Customs
Territory
of
the
United
States,
such
as
Wake
Island,
often
poses
additional
risks;
examples
of
problems
cited
included
risk
of
severe
storms,
sensitive
ecosystems,
limited
available
land,
low
elevation,
and
water
resources
that
are
vulnerable
to
contamination.
For
instance,
while
40
CFR
761.65(
b)(
1)(
v)
stipulates
that
PCB
waste
storage
sites
should
not
be
located
below
the
100
 
year
flood
water
elevation,
the
highest
elevation
on
Wake
Island
is
only
6
meters
above
sea
level.
Therefore,
EPA
concludes
that
removal
of
this
PCB
material
from
Wake
Island
in
the
most
expeditious
manner
possible
will
reduce
risk
of
injury
to
health
and
the
environment.
Other
benefits
to
the
United
States
will
be
realized
through
the
granting
of
this
petition,
as
well.
One
of
EPA's
purposes
in
promulgating
40
CFR
761.99(
c)
was
to
address
the
inequitable
treatment
of
the
territories
outside
the
Customs
Territory
of
the
United
States
that
was
inadvertently
created
by
the
manufacturing
ban
of
TSCA
section
6(
e)(
3)
(
Refs.
7
and
8).
EPA
believes
that
granting
this
exemption
will
likewise
allow
waste
stored
in
the
territories
to
be
managed
and
disposed
of
in
a
manner
similar
to
waste
generated
in
other
States,
and
it
will
prevent
the
Pacific
Island
territories
of
the
United
States
from
bearing
any
undue
burden
for
the
disposal
of
such
waste.
Furthermore,
as
this
waste
is
the
property
of
the
U.
S.
Government,
and
it
was
generated
by
the
U.
S.
Government
while
conducting
its
affairs
abroad,
EPA
believes
the
U.
S.
Government
has
an
obligation
to
allow
this
waste
to
be
safely
disposed
of
under
its
jurisdiction
in
the
United
States.
A
grant
of
this
petition
will
allow
the
United
States
Government
to
solve
one
of
its
own
toxic
waste
problems
without
relying
on
other
countries'
disposal
resources.
Thus,
EPA
finds
that
DLA
has
provided
adequate
justification
for
a
finding
that
the
activity
proposed
in
this
petition
would
not
pose
an
unreasonable
risk
of
injury
to
health
or
the
environment.
EPA
also
finds
that
DLA
has
made
good
faith
efforts
to
find
alternatives
to
import
into
the
Customs
Territory
of
the
United
States.
EPA
agrees
with
DLA's
contention
in
its
petition
that
Wake
Island
is
an
unsuitable
location
for
attempts
at
on­
site
disposal,
due
to
its
extremely
remote
location,
small
size,
lack
of
facilities,
and
fragile
environment.
In
addition,
as
DLA
notes
in
its
petition,
decontamination
procedures
typical
for
this
type
of
waste
would
not
eliminate
all
PCBs
and
the
concomitant
need
for
an
exemption.
EPA
also
believes
DLA
has
made
good
faith
efforts
to
find
disposal
alternatives
in
other
countries;
indeed,
the
waste
came
to
Wake
Island
as
a
result
of
an
unsuccessful
effort
to
dispose
of
it
abroad.
EPA
is
well
aware
of
DLA's
growing
difficulty
in
disposing
of
its
foreign­
manufactured
waste
abroad,
a
problem
outlined
in
DLA's
report
to
Congress
in
1999
(
Ref.
33),
and
EPA
has
been
aware
of
DLA's
substantial
efforts
since
April
2000
to
identify
options
for
disposal
of
this
particular
waste
in
a
responsible
manner,
including
disposal
in
another
country.
EPA
accepts
DLA's
assessment
that
with
the
notoriety
that
is
now
attached
to
this
particular
waste
shipment
and
the
difficulty
of
satisfying
Basel
Convention
obligations,
acceptance
of
this
waste
by
another
country
for
disposal
is
unlikely
to
ever
occur.
EPA
further
notes
that
disposal
in
a
facility
in
the
United
States,
but
outside
the
Customs
Territory
of
the
United
States,
e.
g.,
in
another
Pacific
territory,
is
not
an
alternative
because
no
suitable
facilities
exist.
Finally,
EPA
also
believes
it
relevant
to
the
good
faith
issue
that,
as
noted
earlier,
this
waste
was
generated
by
the
U.
S.
Government
while
conducting
its
affairs
abroad,
and
thus
the
United
States
bears
some
obligation
to
provide
for
the
safe
disposal
of
this
waste
in
the
United
States
if
it
can
not
be
easily
disposed
elsewhere.
For
these
reasons,
EPA
finds
DLA
has
satisfied
the
exemption
criteria
of
TSCA
section
6(
e)(
3)(
B)
and
grants
this
petition.
2.
April
16,
2001,
petition;
EPA
grants
this
petition.
As
with
the
previous
petition,
EPA
concurs
with
DLA's
assessment
that
transportation
of
this
waste
will
pose
no
unreasonable
risk
if
conducted
in
accordance
with
all
applicable
laws
and
regulations.
As
noted
in
Unit
IV.
C.
1.,
EPA
permits
the
domestic
processing
and
distribution
in
commerce
of
PCBs
and
PCB
items
for
disposal
in
compliance
with
part
761,
and
in
issuance
of
the
PCB
Import
for
Disposal
Rule
EPA
investigated
and
sought
comment
on
the
risks
inherent
in
transportation
of
imported
PCB
waste,
and
determined
those
risks
to
be
insignificant
(
Ref.
5,
p.
11097).
Also,
as
discussed
in
Unit
IV.
C.
1.
in
regard
to
the
Wake
Island
petition,
EPA
finds
generally
that
the
disposal
of
imported
PCB
waste
at
an
EPA­
approved
PCB
disposal
facility
poses
no
unreasonable
risks
as
these
facilities
have
been
approved
on
the
basis
of
that
standard.
EPA
believes
that
granting
this
petition
will
benefit
the
United
States
in
several
ways.
As
DLA
notes
in
its
petition,
the
continued
long­
term
storage
of
PCB
waste
on
U.
S.
military
facilities
in
Japan
poses
risks
of
exposure
to
U.
S.
personnel
and
the
environment
 
risks
that
can
be
mitigated
through
the
action
proposed
in
this
petition.
Also,
the
reduction
of
risk
to
Japanese
citizens
must
be
considered
advantageous,
especially
in
light
of
the
heightened
concerns
over
PCBs
in
that
country
and
the
sensitivities
surrounding
the
U.
S.
military's
presence
in
Japan.
Currently,
the
U.
S.
military
is
in
the
awkward
position
of
explaining
to
its
Japanese
hosts
that
it
can
not
remove
its
toxic
waste
from
their
country
because
United
States
law
does
not
allow
the
waste
to
be
sent
to
the
United
States.
As
with
the
Wake
Island
petition,
granting
this
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
22:
22
Jan
30,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00050
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31JAR1.
SGM
31JAR1
4939
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
21
/
Friday,
January
31,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
petition
allows
the
United
States
to
accept
responsibility
for
solving
its
own
toxic
waste
problems.
Thus,
EPA
finds
that
the
activity
proposed
in
this
petition
would
not
pose
an
unreasonable
risk
of
injury
to
health
or
the
environment.
EPA
believes
that
DLA
has
demonstrated
good
faith
efforts
to
find
alternatives
to
disposal
of
this
PCB
waste
in
the
United
States.
EPA
is
aware
of
the
lack
of
adequate
PCB
disposal
capacity
in
Japan,
to
which
DoD's
large
inventory
of
PCB
waste
is
itself
testimony.
While
EPA
is
aware
that
some
recent
efforts
are
underway
to
establish
new
disposal
capacity
in
Japan
(
Refs.
34
and
35),
EPA
believes
it
will
be
some
time
before
these
new
facilities
are
operational
and
the
large
inventories
of
commercial
and
government
PCB
waste
that
have
accumulated
over
the
years
in
Japan
will
be
eliminated.
Moreover,
as
DLA
notes
in
its
petition,
even
assuming
adequate
disposal
capacity
becomes
available
in
Japan
in
the
near
future,
there
are
significant
political
obstacles
that
are
likely
to
prevent
the
U.
S.
military
disposing
of
its
PCB
waste
in
Japan,
either
off­
site
at
a
commercial
facility
or
on­
site
at
a
U.
S.
base.
EPA
is
generally
aware
of
the
increasing
difficulties
DoD
has
in
disposing
of
its
foreign­
generated
PCB
waste
abroad,
as
described
in
its
report
to
Congress,
and
as
evidenced
by
the
difficulties
with
the
waste
now
stored
on
Wake
Island.
EPA
also
acknowledges
the
peculiar
circumstances
of
DoD's
PCBs,
which,
while
present
in
one
country,
are
owned
by
another's
government,
leading
to
significant
difficulty
in
providing
Basel
notification
to
third
countries.
Given
these
difficulties,
EPA
concurs
with
DLA's
conclusion
that
disposal
in
a
third
country
is
not
a
viable
option
for
this
waste.
And,
as
stated
earlier,
EPA
also
believes
it
is
relevant
to
the
good
faith
issue
that
since
this
waste
was
generated
by
the
U.
S.
Government
while
conducting
its
affairs
abroad,
the
United
States
bears
some
obligation
to
provide
for
the
safe
disposal
of
this
waste
in
the
United
States
if
it
can
not
be
easily
disposed
of
elsewhere.
For
these
reasons
EPA
finds
DLA
has
satisfied
the
exemption
criteria
of
TSCA
section
6(
e)(
3)(
B)
and
grants
this
petition.

V.
References
1.
USEPA,
Office
of
Toxic
Substances
(
OTS).
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls
(
PCBs);
Manufacturing,
Processing,
Distribution
in
Commerce,
and
Use
Prohibitions;
Final
Rule.
OPTS
 
60001.
Federal
Register
(
44
FR
31514,
May
31,
1979).
2.
USEPA.
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls
(
PCBs);
Expiration
of
the
Open
Border
Policy
for
PCB
Disposal;
Notice.
OPTS
 
62008.
Federal
Register
(
45
FR
29115,
May
1,
1980).
3.
USEPA.
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls
(
PCBs);
Manufacturing,
Processing,
and
Distribution
in
Commerce
Exemptions;
Proposed
Rule.
OPTS
 
66008F.
Federal
Register
(
53
FR
32326,
August
24,
1988).
4.
USEPA.
Disposal
of
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls;
Proposed
Rule.
OPPTS
 
6009A.
Federal
Register
(
59
FR
62788,
December
6,
1994)
(
FRL
 
4167
 
1).
5.
USEPA.
Disposal
of
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls
(
PCBs);
Import
for
Disposal;
Final
Rule.
OPPTS
 
66009F.
Federal
Register
(
61
FR
11096,
March
18,
1996)
(
FRL
 
5354
 
8).
6.
USEPA.
Disposal
of
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls
(
PCBs);
Final
Rule.
OPPTS
 
66009C.
Federal
Register
(
63
FR
35384,
June
29,
1998)
(
FRL
 
5726
 
1).
7.
USEPA.
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls
(
PCBs);
Return
of
PCB
Waste
from
U.
S.
Territories
Outside
the
Customs
Territory
of
the
United
States;
Proposed
Rule.
OPPTS
 
66020.
Federal
Register
(
65
FR
65654,
November
1,
2000)
(
FRL
 
6750
 
6).
8.
USEPA.
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls
(
PCBs);
Return
of
PCB
Waste
from
U.
S.
Territories
Outside
the
Customs
Territory
of
the
United
States;
Final
Rule.
OPPTS
 
66020A.
Federal
Register
(
66
FR
17468,
March
30,
2001)
(
FRL
 
6764
 
9).
9.
DoD,
DLA.
Petition
from
Lieutenant
General,
Henry
T.
Glisson,
Director,
to
Carol
Browner,
Administrator,
EPA.
Subject:
Enclosed
petition.
January
19,
2001.
15
pp.
with
attachments.
10.
DoD,
DLA.
Letter
from
Lieutenant
General,
Henry
T.
Glisson,
Director,
to
Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Administrator,
EPA.
Subject:
Enclosed
petition.
April
16,
2001.
12
pp.
with
attachments.
11.
DoD,
DLA.
Electronic
mail
from
Karen
Moran,
Environmental
Quality
Division,
to
Peter
Gimlin,
National
Program
Chemicals
Division,
OPPT,
EPA.
Subject:
Updated
inventory,
Appendix
1
to
April
petition.
June
28,
2001.
2
pp.
with
attachments.
12.
DoD,
DLA.
Letter
from
Richard
J.
Connelly,
Director,
DLA
Support
Services,
to
Peter
Gimlin,
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics,
EPA.
Subject:
Revisions
to
both
petitions.
September
28,
2001.
2
pp.
with
attachments.
13.
Cabinet
set
to
approve
two
bills
on
PCB
disposal.
The
Japanese
Times
Online.
February
20,
2001.
3
pp.
14.
United
Nations
Environment
Programme
(
UNEP).
Inventory
of
Worldwide
PCB
Destruction
Capacity.
First
Issue.
December
1998.
72
pp.
15.
United
Nations
Environment
Programme
(
UNEP).
Survey
of
Currently
Available
Non­
Incineration
PCB
Destruction
Technologies.
First
Issue.
August
2000.
70
pp.
16.
Defense
Agency
will
Inspect
PCB
Storage.
The
Yomiuri
Shimbun.
Tokyo.
August
20,
2000.
2
pp.
17.
Pollution
at
Okinawa
Bases
Cannot
be
Left
Uncorrected.
Asahi
Shimbun.
January
14,
1999.
3
pp.
18.
David
Armstrong.
U.
S.
Presence
on
Foreign
Soil
is
Tainted.
Boston
Globe.
November
15,
1999.
3
pp.
19.
Danielle
Knight.
Environment:
Asian
Women
Demand
Cleanup
of
U.
S.
Military
Bases.
Inter
Press
Service.
October
16,
1998.
3
pp.
20.
Japan:
Probe
Fails
to
Confirm
Source
of
Pollutant
at
Kadena
Air
Base.
Kyodo
News
Service.
September
28,
1998.
1
p.
21.
High
Level
of
PCB
Detected
in
Okinawa.
Jiji
Press
Ticker
Service.
February
21,
1997.
1
p.
22.
Toxic
PCB
Detected
at
Ex­
U.
S.
Facility.
Jiji
Press
Ticker
Service.
October
2,
1996.
1
p.
23.
MOFA,
Environment
Agency
to
Investigate
Base
PCB
Dumping.
Ryukyu
Shimpo.
August
19,
1998.
4
pp.
24.
Editorial:
Probe
Pollution
at
U.
S.
Bases.
Ryukyu
Shimpo.
August
18,
1998.
3
pp.
25.
U.
S.
Base
Pollution
#
8.
Ryukyu
Shimpo.
August
28,
1998.
1
p.
26.
U.
S.
Rejects
Request
for
PCB
Test
at
Kadena.
Japan
Economic
Newswire.
November
25,
1998.
1
p.
27.
Agency
Concerned
about
U.
S.
Base
Pollution.
Jiji
Press
Ticker
Service.
February
21,
1992.
1
p.
28.
Japan
to
Check
U.
S.
Base
Employees
for
Waste
Contamination.
Asahi
News
Service.
February
18,
1992.
2
p.
29.
Sagamihara
City.
Letter
from
Tokio
Kanero,
Councilman,
to
Chief,
DRMO
Sagami.
Subject:
FOIA
request
for
information
on
hazardous
material
shipments.
March
3,
1999.
1
p.
30.
Sagamihara
City.
Letter
from
Tokio
Kanero,
Councilman,
to
Paul
Ortiz,
Asia
Zone
Manager,
DRMS
International.
Subject:
March
3,
1999,
FOIA
request
pertains
to
PCBs,
heavy
metals
and
asbestos
only.
March14,
1999.
1
p.
31.
DoD,
DLA.
Letter
from
Vice
Admiral
Keith
W.
Lippert,
Director,
to
Christie
Whitman,
Administrator,
EPA.
Subject:
Opportunity
to
meet
regarding
petitions.
November
14,
2001.
1
p.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
22:
22
Jan
30,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00051
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31JAR1.
SGM
31JAR1
4940
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
21
/
Friday,
January
31,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
32.
USEPA,
Office
of
Research
and
Development
(
ORD).
PCBs
Cancer
Dose­
Response
Assessment
and
Application
to
Environmental
Mixtures.
EPA600P
 
96001F.
September
1996.
75
pp.
OPPTS
 
66009C
(
B3
 
026)
33.
DoD.
Report
to
Congress:
Foreign­
Manufactured
PCBs
at
U.
S.
Military
Installations
Overseas.
March
1999.
20
pp.
34.
USEPA,
Region
9.
Electronic
Mail
from
Max
Weintraub
to
Peter
Gimlin,
EPA,
OPPT,
Re:
Startech
Environmental's
8/
23/
2001
Press
Release.
September
5,
2001.
2
pp.
35.
Japan
Government
Submits
Legislation
Requiring
Destruction
of
All
PCBs
in
15
years.
BNA
International
Environment
Daily.
March
23,
2001.
1
p.
36.
USEPA.
Hazardous
Waste
Management
System;
Notification
Concerning
the
Basel
Convention's
Potential
Implications
for
Hazardous
Waste
Exports
and
Imports.
Federal
Register
(
57
FR
20602,
May
13,1992).
37.
USEPA.
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act;
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls
(
PCBs)
Manufacturing,
Processing,
Distribution
in
Commerce,
and
Use
Prohibitions;
Exclusions,
Exemptions
and
Use
Authorizations;
Final
Rule.
OPTS
 
62032A.
Federal
Register
(
49
FR
28172,
July
10,
1984).
38.
USEPA.
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls;
Manufacturing
(
Import)
Exemptions;
Proposed
Rule.
OPPT
 
2002
 
0013.
Federal
Register
(
67
FR
58567,
September
17,
2002)
(
FRL
 
7176
 
1).
39.
Perry
&
Spann.
Letter
from
Victor
Alan
Perry,
Esq.
to
EPA
Document
Control
Office.
Subject:
Comment
on
OPPT
 
2002
 
0013.
October
4,
2002.
1
p.
40.
Environmental
Technology
Council.
Letter
from
Scott
Slesinger,
Vice
President
for
Governmental
Affairs,
to
EPA
Docket.
Subject:
Comment
on
Proposed
Rule.
October
15,
2002.
3
pp.

VI.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866,
entitled
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
it
has
been
determined
that
this
action
is
not
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
subject
to
review
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB),
because
this
action
is
not
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
meets
any
of
the
criteria
for
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
provided
in
section
3(
f)
of
the
Executive
order.

B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
Pursuant
to
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
PRA),
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.,
an
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
in
title
40
of
the
CFR,
after
appearing
in
the
Federal
Register,
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9,
and
included
on
the
related
collection
instrument
or
form,
if
applicable.
This
rule
does
not
impose
any
new
information
collection
burden.
DLA
is
subject
to
the
existing
EPA
regulations
regarding
the
storage
and
disposal
of
PCBs
in
40
CFR
part
761.
OMB
has
previously
approved
the
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
40
CFR
part
761
under
the
PRA,
and
has
assigned
OMB
Control
No.
2070
 
0112
(
EPA
ICR
No.
1446.07).
The
annual
public
burden
approved
under
OMB
Control
No.
2070
 
0112,
is
estimated
to
average
0.57
hours
per
response.
As
defined
by
the
PRA
and
5
CFR
1230.3(
b),
``
burden''
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
For
this
collection
it
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
Copies
of
this
ICR
document
may
be
obtained
from
Susan
Auby,
by
mail
at
the
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
Collection
Strategies
Division
(
2822T),
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001,
by
e­
mail
at
auby.
susan@
epa.
gov,
or
by
calling
(
202)
566
 
1972.
Copies
may
also
be
downloaded
from
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr.
Include
the
EPA
ICR
number
and/
or
OMB
control
number
in
any
correspondence.

C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
Pursuant
to
section
605(
b)
of
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA)
(
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.),
the
Agency
hereby
certifies
that
this
rule
does
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
because
this
rule
will
not
impose
any
requirements
on
small
entities.
Under
section
601
of
RFA,
``
small
entity''
is
defined
as:
1.
A
small
business
that
meets
the
Small
Business
Administration
size
standards
codified
at
13
CFR
121.201.
2.
A
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district,
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000.
3.
A
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
for­
profit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.
In
this
rule,
EPA
is
granting
two
petitions
by
DLA
to
import
PCBs
for
disposal.
Only
DLA,
which
is
not
a
small
entity,
will
be
regulated
by
this
rule.

D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Pursuant
to
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995,
(
UMRA),
Public
Law
104
 
4,
EPA
has
determined
that
this
action
does
not
contain
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
expenditures
of
$
100
million
or
more
for
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
the
private
sector
in
any
1
year.
Nor
does
this
rule
contain
regulatory
requirements
that
might
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.
EPA
is
granting
two
petitions
by
DLA
to
import
PCBs
for
disposal.
DLA
is
required
to
comply
with
the
existing
regulations
on
PCB
disposal
at
40
CFR
part
761.
The
only
mandate
imposed
by
this
rule
is
imposed
on
DLA.
In
addition,
EPA
has
determined
that
this
rule
does
not
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.
The
DLA
petitions
state
that
the
PCBs
will
be
disposed
of
in
facilities
approved
to
handle
PCBs.
No
new
facilities,
which
could
affect
small
government
resources
if
a
permit
is
required,
are
contemplated.
EPA
believes
that
the
disposal
of
PCBs
in
previously
approved
disposal
facilities
in
the
amounts
specified
in
this
rule
would
have
little,
if
any,
impact
on
small
governments.
Thus,
this
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
UMRA
sections
202,
203,
204,
and
205.

E.
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
Federalism
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
are
defined
in
the
Executive
order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
22:
22
Jan
30,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00052
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31JAR1.
SGM
31JAR1
4941
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
21
/
Friday,
January
31,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.''
This
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
EPA
is
granting
two
petitions
from
DLA
to
import
PCBs
and
dispose
of
them
in
accordance
with
existing
regulations.
There
will
be
no
direct
effects
on
the
States,
nor
will
there
be
any
impact
on
the
relationships
between
the
various
levels
of
government
with
respect
to
PCB
disposal
issues.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

F.
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
(
59
FR
22951,
November
9,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.''
This
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
EPA
is
granting
two
petitions
from
DLA
to
import
PCBs
and
dispose
of
them
in
facilities
approved
to
handle
PCBs
in
accordance
with
existing
regulations.
EPA
does
not
believe
that
this
activity
will
have
any
impacts
on
the
communities
of
Indian
tribal
governments.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

G.
Children's
Health
This
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045,
entitled
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997),
because
it
is
not
economically
significant
as
defined
by
Executive
Order
12866,
and
because
the
Agency
does
not
have
reason
to
believe
the
environmental
health
or
safety
risks
addressed
by
this
action
present
a
disproportionate
risk
to
children.
EPA
is
granting
two
petitions
from
DLA
to
import
PCBs
and
dispose
of
them
in
facilities
approved
to
handle
PCBs
in
accordance
with
existing
regulations.
EPA
believes
that
the
import
and
disposal
of
the
amount
of
PCBs
specified
in
the
exemption
petitions
will
present
little,
if
any,
additional
risk
to
persons
living
in
the
vicinity
of
the
approved
disposal
facilities
or
in
the
communities
through
which
the
PCBs
may
be
transported.
H.
Energy
Effects
This
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211,
entitled
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001),
because
it
is
not
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866.

I.
The
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(
NTTAA),
Public
Law
104
 
113,
section
12(
d)
(
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
and
business
practices)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standards
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,
explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
This
rule
does
not
involve
technical
standards.
Therefore,
EPA
is
not
considering
the
use
of
any
voluntary
consensus
standards.

J.
Environmental
Justice
This
action
does
not
involve
special
considerations
of
environmental
justice
related
issues
as
required
by
Executive
Order
12898,
entitled
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations
(
59
FR
7629,
February
16,
1994).

K.
Constitutionally
Protected
Property
Rights
EPA
has
complied
with
Executive
Order
12630,
entitled
Governmental
Actions
and
Interference
with
Constitutionally
Protected
Property
Rights
(
53
FR
8859,
March
15,
1988),
by
examining
the
takings
implications
of
this
rule
in
accordance
with
the
Attorney
General's
Supplemental
Guidelines
for
the
Evaluation
of
Risk
and
Avoidance
of
Unanticipated
Takings
issued
under
the
Executive
order.

L.
Civil
Justice
Reform
In
issuing
this
rule,
EPA
has
taken
the
necessary
steps
to
eliminate
drafting
errors
and
ambiguity,
minimize
potential
litigation,
and
provide
a
clear
legal
standard
for
affected
conduct,
as
required
by
section
3
of
Executive
Order
12988,
entitled
Civil
Justice
Reform
(
61
FR
4729,
February
7,
1996).

VII.
Congressional
Review
Act
The
Congressional
Review
Act,
5
U.
S.
C.
801
et
seq.,
as
added
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Act
of
1996,
generally
provides
that
before
a
final
rule
may
take
effect,
the
Agency
promulgating
it
must
submit
a
final
rule
report,
which
includes
a
copy
of
the
final
rule,
to
each
House
of
the
Congress
and
to
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States.
EPA
will
submit
a
report
containing
this
final
rule
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
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
This
final
rule
is
not
a
``
major
rule''
as
defined
by
5
U.
S.
C.
804(
2).

Lists
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
761
Environmental
protection,
Hazardous
substances,
Labeling,
Polychlorinated
biphenyls
(
PCBs),
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

Dated:
January
23,
2003.
Stephen
L.
Johnson,
Assistant
Administrator
for
Prevention,
Pesticides
and
Toxic
Substances.

Therefore,
40
CFR
chapter
I
is
amended
as
follows:

PART
761
 
[
AMENDED]

1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
761
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
15
U.
S.
C.
2605,
2607,
2611,
2614,
and
2616.

2.
Section
761.80
is
amended
by
adding
a
new
paragraph
(
j)
to
read
as
follows:

§
761.80
Manufacturing,
processing
and
distribution
in
commerce
exemptions.

*
*
*
*
*
(
j)
The
Administrator
grants
the
following
petitions
to
import
PCBs
and
PCB
items
for
disposal
pursuant
to
this
part:
(
1)
United
States
Defense
Logistics
Agency's
January
19,
2001,
petition
for
an
exemption
for
1
year
to
import
PCBs
and
PCB
Items
stored
on
Wake
Island
and
identified
in
its
petition
for
disposal.
This
exemption
shall
expire
on
April
17,
2004.
(
2)
United
States
Defense
Logistics
Agency's
April
16,
2001,
petition
for
an
exemption
for
1
year
to
import
PCBs
and
PCB
Items
stored
or
in
use
in
Japan
and
identified
in
its
petition,
as
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
22:
22
Jan
30,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00053
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31JAR1.
SGM
31JAR1
4942
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
21
/
Friday,
January
31,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
amended,
for
disposal.
This
exemption
shall
expire
on
April
17,
2004.
*
*
*
*
*

[
FR
Doc.
03
 
2344
Filed
1
 
31
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
S
FEDERAL
EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT
AGENCY
44
CFR
Part
65
[
Docket
No.
FEMA
 
P
 
7620]

Changes
in
Flood
Elevation
Determinations
AGENCY:
Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency,
(
FEMA).
ACTION:
Interim
rule.

SUMMARY:
This
interim
rule
lists
communities
where
modification
of
the
Base
(
1­
percent­
annual­
chance)
Flood
Elevations
(
BFEs)
is
appropriate
because
of
new
scientific
or
technical
data.
New
flood
insurance
premium
rates
will
be
calculated
from
the
modified
BFEs
for
new
buildings
and
their
contents.
DATES:
These
modified
BFEs
are
currently
in
effect
on
the
dates
listed
in
the
table
below
and
revise
the
Flood
Insurance
Rate
Map(
s)
in
effect
prior
to
this
determination
for
the
listed
communities.
From
the
date
of
the
second
publication
of
these
changes
in
a
newspaper
of
local
circulation,
any
person
has
ninety
(
90)
days
in
which
to
request
through
the
community
that
the
Administrator
for
Federal
Insurance
and
Mitigation
Administration
reconsider
the
changes.
The
modified
BFEs
may
be
changed
during
the
90­
day
period.
ADDRESSES:
The
modified
BFEs
for
each
community
are
available
for
inspection
at
the
office
of
the
Chief
Executive
Officer
of
each
community.
The
respective
addresses
are
listed
in
the
table
below.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Michael
M.
Grimm,
Acting
Chief,
Hazard
Study
Branch,
Federal
Insurance
and
Mitigation
Administration,
500
C
Street,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20472,
(
202)
646
 
2878
or
(
e­
mail)
michael.
grimm@
fema.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
The
modified
BFEs
are
not
listed
for
each
community
in
this
interim
rule.
However,
the
address
of
the
Chief
Executive
Officer
of
the
community
where
the
modified
BFE
determinations
are
available
for
inspection
is
provided.
Any
request
for
reconsideration
must
be
based
on
knowledge
of
changed
conditions
or
new
scientific
or
technical
data.
The
modifications
are
made
pursuant
to
Section
201
of
the
Flood
Disaster
Protection
Act
of
1973,
42
U.
S.
C.
4105,
and
are
in
accordance
with
the
National
Flood
Insurance
Act
of
1968,
42
U.
S.
C.
4001
et
seq.,
and
with
44
CFR
Part
65.
For
rating
purposes,
the
currently
effective
community
number
is
shown
and
must
be
used
for
all
new
policies
and
renewals.
The
modified
BFEs
are
the
basis
for
the
floodplain
management
measures
that
the
community
is
required
to
either
adopt
or
to
show
evidence
of
being
already
in
effect
in
order
to
qualify
or
to
remain
qualified
for
participation
in
the
National
Flood
Insurance
Program
(
NFIP).
These
modified
BFEs,
together
with
the
floodplain
management
criteria
required
by
44
CFR
60.3,
are
the
minimum
that
are
required.
They
should
not
be
construed
to
mean
that
the
community
must
change
any
existing
ordinances
that
are
more
stringent
in
their
floodplain
management
requirements.
The
community
may
at
any
time
enact
stricter
requirements
of
its
own,
or
pursuant
to
policies
established
by
other
Federal,
State,
or
regional
entities.
The
changes
in
BFEs
are
in
accordance
with
44
CFR
65.4.
National
Environmental
Policy
Act.
This
rule
is
categorically
excluded
from
the
requirements
of
44
CFR
Part
10,
Environmental
Consideration.
No
environmental
impact
assessment
has
been
prepared.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act.
The
Administrator
for
Federal
Insurance
and
Mitigation
Administration
certifies
that
this
rule
is
exempt
from
the
requirements
of
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
because
modified
BFEs
are
required
by
the
Flood
Disaster
Protection
Act
of
1973,
42
U.
S.
C.
4105,
and
are
required
to
maintain
community
eligibility
in
the
NFIP.
No
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
has
been
prepared.
Regulatory
Classification.
This
interim
rule
is
not
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
the
criteria
of
Section
3(
f)
of
Executive
Order
12866
of
September
30,
1993,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review,
58
FR
51735.
Executive
Order
12612,
Federalism.
This
rule
involves
no
policies
that
have
federalism
implications
under
Executive
Order
12612,
Federalism,
dated
October
26,
1987.
Executive
Order
12778,
Civil
Justice
Reform.
This
rule
meets
the
applicable
standards
of
Section
2(
b)(
2)
of
Executive
Order
12778.

List
of
Subjects
in
44
CFR
Part
65
Flood
insurance,
Floodplains,
Reporting
and
record
keeping
requirements.

Accordingly,
44
CFR
Part
65
is
amended
to
read
as
follows:

PART
65
 
[
AMENDED]

1.
The
authority
citation
for
Part
65
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
4001
et
seq.;
Reorganization
Plan
No.
3
of
1978,
3
CFR,
1978
Comp.,
p.
329;
E.
O.
12127,
44
FR
19367,
3
CFR,
1979
Comp.,
p.
376.

§
65.4
[
Amended]

2.
The
tables
published
under
the
authority
of
§
65.4
are
amended
as
follows:

State
and
county
Location
Dates
and
name
of
newspaper
where
notice
was
published
Chief
executive
officer
of
community
Effective
date
of
modification
Community
No.

Arkansas:
Sebastian
(
Case
No.
02
 
06
 
1094P).
City
of
Greenwood
Nov.
13,
2002,
Nov.
20,
2002,
Greenwood
Democrat.
The
Honorable
Judy
Selkirk,
Mayor,
City
of
Greenwood,
City
Hall,
P.
O.
Box
1450,
101
North
Aster
Street,
Greenwood,
Arkansas
72936.
Nov.
25,
2002
........
050198
Crawford
(
Case
No.
02
 
06
 
873P).
City
of
Van
Buren
Nov.
13,
2002,
Nov.
20,
2002,
Van
Buren
Press
Argus
Courier.
The
Honorable
John
Riggs,
Mayor,
City
of
Van
Buren,
1003
Broadway
Van
Buren,
Arkansas
72956.
Feb.
19,
2003
........
050053
Kansas:
Johnson
(
Case
No.
01
 
07
 
457P).
City
of
Overland
Park.
Nov.
13,
2002,
Nov.
20,
2002,
The
Sun
Newspapers
The
Honorable
Ed
Eilert,
Mayor,
City
of
Overland
Park,
City
Hall,
8500
Santa
Fe
Drive,
Overland
Park,
Kansas
66212.
Feb.
19,
2003
........
200174
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
22:
22
Jan
30,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00054
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31JAR1.
SGM
31JAR1
